English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Although a substantial history exists regarding the use of team projects as instructional activities in engineering design curricula, only limited attention has been given to project subjects that span multiple areas of engineering, including biomedical, civil, electrical and mechanical. The conceptualization of such topics, and their integration into the broader curriculum, involves appraisal of important questions relating to prerequisite knowledge, integration of disciplines, learning by design, teamwork, competitions, assessment and evaluation. As an example of one such extensive project, in this paper we consider three years of experience incorporating the Trinity College Walk-on-Water Project in the senior design capstone experience. Educational objectives, project organization, learning activities and pedagogic outcomes in designing, building and operating both human-powered and robotic mechanisms for walking on a water surface are reviewed. Special attention is paid to assessment of the team learning process. Based on our findings over this period, we believe this project strongly improves student ability to combine knowledge from disparate areas of engineering science to accomplish a specific goal. At the same time, by combining an academically challenging goal with a hands-on approach supported by an aspect of fun and humor, motivation is enhanced as is ability to work within a dynamic team environment. We discuss the educational outcomes served by this project, and point out potential improvements that may enhance its applicability to a variety of programmatic approaches. Introduction: The Trinity College Department of Engineering offers a two-semester, capstone senior design course intended to provide practical experience in engineering research and design, as well as in technical communication. Students enrolled in the course are expected to complete both an individual year-long project and a one-semester group project carried out in teams of 3-4. Since Trinity College has only a single engineering department, within which student interests range over mechanical, civil, electrical and biomedical engineering, the project topics selected for the individual project normally comprise a highly diverse set. Correspondingly, it is very important in our environment that the group project also maintain a strong cross-disciplinary focus. In addition, our intention is to provide the students with a group project that is academically demanding, but simultaneously also includes a significant component of fun and humor. P ge 702.1 Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2002, American Society for Engineering Education This paper describes an attempt to meet these criteria in the fall semesters of the 1999-2000, 2000-2001 and 2001-2002 academic years through the assignment of the design and fabrication of devices for walking on water . Students worked in multi-disciplinary teams, each of which was asked to fabricate and demonstrate a device for walking on water. At the end of the semester, a contest was held at the College pool to determine the fastest device in a timed trial of one length of the pool. During the first two years the project was carried out, the devices were required to be human powered. However, in the third year, as an experiment to assess the possibility of taking advantage of a strong interest in robotics within the department, the students were asked to design water-walking robots. Educational Objectives: pedagogical objectives served by this project include ∑ Giving students practical experience with design problems ultimately requiring successful implementation within budgetary and time constraints ∑ Giving students familiarity with open-ended design problems for which multiple solution approaches are feasible ∑ Developing teamwork skills and team learning abilities ∑ Fostering the ability to combine knowledge from disparate areas of engineering science to accomplish specific goals. Project Organization: on the first day of class, the instructor distributed directions for the project and divided the students into teams of 3-4. The students were grouped according to their field of interest so that each team received equal numbers of members with backgrounds in biomedical, electrical and mechanical engineering. To simulate a business approach, each group was given a formal sign-up sheet for the culminating contest, which the instructor explained was to be thought of as a binding contract. Each team was also given a set of rules for the project, along with a form for itemizing a proposed parts list with prices. A copy of the project rules is appended to this paper. The teams were told that they had at their disposal a budget of $150 for design and construction expenses, but that no funds could be spent until the instructor had reviewed and approved their design drawings. Expenses beyond $150 were not approved. Over the three year period, approximately one third of the groups had their initial drawings rejected for exceeding the cost limit, generally necessitating extensive redesign. In fact, in retrospect the need to redesign to conform to budget guidelines was regarded as one of the most educationally valuable aspects of the project. Although the class met once a week, no class time was spent on the project. Instead, each group was required to meet among itself on a weekly basis, and to keep recorded minutes of those meetings. All groups were then required to meet once every 3-4 weeks with the instructor to review progress in developing designs. The first of those meetings was a review of preliminary designs. Each group was expected to put forward at least two potential approaches at that time, in a preliminary form, and to present quantitative arguments for selecting one of those as their preferred method. This requirement was intended to motivate the students to consider multiple P ge 702.2 Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2002, American Society for Engineering Education approaches, not just proceed with their first idea, and also to have the students analyze the relative merits of their ideas carefully and quantitatively. If the arguments presented were appropriate, the instructor approved the group to go forward to a full design. If not, another meeting was scheduled and the process was repeated. At the second meeting, the groups were expected to present a final design proposal, with drawings and with an itemized parts list. The drawings were discussed, and if the total cost of parts was within the specified budget, the group was allowed to construct a prototype. It was then expected that the prototype would be fabricated and tested, so that at the third meeting, test results could be reviewed and revisions and redesigns discussed as necessary. Finally, the contest was held at the end of the semester. Along with these technical criteria, the instructor has made an informal but strong attempt to encourage the students to incorporate an aspect of humor in their designs. This has generated a tradition of wit that has been a major motivating factor and substantially added to the students’ enjoyment of the project. Examples can be seen in the photos below (note the mud flaps reading “BACK OFF!” and the associated shoes, which were named “New Improved Kinetic Expediters”, or “N.I.K.E.s”). Other examples can be found on the project web page , as well as on a videotape that will be presented. As the project development was reviewed, a second conclusion that became apparent was that emphasizing the combination of levity with serious analysis and design helped motivate the teams to function as a cohesive unit. As a result, focus and commitment to the project increased significantly. This demonstrates a clear linkage between motivation, team unity and successful realization of the project goals. Results and Discussion: all groups completed the project on time and within budget, as required. Of the human-powered devices, all but one group successfully completed one lap of the College pool (albeit, not always without mishap ....). Similarly, all but one of the robotic devices completed a lap. The walk-on-water project is not technically out of reach; designing a device that can walk on water is well within the capability of undergraduate engineering students. What makes the project challenging are time and budgetary constraints. As such, a large part of the educational benefit of the project is derived from balancing the formulation of innovative potential solutions with the need to meet practical constraints related to actual construction. The mandate to construct and demonstrate a functioning device within time and cost limits emphasizes to the groups the importance of pursuing their designs in a spirit of creative critical evaluation. In addition, it fosters an appreciation for the necessity of repeated redesign until a satisfactory device is eventually achieved. Developing Teamwork Skills: students worked in groups of 3-4. As has been pointed out by other authors, an important aspect of this type of project is that decisions that must be made for design to proceed (provision of buoyancy, thrust generation, etc.) are inherently interrelated. Hence, as the students weigh those decisions, a full team experience evolves, since no individual can make any single important design decision without affecting other decisions. Teams can, P ge 702.3 Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2002, American Society for Engineering Education and certainly do, divide necessary computations and analyses among themselves. However, it is not possible for individual members to work entirely by themselves on specific project aspects, then simply combine results at the end. Only by working together careful

Analysis Of The Trinity College Walk On Water Project: A Case Study Of Team Learning In The Design Experience