Real-World Design Experience: Early Intervention in Mechanical Engineering

1. Providing Real-World Mechanism Design Experience through the Early Intervention and Mechanical Engineering (EIME) Project Stephen L. Canfield, Andrew Bryant Dept. of Mechanical Engineering Lindsay Smith Dept. of Civil Engineering Tennessee Technological University ASME IDETC-CIE 2010 Montreal CA. August 15-18

2. Outline of presentation • Description of project • Elements of education • Pedagogical basis • Stakeholders • Expectations and outcomes per stakeholders • Project Examples

3. Pedagogical basis • Over arching idea; learn by doing in a relevant, guided and motivational environment • Problem-Based learning (Duch, 2001) • Using problems to engage students and initiate learning on the subject matter • Contextualized learning (McKeachie and Hofer, 2002) • Students seek meaning in context and process new information in a way that makes sense to their own frames of reference • Service learning (Oakes et al., 2002) • Integrates community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience • This paper offers an example for contextual learning in mechanism design for undergraduates

4. TTU’s EIME Project • EIME is my approach for creating a context for learning in ME3610 “Kinematics and Dynamics of Machinery – Design of Machinery” • How? • All students in ME3610 engage in/join the EIME project • EIME is a team-based, multi-disciplinary design experience created around developing assistive technology for children • Student teams are matched with children/families with needs • Student teams are provided resources associated with such a project • Student teams are responsible to deliver a solution (Design, product*)

5. Consider how we create context for learning – “The Syllabus” Course Outcomes:

6. How a syllabus creates context • Its major objective is to provide students with proficiency and experience in the basic skills of analyzing motion of machines and to perform synthesis of mechanisms based on task specification. Course Outcomes:

7. How Service could create a context for learning: • Your company thinks that Jon’s quality of life might be enhanced with a machine • You are assigned to use your mechanism design skills to help Jon • Successful outcomes might look like Course Outcomes:

8. What a successful outcome might look like

9. Background & current status • Began at TTU in 1999 • Employed in ME 3610 • 1 section out of 2 per semester • Approximately 60 students/year • Classic mechanisms class • Analysis/synthesis of linkages, • Cam and gear systems • Basic force analysis

10. Project Objectives • To demonstrate real-world application of mechanism design • Provide compelling and immediate purpose for learning mechanism theory • To provide experience working with customers • Create opportunity to see design in practice

11. Details of the EIME Project • Impact of project on: • Instructor • Students • Course • General approach • Collect project needs • Present them to the students • Provide feedback to the students during the design process • Provide resources for fabricating / testing the product • Reflect

12. How EIME Works Community Curriculum Collect assistive technology needs Form Student Design teams (Engineering, Education) Match Child needs with Student teams Family Within context of a course background research, integrate course material, create design Service coord. Form Final project team Therapists / Medical prof. Fabrication, testing, evaluation and final preparation Deliver Final product to child/family Disseminate Results

13. What the project implies • Project requirements for: • Students • Instructor • Course

14. Project requirements for Instructor

15. Collect project needs • Projects selected around theme: • Assistive technology for children with disabilities • Focus on needs with motion-control or mechanism-based solutions • Mobility, access, inclusion • Early intervention service coordinators, special education, school system • TEIS located on Universities in TN • Letter soliciting nees • Established relationship with service providers • Understand course objectives • What needs are best suited to the project • Successful outcomes not guaranteed (~70%) • Support student team interaction with families • Support logistical issues while instructor can focus on technical feedback to the groups

16. Present to the students / initiate projects Students form teams Teams select projects from list Topic thoroughly covered in literature

17. Support design process • Similar to feedback students receive in typical assignment • Difference here: 5-7 different projects, more open-ended design • To facilitate, two technical reviews are scheduled • One with preliminary design • One with final design • Present and receive feedback in 20-30 min. review session • Local engineers volunteer to help support these reviews

18. Provide resources for fabricating/testing products • Support consists of two parts: • Location, technical support for fabrication • Typical shop support at engineering universities • Financial support • Annual grant support from the TN dept. of special education

19. Other issues • Liability • Students engage in the project as a formal class assignment • They fall under a classification of persons performing duty for state • Liability is born through the state • A project release • Any faculty engaging in this type of project should get legal clarification through their OSP • Time associated with managing the project • 20 hours to organize project details • 28 hours (2 hours per week) to provide technical support and feedback • 100 hours per semester required by supporting student • (latter supported through state grant)

