Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 15.144.2
Abstract: All freshman engineering students at York College participate in a spring semester
design challenge as part of a year-long, two-course introduction to engineering. This paper
describes the course organization, the project goals, and project itself and how it supports the
broader engineering curriculum goals of engaging freshman engineering students in a design
project, exposing them in an interesting way to the breath of engineering, and motivating them in
their engineering studies.
The students work in small teams and have roughly 12 weeks to design an automated electro-
mechanical system that first transports three empty Snapple bottles, three tennis balls, and 36 oz.
of water to a 2⁄x3⁄ operational zone. The machine must fill each bottle with 12 oz. of water, cap
each bottle by covering the top with a tennis ball, and then deliver the capped and filled bottles to
an area outside of the operational zone.
The bottle-filling project serves as the second of two interdisciplinary engineering design
experiences during the freshman year. It introduces aspects of computer, electrical, and
mechanical engineering, including the following five primary knowledge areas: (i) machining
and fabrication; (ii) electronic circuit prototyping and programming; (iii) sensor and actuator
applications; (iv) mechanical design; (v) project planning; and (vi) presentation skills.
A project demonstration at the end of the semester determines the relative effectiveness of each
machine based upon a number of quantitative factors, including the total time required to
complete the overall process, the volume of water in each bottle, the number of bottles
successfully capped, the amount of water spilled, and approximate manufacturing cost. Some
qualitative factors considered are simplicity, creativity, and aesthetics. Student interest in this
substantial hands-on experience, as measured by surveys and exhibited by attendance,
enthusiasm, productivity, and success, appears to be high through the three years it has been
assigned.
1. Introduction
Traditionally, engineering curricula at the college or university level provide solid backgrounds
of theory and analysis before progressing to any significant practical and creative activities. The
engineering faculty at York College believes that for many students this is not the best approach.
First-year engineering students are often enthusiastic about engineering, science, and technology,
Page 15.144.3
but many students find that their zeal is diminished due to the gap between engineering practice
and analysis [1]. These students also tend to lack motivation when studying fundamental courses
such as calculus, differential equations, engineering mathematics, and physics, in part because
these early courses often have less focus on application of this knowledge and the students do not
understand how these courses relate to engineering. Additionally, the traditional freshman
curriculum does not give the student an opportunity to discover the differences between the
various engineering majors and how different fields of engineering interact. The engineering
faculty at York College also believes that it is important to provide the students with ample
opportunities to practice design within the curriculum. It is estimated that 70 percent or more of
the life cycle cost of a product is determined during design and employers find that recent
engineering graduates are weak in this area [2]. Reasons for the inadequacy of undergraduate
engineering design education include: weak requirements for design content in engineering
curricula (many institutions do not meet even existing accreditation criteria); lack of truly
interdisciplinary teams in design courses; and fragmented, discipline-specific, and uncoordinated
teaching [2].
Emphasis on freshman design projects has been increasing in recent years [3-9]. These design
projects can give the students a creative outlet and are typically fun. A design project can
introduce engineering applications early in the curriculum and provide for later cross-connection
with theoretical courses. Projects also can introduce students to the differences among
engineering majors so they can choose the major that is right for them. Recent studies also show
that creative design projects during the early semesters improve student retention rates and
increase motivation among engineering students [10]. Additionally, project courses provide
opportunities for students to improve their teamwork and communication skills.
While many higher education institutions either do not offer any freshman engineering course or
offer a basic engineering course without any hands-on experience, there are many institutions
have adopted engineering design project-based freshman courses. A one credit hands-on
introductory course in electrical and computer engineering using a variety of topic modules is
introduced in Pierre, et al [3]. The course is designed for electrical and computer engineering
freshmen using several modules. Each topic module demonstrates one application of a device,
for example a microprocessor being used to control a stoplight, and then discusses many other
ways this particular device can be used [3]. A freshman engineering design projects class is
described in reference [4] that involves students in the design of assistive technology devices for
clients from the community as a part of the new integrated teaching and learning laboratory at
the University of Colorado. Embedded system is introduced in the freshman year using LEGO
Mindstorms. Students are required to build LEGO robots, program them, and operate them
according to the instruction [5]. An engineering design project under coalition program is
described in reference [6]. An automatic irrigation system powered by solar energy was
introduced in the freshman year to motivate the students towards engineering major [7]. In
reference [8] a client based design project is introduced for the freshman students. Students are
Page 15.144.4
required to build a working prototype of the design project specified by the client.
Multidisciplinary team projects such as trebuchets, sumo cars, hill-climbing vehicles, rope
climbing devices, and the basic engineering vehicle launched bridge were introduced in the
freshman year to enhance the student interest in engineering [9].
The current paper describes a freshman engineering design course that integrates aspects of three
majors: computer, electrical, and mechanical engineering. This course was designed to provide
the following benefits to students. The course should:
2. Course Organization
The course is scheduled as a 6 hour laboratory, meeting three times per week for two hours per
session, with four faculty instructing. As the course supports a large number of students (96
students at most in the current organization), and large class sizes would limit student-faculty
interaction, the students are distributed into six approximately equal smaller groupings. On any
given day of the week, these six groups are distributed among three classrooms and activities,
each of which has a different emphasis: ‘learn’, ‘plan’, and ‘do’. The two groups in the ‘plan’
classroom, for example, are assisted by two of the faculty, who primarily focus on the design and
planning aspect of the course, as well as presentation style and assessing student progress week
to week. The two groups assigned to ‘do’ are not directly instructed by faculty, but instead to
meet and work on the design itself, whether that is drawing up ideas, programming, testing, or
assembly. The two groups assigned to ‘learn’ on a given day are separated, such that one of the
groups is learning basic electronics and programming, while the other is working in the machine
shop. This further subdivision ensures that at most one-sixth of the total student body is in the
machine shop at a given time, reducing workload on the instructor teaching machinery and
helping ensure student safety. While this does mean that a given group of students only learns
electronics for one two-hour session every other week, we have found that directed instruction in
these periods is sufficient to allow students to achieve the end of semester goals. In the case of
York College, this rotating schedule provided at most a 16:1 student to faculty ratio during the
time in which students were supervised.
