scholarly journals A Pilot Study of a Novel Set of Three Courses for Teaching Electrical System Analysis to Mechanical Engineering Students

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Slaboch ◽  
Floraliza Bornasal ◽  
Rico Picone
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
Electrical System

Perceptions of Prototypes: Pilot Study Comparing Students and Professionals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlye Lauff ◽  
Daria Kotys-Schwartz ◽  
Mark E. Rentschler
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Fundamental Part ◽  
Engineering Work ◽  
Recommendations For Practice ◽  
Physical Elements

Just as design is a fundamental part of engineering work, prototyping is an essential part of the design process. For many engineering design courses, students must develop a final prototype as part of the course requirements. And in industry, engineers build multiple prototypes when creating a product for market. Although prototyping is core to design education, there is a lack of research on understanding the perceptions and usage of prototypes from both students and professionals. Without understanding students’ perceptions of prototypes, we cannot adequately train them. Likewise, without knowing how professionals use prototypes, we cannot translate these practices back to design education. This paper reports on the pilot study comparing the perceptions of prototypes between mechanical engineering students and professional engineers. The findings indicate that the interpretation of the term “prototype” varies between students and professionals. Specifically, these mechanical engineering students have a more narrow perception and identify prototypes as only having a few key elements, namely for building and testing functionality and feasibility of physical elements in a product. Comparatively, professionals have a broad perception of prototypes. They identify a wider range of attributes, including prototypes as a communication tool, an aid in making decisions, and a way to learn about unknowns throughout the design process. Many instructors in design education are cognizant of the importance of prototyping. However, we believe that students require explicit instruction about key concepts. It is not enough to just tell students to “prototype.” As design educators, we must be aware of the various roles of prototypes, and teach these concepts to students. We provide some immediate recommendations for practice, including a list of ten principles of prototypes to create similar mental models between students.

HOW STUDENTS DEFINE THEIR SUCCESS: A RESEARCH STUDY

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Ullrich ◽  
David S. Strong
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Survey Instrument ◽  
Undergraduate Engineering ◽  
Diversity And Inclusion ◽  
Full Study ◽  
Definition Of Success ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Diverse Groups

How undergraduate engineering students define their success and plan for their future differs notably amongst students. With a push for greater diversity and inclusion in engineering schools, it is valuable to also better understand the differences in these areas among different students to allow institutions to better serve the needs of these diverse groups.  The purpose of this research study is to explore students’ definition of success both in the present and projecting forward 5 to 10 years, as well as to understand to what level students reflect on, and plan for, the future. The proposed survey instrument for the pilot stage of this research includes 56 closed-ended questions and 3 open-ended questions. Evidence for the validity of the research instrument is established through a mixed-method pilot study. This paper will discuss the survey instrument, the pilot study, and outline plans for the full study.

A Pillar of Mechanical Engineering Design Education in Australia: 25 Years of the Warman Design and Build Competition

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Student Assessment ◽  
National Committee ◽  
Engineering Design Education ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Institutional Learning ◽  
History Of

The “Warman Design and Build Competition”, running across Australasian Universities, is now in its 26th year in 2013. Presented in this paper is a brief history of the competition, documenting the objectives, yearly scenarios, key contributors and champion Universities since its beginning in 1988. Assuming the competition has reached the majority of mechanical and related discipline engineering students in that time, it is fair to say that this competition, as a vehicle of the National Committee on Engineering Design, has served to shape Australasian engineering education in an enduring way. The philosophy of the Warman Design and Build Competition and some of the challenges of running it are described in this perspective by its coordinator since 2003. In particular, the need is for the competition to work effectively across a wide range of student group ability. Not every group engaging with the competition will be competitive nationally, yet all should learn positively from the experience. Reported also in this paper is the collective feedback from the campus organizers in respect to their use of the competition as an educational experience in their classrooms. Each University participating uses the competition differently with respect to student assessment and the support students receive. However, all academic campus organizer responses suggest that the competition supports their own and their institutional learning objectives very well. While the project scenarios have varied widely over the years, the intent to challenge 2nd year university (predominantly mechanical) engineering students with an open-ended statement of requirements in a practical and experiential exercise has been a constant. Students are faced with understanding their opportunity and their client’s value system as expressed in a scoring algorithm. They are required to conceive, construct and demonstrate their device with limited prior knowledge and experience, and the learning outcomes clearly impact their appreciation for teamwork, leadership and product realization.

scholarly journals Development and delivery of a work experience week programme for mechanical engineering

2020 ◽  
pp. 030641902098104
Author(s):  
A Gonzalez-Buelga ◽  
I Renaud-Assemat ◽  
B Selwyn ◽  
J Ross ◽  
I Lazar
Keyword(s):  
Work Experience ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Impact Analysis ◽  
Legal Term ◽  
Stage 4 ◽  
Engineering Design Problem ◽  
Hands On ◽  
University Of Bristol ◽  
The University

This paper focuses on the development, delivery and preliminary impact analysis of an engineering Work Experience Week (WEW) programme for KS4 students in the School of Civil, Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering (CAME) at the University of Bristol, UK. Key stage 4, is the legal term for the two years of school education which incorporate GCSEs in England, age 15–16. The programme aims to promote the engineering profession among secondary school pupils. During the WEW, participants worked as engineering researchers: working in teams, they had to tackle a challenging engineering design problem. The experience included hands-on activities and the use of state-of-the-art rapid prototyping and advanced testing equipment. The students were supervised by a group of team leaders, a diverse group of undergraduate and postgraduate engineering students, technical staff, and academics at the School of CAME. The vision of the WEW programme is to transmit the message that everybody can be an engineer, that there are plenty of different routes into engineering that can be taken depending on pupils’ strengths and interests and that there are a vast amount of different engineering careers and challenges to be tackled by the engineers of the future. Feedback from the participants in the scheme has been overwhelmingly positive.

scholarly journals Design Integrated in the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum: Assessment of the Engineering Clinics

2007 ◽  
Vol 129 (7) ◽  
pp. 682-691 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Kadlowec ◽  
Krishnan Bhatia ◽  
Tirupathi R. Chandrupatla ◽  
John C. Chen ◽  
Eric Constans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Survey Data ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Integrated Design ◽  
Curriculum Assessment ◽  
Rowan University ◽  
Core Courses ◽  
Team Environment ◽  
Design Skills ◽  
The Impact

At Rowan University, design has been infused into the curriculum through an eight-semester course sequence called the Engineering Clinics. Through this experience, students learn the art and science of design in a multidisciplinary team environment and hone their design skills throughout their 4-year career. This paper describes the objectives of the clinics, types of projects, and how the clinics complement traditional core courses in the curriculum. Impacts and benefits of the clinics on students and faculty are discussed, including retention and graduate study rates comparing Rowan University mechanical engineering students to their peers nationally. An assessment of the clinics is presented based on survey data and accreditation objectives and outcomes. Survey data from students were assessed to determine levels of students’ satisfaction and confidence based on the clinics. Results of alumni and employer surveys also provide valuable feedback for assessing and improving the clinics as well as confirmation of the impact of clinics after graduation. Survey data are discussed along with challenges of the clinics at Rowan and adaptability of them at other institutions. Overall, the clinics are a positive and integrated design experience in the curriculum and assist students in achieving the program objectives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document