Hands‐On CFD Educational Interface for Engineering Courses and Laboratories

This study describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of an effective curriculum for students to learn computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in introductory and intermediate undergraduate and introductory graduate level courses/laboratories. The curriculum is designed for use at different universities with different courses/laboratories, learning objectives, applications, conditions, and exercise notes. The common objective is to teach students from novice to expert users who are well prepared for engineering practice. The study describes a CFD Educational Interface for hands‐on student experience, which mirrors actual engineering practice. The Educational Interface teaches CFD methodology and procedures through a step‐by‐step interactive implementation automating the CFD process. A hierarchical system of predefined active options facilitates use at introductory and intermediate levels, encouraging self‐learning, and eases transition to using industrial CFD codes. An independent evaluation documents successful learning outcomes and confirms the effectiveness of the interface for students in introductory and intermediate fluid mechanics courses.     

Virtual Reality and Learning by Design: Tools for Integrating Mechanical Engineering Concepts*

The Department of Mechanical Engineering at San Diego State University recently began to redesign its introductory courses in mechanical engineering. The objectives of these newly designed courses are to incorporate the “learner as designer” strategy and engage students in real‐world applications in order to positively impact student motivation and conceptual understanding of mechanical engineering concepts. To achieve these objectives, the courses are designed to use virtual reality as a tool that integrates the fundamental concepts of design, analysis, and manufacturing. The first implementation of one of these courses afforded an opportunity to study a particular type of “learner as designer” strategy‐the “learner as instructional designer strategy.” This paper describes the four courses and the impact of the “learner as instructional designer strategy” on students' conceptual understanding of and attitude towards mechanical engineering concepts.     

2006 Bernard M. Gordon Prize Lecture*: The Learning Factory: Industry‐Partnered Active Learning

On February 21, 2006, the National Academy of Engineering recognized the achievements of the Learning Factory with the Bernard M. Gordon Prize for Innovation in Engineering and Technology Education. The co‐founders were commended “for creating the Learning Factory, where multidisciplinary student teams develop engineering leadership skills by working with industry to solve real‐world problems.” This paper describes the origins, motivation, philosophy, and implementation of the Learning Factory. The specific innovations of the Learning Factory partnership were: active learning facilities, called Learning Factories, that provide experiential reinforcement of engineering science, and a realization of its limitations; strong collaborations with industry through advisory boards, engineers in the classroom, and industry‐sponsored capstone design projects; practice‐based engineering courses integrating analytical and theoretical knowledge with manufacturing, design, business concepts, and professional skills; and dissemination to other academic institutions (domestic and international), government and industry.     

Kirkpatrick's Level 1 Evaluation of the Implementation of a Computer‐Aided Process Design Tool in a Senior‐Level Engineering Course

Computer simulation tools are frequently used in engineering design work, and undergraduates are often trained to use these tools as they learn to design systems. The use of new tools in the learning environment should be evaluated to assure that the students are able to use the tools effectively. This study details and demonstrates the use of a Kirkpatrick's Level 1 Evaluation to assess the effectiveness of an instructional environment in which students learn to use a computer simulation tool to perform engineering design work. Specifically, an evaluation was conducted to look at student perceptions of FOODS‐LIB—a steady‐state food process design tool, its user's manual learning modules, and the implementation of FOODS‐LIB in a senior level design course. This evaluation was triangulated with an instructor's assessment of student products generated as the students used the learning modules and designed an ice cream manufacturing process using FOODS‐LIB.     

Comparison of Student Learning in Physical and Simulated Unit Operations Experiments

Industries are tending toward computer‐based simulation, monitoring, and control of processes. This trend suggests an opportunity to modernize engineering laboratory pedagogy to include computer experiments as well as tactile experiments. However, few studies report the impact of simulations upon student learning in engineering laboratories. We evaluated the impact of computer‐simulated experiments upon student learning in a senior unit operations laboratory. We compared data on control and test groups from three sources: 1) a comprehensive exam over the course; 2) a questionnaire answered by students regarding how well the areas of ABET Engineering Criterion 3 (a‐k) were met; and 3) oral presentations given by the students. Our results indicate that student learning is not adversely affected by introducing computer‐based experiments. We therefore conclude that, while the tactile laboratory should remain in the engineering curriculum, the pedagogy can reflect the increasing use of information technology in the manufacturing industries without compromising student learning.     