20. Project requirements for Students • Form teams, create a short, written teaming agreement • Meet with the family and service coordinator to identify need/project specs. • Submit a preliminary design report • Problem statement with design requirements • Conceptual solutions • Comparison/evaluations • Submit a written final design report • Description of design • Kinematic model • Analysis of 3 components in the design • CAD model, dwgs for all fab. Components • Fabricate, test design and demonstrate results • *Deliver a functional, safe working model of the design to the family • Optional • Incentive

21. Project requirements for Course • 20% of class grade • Represents 8 class meetings • In practice, four class meetings assigned to project, remaining 38 to class projects • Project introduction, forming teams, project assignments • Preliminary design technical review • Final design technical review • Final project review • Project assigned at the beginning of course + • Open-ended nature of projects project • => Students may need access to course information in an order different that that presented by the lecture schedule

22. Project Outcomes (on student learning) • Course surveys • Indicate positive outcomes in meeting course objectives • Relative to other sections on formal, in-place measures • Exams, follow-on courses, FE exams • No significant deviation between sections • Heuristic measures • Student evaluations, • Senior exit interviews • 500+ students engaged in the project • 100+ products delivered • Many students respond after graduating

23. What EIME projects look like

24. Modified Bike for Brendon TTU engineering students help make holidays happy for child with muscular dystrophy COOKEVILLE, Tenn. (Dec. 13, 2006) – A group of Tennessee Tech University engineering students are helping make the holidays happy for a 7-year-old boy with muscular dystrophy. The team designed and built a motorized bicycle that will accommodate his special needs, giving him the once impossible opportunity to ride alongside the bikes of his two older brothers. Team spokesman Nick Seegraves spoke for the entire group when he said, “It’s really made my Christmas knowing we’ve been able to do something to make Brendon happy.” “I want the light on the front to shine,” he said, when team members finally got him to stop riding long enough to get his reaction to his new set of wheels — but even a working headlight wasn’t enough of a priority for Brendon to want to give up his new prized possession.

25. “Sit and Spin” Goal: Specified sensory stimulation Primary Challenges: Multi-dof Speed limited Focus on a single sensory input Delivered: Novel Sit and spin device for family, design solution and details

26. Sports Example: • Modified Tee-ball stand and swing device • Used by Structured Athletics for Challenged Children

27. Playground Equipment

28. Mobility: Tricycles, Bikes • New Tricycle/Modified Tricycle designs • Needs include Dwarfism, Spina-Bifida

29. Top Benefits • Provides students with a “relatable” framework in which to organize new knowledge content • Catalyst for self-directed learning • Emphasizes important skills not easily incorporated into traditional activities • Targets ABET learning objectives that are more difficult to achieve in traditional classroom experience

30. Top Challenges (potholes) • To work, the experience must be meaningful => Faculty time, organization • Self-directed learning => Need to accommodate asynchronous knowledge transfer • Skills often require implementation => Cost (budget per team) • Learning objectives are much more difficult to measure => Assessment

31. Project Assessment: Instructor driven • Instructor assess’s the project, based on: • Constitution, meet family, prelim design, final design, order materials, testing and delivery of design • Some outside input: • Project review board • Design presentation • Final project presentation • Supply input • Collectively results in a project grade: G • Aside: Poll students for their estimate on grade.

32. Team Assessment: Three-part process • Part I: Students Assess themselves • Identify areas on contribution, • record of time • Record of accomplishments • Record of lead areas • Part II: Students assess teammates • Identify primary areas of contribution • Apply a weighting • Part III: Instructor assesses team members • Student time • Student contributions • Quality of project relative to contributions • Collectively results in a weighting for each student: Wi

33. Customer Assessment: • Customers assess at 2 stages • Intermediate design • Completed project • Outside assessment on interactions and project performance

34. Final grade = PA * TA *CA • Student i’s grade: • = Wi G • A few notes: • Wi can be greater than 1 • Wi should be normally distributed about 1? • In my practice, it is not • Projects grades tend to reflect best of contributions • A weaker student is benefited by a stronger team • (better G) • A weaker student rates lower on teammate assessment relative to stronger team • (lower Wi )

35. When things go well, satisfied students +

36. Final comments • Method is not perfect, but it is a process • Inform students of the evaluation process ahead of time • Process has been evolutionary • Students tend to be reasonably objective when performing self assessment / group assessment

37. Conclusions: • Students have interest to engage in service-learning activities • Project offers opportunity to engage technical and project management skills • Multi-disciplinary team work • Success and sustainability of project depends on partnership

