A Proposed Platform to Simplify the Integration of Electronics Into a Mechanical Engineering Design Course

Author(s):  
Brett A. Skaloud ◽  
Senthil K. Chandrasegaran ◽  
Karthik Ramani

The interdisciplinary nature of engineering design and the pervasiveness of electronics in most products has made it necessary for practitioners of “design thinking” to understand electronics and embedded systems, in order to expand their concept exploration space. This poses a significant challenge for mechanical engineers, whose knowledge of electronics is typically limited. A course in mechatronics is available to enhance this knowledge, however it is taught separate from product design and CAD/Toy Design, and students often do not get the opportunity to combine these elements. With an open source microcontroller platform (Arduino™) that allows for easy programming, we see an oppportunity to blend design thinking into a larger domain of engineering. In this paper, we propose a platform that would simplify the incorporation of electronics into a design. The proposed platform will utilize the Arduino™, along with a modular architecture for designing electronic systems, as well as modular program segments for controlling these systems which can be easily customized to meet student requirements. This will enable students in a toy design course to integrate electro-mechanical systems into their designs, while at the same time providing useful electronic knowledge which can be used in their future careers. The toy design projects utilize a Problem-Based Learning [1, 2] approach that will allow students to familiarize themselves with the synthesis and programming of these systems. We describe two student test teams that were introduced to this electronic integration in an existing toy design course, and we use our observations to inform the design of the proposed platform.

Author(s):  
Sima Zakani ◽  
Jake Kaupp ◽  
Roderick Turner ◽  
Brian Frank

Abstract – Inconsistent transfer policies, lack of articulated syllabi, and subsequent differences on the delivery of comparable courses are a few examples of the obstacles that Ontario students face when trying to change programs. This study sought to develop a framework to support transfer between engineering and engineering technology programs in Ontario using explicit and implicit course outcomes to help develop and define new pathways.  Primarily focusing on program expectations in introductory design courses this study compared the content and context of design projects in different institutions and programs across the province. The contextual framework, namely the “Outcome Comparison Framework for Engineering and Technology”, synthesized relevant elements from existing frameworks which can collectively identify the differences in the context of learning in engineering and technology disciplines. This framework looks into disciplinarity, use of tools and design thinking required to successfully finish a design project.  We collected design projects from 5 technology programs and 4 engineering programs across the province and coded them based on the content targeted by the project description and the three dimensions of the framework.  Content analysis for design courses showed an overall low percentage of alignment between the learning outcomes and the project descriptions across the board.  It was found that engineering design courses were more focused on principles of engineering design (problem definition, stakeholder needs, idea generation, decision making) and development of professional characteristics (workplace communication skills, ethics, etc.); but technology design courses, focused on the use of more “hands-on”' skills (building/implementation, troubleshooting, etc.)  


Author(s):  
Mahmoud Dinar ◽  
Yong-Seok Park ◽  
Jami J. Shah

Conventional syllabi of engineering design courses either do not pay enough attention to conceptual design skills, or they lack an objective assessment of those skills to show students’ progress. During a semester-long course of advanced engineering product design, we assigned three major design projects to twenty five students. For each project we asked them to formulate the problems in the Problem Formulator web-based testbed. In addition, we collected sketches for all three design problems, feasibility analyses for the last two, and a working prototype for the final project. We report the students’ problem formulation and ideation in terms of a set of nine problem formulation characteristics and ASU’s ideation effectiveness metrics respectively. We discuss the limitations that the choice of the design problems caused, and how the progress of a class of students during a semester-long design course resulted in a convergence in sets of metrics that we have defined to characterize problem formulation and ideation. We also review the results of students of a similar course which we reported last year in order to find common trends.


2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ninger Zhou ◽  
Tarun George ◽  
Joran Booth ◽  
Jeffrey Alperovich ◽  
Senthil Chandrasegaran ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document