Collaborative Learning vs. Lecture/Discussion: Students' Reported Learning Gains*

This study examined the extent to which undergraduate engineering courses taught using active and collaborative learning methods differ from traditional lecture and discussion courses in their ability to promote the development of students' engineering design, problem‐solving, communication, and group participation skills. Evidence for the study comes from 480 students enrolled in 17 active or collaborative learning courses/sections and six traditional courses/sections at six engineering schools. Results indicate that active or collaborative methods produce both statistically significant and substantially greater gains in student learning than those associated with more traditional instructional methods. These learning advantages remained even when differences in a variety of student pre‐course characteristics were controlled.     

Web‐Based Readiness Assessment Quizzes

Student readiness to fully participate in designed educational activities is often impeded by a lack of individual preparation through assigned readings or study. However, student preparation is rarely treated as an integral part of course design. Consequently, web‐based readiness assessment quizzes were developed for three courses in biological/biosystems engineering, at the freshman and junior levels. The overall goal was to improve student preparatory reading by assessing lower‐level knowledge just prior to the class period when that knowledge is needed for higher‐level learning activities. In this way, a web‐based educational tool was utilized as an integral, rather than just supplemental, part of the course design. The quizzes were designed to simultaneously ensure/assess student preparation and guide the students toward the highest priority topics within a given unit. The quizzes were graded automatically with the results reported electronically to the instructor. Student likelihood to read assigned materials was significantly improved (P < 0.0001), based on ratings from students in three different courses over four years of using these quizzes.     

Implementation of Interdisciplinary Group Learning and Peer Assessment in a Nanotechnology Engineering Course

Nanotechnology is an inherently interdisciplinary field that has generated significant scientific and engineering interest in recent years. In an effort to convey the excitement and opportunities surrounding this discipline to senior undergraduate students and junior graduate students, a nanotechnology engineering course has been developed in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Northwestern University over the past two years. This paper examines the unique challenges facing educators in this dynamic, emerging field and describes an approach for the design of a nanotechnology engineering course employing the non‐traditional pedagogical practices of collaborative group learning, interdisciplinary learning, problem‐based learning, and peer assessment. Utilizing the same nanotechnology course given the year before as a historical control, analysis of the difference between measures of student performance and student experience over the two years indicates that these practices are successful and provide an educationally informed template for other newly developed engineering courses.     

Applying James Stice's Strategy to Teach Design to Sophomore Mechanical Engineering Undergraduates

The James Stice strategies for teaching problem‐solving and improving student learning have been adopted in the development of a sophomore‐level “Materials, Manufacturing & Design” course. The curriculum, the assessment method, and the results of student evaluation over a three‐year period are described. Correlation between assessments by two faculty members (in the form of design project written‐report and oral‐presentation grades) and students self‐assessment (in the form of a retrospective survey employing a Likert‐type scale and student written comments) show that the Stice strategies are successful in teaching engineering design to sophomores.     

Classes That Click: Fast,Rich Feedback to Enhance Student Learning and Satisfaction

Background Our goal is to improve student learning in foundation engineering courses. These courses are prerequisite to many higher‐level courses and are comprised of critically needed concepts and skills. Purpose (Hypothesis ) We hypothesize that learning is improved by providing rapid feedback to students on their understanding of key concepts and skills. Such feedback also provides students with insight into their strategies for learning. Design /Method In two consecutive years, we conducted this study in two sections of a lower‐level engineering mechanics course, Statics. One author taught both sections and a crossover design of experiment was used. In a crossover design, one section was randomly chosen to receive feedback with handheld computers (the “treatment” group) while the other received the “control,” which was either a feedback system using flashcards (in year 1) or no feedback (year 2). After a certain period, the two sections swapped the treatment and control. Student performance on a quiz at the end of each treatment period provided the data for comparison using an analysis of variance model with covariates. Results Findings from year 1 showed that there was no significant difference using either rapid‐feedback method. In year 2 we found a significant and positive effect when students received feedback. Conclusions This is a noteworthy finding, albeit within the constraints of the environment in which we conducted the study, that provides more evidence for the value of rapid feedback and the currently popular “clickers” that many professors are employing to promote classroom interaction and student engagement.     