38. Assessment based on TTU Service-learning survey

39. Figure 1: Student response (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree)

40. Enhancing the Programming Experience for Engineering Students through Hands-on Integrated Computer Experiences Year 2 Project Overview August, 2012 TTU – Lead institution Hands-On Programming Workshop

41. Project Mission: • Develop and test a model in which engineering students begin to learn programming in an environment that matches their notions of engineering, and then grow this knowledge based on principles of learning. Hands-On Programming Workshop

42. Project Objectives: • For Intellectual Merit: • Increase student engagement in the freshman year programming course • Students transfer programming skills to subsequent courses • Students increase ownership of their learning in programming • For Broader Impact: • Model is readily implemented by instructors at other institutions • The model can be implemented into existing curriculum • Use the model in overall program assessment Hands-On Programming Workshop

43. Principles of Learning • POL1: Student Engagement • POL2: Knowledge Transfer • POL3 Self-Directed Learner • (Bransford et. al. 1999) Hands-On Programming Workshop

44. Senior Design Thermal Lab DMC Measurements Three learning Principles for programming skills Programming Experience throughout curriculum (Curricular Linkages) Circuits I Self-Directed Learner POL3 Intro-to- Engineering Knowledge Transfer POL2 Programming for Engineers Student Engagement POL1 Programming Tool Kit The Model Hands-On Programming Workshop

45. Project Status • Programming Toolkit: • Two software options supported • Matlab • MCU programming toolbox • Real-time workshop (RTW) translator plus pre/post process routine (emc command) • Associated library of MCU specific functions (mc_xxx) • Supported through project wiki • C/C++ • Based on Codewarrior IDE • Two hardware options supported • Micro-dragon + customized “skins” • Dragon-12 EVB (COTS) • Can support other MCU hardware (Arduino, beagle board, etc) Hands-On Programming Workshop

46. Project Status – 4 Key findings • Successful implementation of the new programming toolkit and proposed curriculum and programming tools in the context of a freshmen introduction to programming class • Improved competency in the use of programming and computational skills based on student perceptions of programming and engineering • Students engaged in hands-on programming assignments in follow-on classes using the project micro-controller hardware • Improved satisfaction with the freshman year programming course in relation to educational objectives in engineering • Improved satisfaction rates by freshmen in engineering overall • These assessments are based on a combination of project personnel input and project assessment tool. Hands-On Programming Workshop

47. Project Status – 5 formative outcomes • Seeing definite “bump” in student engagement following intro class and hardware • Well documented in evaluation plan • Seems to translate to better learning during this time • Current evaluation plan does not sufficiently capture this • Early to say, but unsure of the lasting impacts of this bump • Co-I’s indicate that this bump does not last • Anecdotal evidence that there is a lasting impression • Outcomes (formative plans) • Upgrade/revamp evaluation plan • Better focus the early hands-on activities to “be engineering” or to better replicate the upcoming course work • I.e., labs are going to look more like early curricular linkages • Continue to avoid introducing “noise”. (Noise here means things that are not directly related to the programming course outcomes or high-level engineering connections). • Programming constructs developed • All labs/activities tie to programming constructs. Hands-On Programming Workshop

48. Programming Constructs • When to use repetition • What repetition constructs to use: • for • do –while • while • When to use nested repetition • Library function (vocabulary) • Use of function: • Return value, • argument, • pass by reference, • pass by value •  Analytical and design ability • Analyze and break down a complex problem into small independent subproblems and implement solutions using a discipline method of programming (top down approach) Hands-On Programming Workshop

49. Objective Assessment Questions • Types of Assessment questions • Given a program/program segment(s) predict the output or tell what value(s) will be stored in variable(s): Purpose: to test syntax/semantic knowledge and ability to understand a program • Write statement(s) to do something, Purpose: test syntax/semantic knowledge, use of appropriate programming construct • Write program segment to solve simple problem. Purpose: use of appropriate programming construct • Given a program (complete or partially complete) modify or extend it. Purpose: work with existing code. • Given a problem statement (requires use of appropriate data types, data structure, stacked and/or nested selection and repetition) write a program to solve it. • Given an erroneous program identify the error and correct it. •  Assessment Mechanism • Weekly quizzes • Tests • Home work programming assignments (small/large) • Lab assignments Hands-On Programming Workshop

50. Sample Assessment Question • Assessment Category: 2 • Programming Construct: Arithmetic expression • Objective: To test the syntactic semantic knowledge of arithmetic expression • Description: Write c++ expression for the algebraic expression p = (a3x+3)/b2k. Hands-On Programming Workshop