Search

Concept inventory question results are frequently used to evaluate students' overall understanding of course material. These questions focus only on foundational concepts rather than detailed problem solving. Dynamics Concept Inventory (DCI) exam results were analyzed for two semesters. Students were asked to audibilize their thoughts while taking the exam and being recorded. The video recordings of students taking the exam were transcribed for two questions. Results of two independent analyses of the transcriptions were summarized statistically in a confusion matrix. The confusion matrix is a 2x2 matrix with column headings scoring student oral reasoning and row headings scoring question outcome. These results are expected to illuminate the influence of luck versus true understanding during the exam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Some faculty in large-scale engineering classes have turned to using only online homework-based systems such as Pearson's Mastering, Wiley Plus, and/or McGraw Hill's Connect to assess student learning. These systems provide content, grading and assessment of student work, and feedback to students while solving problems. Previous research has shown that students' value both online and handwritten homework. Even students who disliked online homework found it to be at least somewhat helpful. The current project investigates if performance on higher stake (e.g., more heavily weighted in overall grade) activities is better than on lower stake activities in a Dynamics class and a General Physics I class. In our research online homework, handwritten homework, and exams are classified as low-, medium-, and high-stake activities, respectively. When evaluating the data, the percentage grade for each of the high-, medium- and low- stake activities was recorded for each student and compared against the remaining data sets. The analysis was conducted for each class individually and both classes combined. Results from all three analyses indicate there is no significant difference between the averages of the different levels of stakes. However, in evaluating the data, it appears that, a good correlation may develop between the high-stake vs medium-stake events and medium-stake versus low-stake events late in both the Dynamics and Physics courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the ABET outcomes for engineering students is that they have the ability to apply engineering principles to solve problems. In addition, students should have the ability to analyze and synthesize results that meet desired constraints within a problem. Early in a student's career, as they begin to acquire the analysis tools and methods, there may be few opportunities for application to real world projects with consideration for complex problems or situations. However, in the junior or senior level courses, students should be afforded more and more opportunities to incorporate engineering analysis, design and synthesis. An undergraduate finite element analysis (FEA) course provides an excellent opportunity to do so through project based learning. This experience is further enriched with industry collaboration to develop a project with real-world design objectives and constraints. This paper discusses a semester finite element project developed by Accuride Corporation, in which students are asked to design and analyze an aluminum commercial truck wheel. The students were given a generic model that provides limits of the physical design space as well as guidance on boundary conditions to account for inflation pressure, tire interface loads, and vehicle loading. They had a goal to minimize vehicle weight given constraints on maximum stresses and deformation. In addition, they were encouraged to develop attractive styling as with hand hole geometry and placement. Students presented their final designs in writing and orally before a panel which included faculty members and Accuride engineers. They were evaluated on final weight, style, presentation, and analysis, with the latter making up the bulk of the score. The project provided several opportunities for students to connect directly with real world design issues in a way that wouldn't have been possible without the industry partnership. For one, students felt the pressure of competition to achieve the lightest wheel, just as Accuride must keep pace with industry competitors to maintain or grow their market share. In addition, they were held accountable for weaknesses in their analysis process. For example, the industry panel quickly identified sharp corners and other unnecessary stress concentrations as design flaws when a student's finite element analysis failed to detect them. Students were pressed on how they validated their analyses. Finally, the project revealed areas for improvement for the finite element course itself, particularly to help students synthesize FEA with concepts and tools from earlier courses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past several years, the commercial finite element software industry has seen significant growth in both capability and reach. As such, today's undergraduate students have access to sophisticated, yet easy to use simulation tools. For better or worse, use of the tools themselves requires neither an understanding of foundational principles nor a working knowledge of the finite element method. One could make the case that this is part of the natural evolution of any new tool (as one no longer needs to be a mechanic to drive a car). On the other hand, users absolutely need to know enough to understand the consequences of their own modeling choices (e.g. how boundary conditions are applied, element selection, meshes size, etc.). Thus, the proliferation of FEA software in industry (1) necessitates treatment of these tools at the undergraduate level and (2) suggests a balance be struck between the software and theory in these courses. This paper details the authors' experience with a first course in finite element analysis within an undergraduate only engineering curriculum. In particular, the struggle to find the best balance between FEA theory and practical use of software is discussed. Within the course, students complete a variety of assignments using a mixture of resources to include hand calculations, Matlab by Mathworks, and Dassault Systeme's SolidWorks. The course culminates in a self- selected student project requiring they assess the impact of modeling choices on results of particular interest. One important finding is the limitations of some commercial packages in developing one dimensional models, an important stepping stone to understanding of FEA theory. In addition, the paper studies the impact of prior programming experience on a student's ability to succeed in the course. Finally, the authors have experimented with a course textbook which emphasizes use of software and alternatively, a text with more comprehensive treatment of FEA fundamentals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Software packages that allow for homework to be submitted through the web have provided an interesting opportunity for both students and faculty. Students are given an opportunity to practice solving problems with a guided solution process and can receive instant assessment regarding their solutions. From a faculty perspective, the ability to assign homework online and have it graded automatically simplifies homework assessment. Software and book choice can mitigate time savings for the professor, requiring problems be manually coded, but overall the use of software decreases time required to administer the homework. Methods of delivery (online only or hybrid classes) can also have a large effect on the time and effort committed to a course. Here, we propose the use of online homework software does not instill the importance of presenting a logical and organized solution process. Software lacks the ability to assess a student's ability to communicate technical information effectively[1]; an important characteristic that is missing in recent engineering graduates[2]. The use of online homework can be beneficial in developing a solving process and retention of material[3-4], but may also be detrimental for classes that require illustrating an organized solution: most engineering classes. Preliminary work in assessing of "presentation of an organized solution process" and it's correlation with the final course grade has been done in a sophomore mechanics class. Early data does not support the hypothesis, that there is a positive correlation between final grades in the class and one's ability to present work clearly (p = 0.408). However, these data were included within a component of a scoring rubric. In the future, presentation of work will be a separate category in the rubric so that a more complete analysis can be done. Anecdotal evidence (discussion with colleagues) regarding "presentation of an organized solution" in the classes that follow these sophomore mechanics courses illustrate the opposite. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]