New Curriculum Reforms in a Geological Engineering Program

Recent curriculum revisions to the geological engineering program at Queen's University at Kingston in Canada have led to a more streamlined program incorporating modern engineering education practices. Following a carefully designed program philosophy, the emphasis in the core curriculum changes through the entire four‐year program in three progressive stages, from the acquisition of knowledge, to integration and analysis, and finally to synthesis and design. This is reflected in an increased concentration of mathematics and basic science courses in first and second year, engineering science courses in third year, and engineering design courses (capstone courses) in fourth year. Two tools which concisely illustrate the course curriculum and curriculum content are: (1) the flow sheet, which can contain a wealth of information, such as showing linkages between courses (e.g. how upper‐level courses can build on lower‐level courses through course prerequisites), the timing of various courses, courses taught within the home department (vs. other departments), and courses taught by professional engineers; and (2) the ternary phase diagram, which is a quantitative method of displaying engineering content within individual courses or an entire program and can clearly show patterns and trends in curriculum content with time. Such tools are useful for academic engineering programs which may have to undergo an accreditation review and are readily adapted to any other engineering fields of study. Other engineering elements woven throughout the program include strong interactions with professional engineering faculty, the use of student teams, enhanced communication skills, and exposure to important aspects of professional engineering practice such as engineering ethics and law. To ensure that the curriculum is kept current and relevant, formative evaluation instruments such as questionnaires are used in all years of study, and are also sent to recent graduates of the program. External reviews of the revised program have been positive, indicating that the program goals are being achieved.     

A Research Synthesis of the Effectiveness,Replicability, and Generality of the VaNTH Challenge‐based Instructional Modules in Bioengineering

Background Between 2000 and 2006 the Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Texas and Harvard/MIT Engineering Research Center (VaNTH/ERC) developed, tested, and implemented a set of educational innovations based largely on the ideas presented in the book How People Learn (HPL) and an instructional design known as the the STAR Legacy Cycle. The motivation for this study was to synthesize the results of this work. Published and unpublished experimental and quasi‐experimental assessments were included in this synthesis. Purpose (Hypothesis ) The fundamental hypotheses tested were whether a set of modules involving challenge‐based instruction and other course innovations, often involving advanced computer‐based technologies, improved student performance in a variety of educational settings and student populations, and whether improvements could be achieved by instructors other than the developers of the innovations. Design /Method Meta‐analysis of effects from thirty‐three separate modules in five courses in bioengineering domains was undertaken, along with three case studies. Results Results from the experimental (randomized) and stronger‐quasi experimental studies revealed a weighted effect size of 0.655 (p < 0.001). Studies using randomized designs produced smaller effects, and studies using measures of transfer and adaptive expertise to index outcomes produced larger effects. Analyses also revealed that the results can be replicated by instructors other than the developers of the modules, in a variety of student populations and educational settings, and at other institutions. Conclusions Overall, the challenge‐based modules and other innovations have moderate overall effects on improved student performance. They can be implemented successively by other instructors in a variety of educational settings and student populations.     

Parallel and distributed algorithms laboratory assignments inJoyce/Linda

An NSF ILI grant funded development of laboratories for a three-hour undergraduate course in parallel and distributed algorithms. The course discussed both theoretical and practical areas of study. The laboratories explored various parallel architectures and paradigms and were written using Joyce/Linda, which allows visualisation of both the data movement and the simultaneous execution of the algorithm. The Joyce/Linda software was also utilised to develop parallel and distributed laboratory assignments for courses on data structures, operating systems and computer networks. This paper describes the design and implementation of the laboratories. Initial experiences with the course and assignments are described     

Introducing Cooperative Learning through a Faculty Instructional Development Program

Cooperative Learning was officially introduced in the College of Engineering at San Jose State University in 1995 with a two‐day workshop. The Faculty Instructional Development Program in the college maintains interest in the subjsect and provides support for instructors who use Cooperative Learning, through workshops and informal discussions (Conversations on Teaching). This paper discusses the effectiveness of the program in introducing, promoting, and implementing Cooperative Learning among the faculty and students in the college of engineering. A variety of performance criteria have been used in this assessment, some faculty‐centered and some student‐centered. The results indicate that although a relatively small percentage of faculty have chosen to adopt Cooperative Learning as a teaching tool in their courses, the impact on student attitudes and learning is significant, making the effort worthwhile.     

Virtual Circuit Laboratory*

We present the rationale, implementation and performance features of a virtual lab environment for an electronic circuits course. The primary purpose of the tool is to aid the student in learning debugging techniques by providing an environment that emulates some of the failure modes of a real lab. The tool is implemented as a Java application. Index Terms—Introductory circuits, technology‐enhanced learning environments, and virtual laboratories.     

Business studies in engineering degree courses

This article contends that excellence in product design is now a survival requirement for British manufacturing industry, and that most British engineering degree courses deliver graduates ill-equipped with the requisite skills. Course enhancements designed to eradicate this unhappy coincidence are proposed and an implementation strategy is outlined     

The Learning Factory—A New Approach to Integrating Design and Manufacturing into the Engineering Curriculum

The Learning Factory is a new practice-based curriculum and physical facilities for product realization. Its goal is to provide an improved educational experience that emphasizes the interdependency of manufacturing and design in a business environment. The Learning Factory is the product of the Manufacturing Engineering Education Partnership (MEEP). This partnership is a unique collaboration of three major universities with strong engineering programs (Penn State, University of Puerto Rico-Mayaguez, University of Washington), a premier high-technology government laboratory (Sandia National Laboratories), over 100 corporate partners covering a wide spectrum of U.S. Industries, and the federal government that provided funding for this project through the ARPA Technology Reinvestment Program. As a result of this initiative, over 14,000 square feet of Learning Factory facilities have been built or renovated across the partner schools. In the first two years of operation, the Learning Factories have served over 2600 students. Four new courses, and a revamped senior projects course which integrate manufacturing, design and business concerns and make use of these facilities have been instituted. These courses are an integral part of a new curriculum option in Product Realization. The courses were developed by a unique team approach and their materials are available electronically over the World Wide Web. Industry partners provide real-world problems and are the customers for students in our senior capstone design courses. As of December 1996, over 200 interdisciplinary projects have been completed across the three schools. These projects involve teams of students from Industrial, Mechanical, Electrical, Chemical Engineering and Business. Forty-three faculty members, across five time zones, are engaged in this effort.     

Industrial Sponsored Design Projects Addressed by Student Design Teams*

We have developed and implemented a four‐quarter design sequence starting in the spring of the junior year. The first course focuses on having teams of students take an industrial based project from inception through a conceptual design process culminating in a final design specification. The senior year sequence is structured to have three‐five member teams function as a type of “engineering consultant firm” to address externally sponsored projects. The teams initially work with the sponsor to develop a “Product Design Specification (PDS)” as the foundation of the project. The teams then develop the conceptual design of the project during the fall quarter in order to get sponsor approval to move toward final implementation or prototype development during the winter and early spring teams. The course culminates with a day long symposium where each team makes formal presentations of their project and designs to the campus community, the sponsor representatives, and invited guests from the local community and potential industrial sponsors. The paper will present the specifics of the Junior and Senior level courses, brief overviews of the related Sophomore and Junior prerequisite courses, the method of obtaining the industrial sponsors, team formation process, sample projects, and assessment results from the first two offerings of the sequence.     

Design for manufacturing: use of a spreadsheet model of manufacturability to optimize product design and development

Product design typically precedes factory implementation and requires an understanding of factory logistics to achieve optimized design for manufacturing. We developed a spreadsheet-based model of a future factory at the very earliest stages of design of an advanced range of medical products. The algorithms have since been applied to a wide range of product designs and manufacturing operations. The model was used to optimize product design for manufacturability, develop cost-effective manufacturing processes, and design and optimize the new factory. The model incorporates cost, inventory, and factory responsiveness, and can be applied to find the optimum solution between cost and cycle time reduction. Design changes initiated as a result of analysis using the model reduced subsequent manufacturing costs significantly and reduced the launch program by two years, because confidence in the model justified the commissioning of full-scale manufacturing equipment when the product was still only at the concept stage. Electronic Publication     

A Venture Capital Fund for Undergraduate Engineering Students at Rowan University*

All engineering students at Rowan University are required to take the eight‐semester Engineering Clinic sequence wherein multidisciplinary student teams engage in semester‐long design projects. In addition to projects that are funded by local industry, faculty research grants or departmental budgets, a Venture Capital Fund has been created, which is specifically ear‐marked for the development of original student inventions. Funding of up to $2,500 per student team per semester is competitively awarded based on student‐generated proposals to the Venture Capital Fund, which has been created through a series of grants from the National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA). To qualify for funding, a multidisciplinary student team must propose, plan and implement an original, semester‐long product development enterprise. To date, 11 projects have been funded through the Venture Capital Fund. This paper describes the results of several student entrepreneurial projects and compares the results of student surveys to assess the effectiveness of entrepreneurial projects in satisfying the technical objectives of the Engineering Clinic. The results suggest that students engaged in entrepreneurial projects devote more hours per week on their projects, have more “ownership” in their projects and have a better understanding of the technical aspects and societal impact of their projects than their counterparts who are engaged in the more traditional engineering design projects.