Each of the groups of 16 students is divided up into three to four project teams, giving team sizes
of four to six students. In our experience, while groups of four students are quite capable of
Page 15.144.5
completing the semester project, it is often preferential to have groups of five or six students, as
the unexpected absence of a teammate due to illness or withdrawal from the course can
otherwise be demoralizing, as the team feels that they are ‘undermanned’ if left with only three
members. Over the course of the semester, these teams produce plans, formulate design
methodologies, build prototypes, test and finalize the system, and prepare reports and
presentations.
The first day the students meet in the machine shop, they are taught general shop safety. Safety
continues to be of primary importance throughout the semester and is stressed at all times. All
students are issued safety glasses and are required to be dressed properly while in the laboratory.
During the semester, students are given safety and hands-on instruction on the use of the
following machines: manual milling machine, manual and CNC lathe, pedestal grinder, surface
grinder, horizontal cutoff saw, vertical band saw, and numerous hand tools. A unit in the wood
shop instructs students in the safe use of the table saw, band saw, hot-wire styrofoam cutter, and
various hand tools. Each student in the course, regardless of major, is required to machine at
least one component for the team project, allowing all engineering students to gain early insight
to the importance of design for manufacturing techniques. Other tooling and manufacturing
techniques can be introduced as well depending on institutional resources and student interest.
As an example, at York College, interested students can be introduced to fabrication using
Tungsten Inert Gas (TIG), Metal Inert Gas (MIG), and stick welders if their design requires the
use of such tools.
In our experience, the first four sessions of machine shop training provide the skills students
need, allowing the remaining sessions to be used for the production of these components.
Machine shop time also provides students with hands-on knowledge of assembly and design
techniques to produce an efficient and effective device. Machine shop experience helps students
to understand basic aspects of machine design, including operation of belts, chains, and other
moving parts, and the stability of structures. Students also gain manufacturing insight, bridging
some of the gap between conceptual design and difficulty of fabrication.
In the electronics laboratory sessions, students program microprocessors to control the action of
motors based on sensor input. As this course has no pre-requisite knowledge, care must be taken
to not overwhelm the students with information and options. At York College, the instructors
generally choose a single microcontroller (such as the Arduino or Picaxe) and output driver (such
as the SN754410, ULN2803, or power MOSFET) each semester, and focus on the knowledge
directly necessary for the project. The first meeting generally focuses on how to assemble the
basic microcontroller skeleton (which may include a programming connector, oscillator, and
decoupling capacitors), use the bench power supply, and use a provided skeleton program with
simple “PinWrite(0,1” or “SET PORTA HIGH” commands to blink an LED attached to the
microcontroller. The second session focuses on very simple dead reckoned motor/valve control,
including how to connect the chosen output driver, and how to use delay statements to cause a
Page 15.144.6
motor to turn on for X seconds, then off for Y seconds. At this point, it is important to emphasize
to the students that this is a sufficient set of knowledge to begin their project – if nothing else, a
modicum of success can be had through a dead reckoned system. The third electronics session
covers selection/if statements and the basics of a touch sensor/button circuit with pull-down
resistor, and a bit of analog input if time permits. As the students meet for electronics session
only once every two weeks, all students in the course should therefore have the basic skillset
necessary to understand how to design a simple device by the sixth week of the semester. As
only three to four project teams meet with the electronics instructor at a time, later sessions can
focus more heavily on the needs of individual project teams and designs, including the use of
infrared LED-based photosensors, relays, or function calls as appropriate.
Finally, in the ‘plan’ session each week, the students are taught elements of the engineering
design process. These elements of design include: brainstorming, project management,
purchasing, testing, documentation including flowcharting and schematics, cost estimation, and
presentation skills. Each week, students are given homework assignments in which they apply
these concepts to their particular design. The order that these topics are covered follows the
order in which they design and present their projects. The flow chart in Fig. 1 shows a step-by-
step design methodology of a typical design project and the topics can be divided into three
primary stages as described below:
Stage 1:
≠ Identify system’s design requirements/specifications.
≠ Discuss the design concepts with teammates.
≠ Agree on a basic design for each project subsystem.
≠ Create subgroups to concentrate on various aspects of the design.
Stage 2:
≠ Prepare an anticipated progress chart of the project.
≠ Create a parts list.
≠ Purchase or otherwise acquire equipment.
≠ Build a prototype of each component.
≠ Test the prototype.
≠ Build the interface.
≠ Test the interface.
Stage 3:
≠ Build the system.
≠ Test the system.
≠ Make final adjustments.
≠ Finalize the system.
semester), students have very limited opportunities to make any major changes to the design.
Thus, the students learn that well-planned design project is very important.
Within the design portion of the course, the students are also introduced to typical components
that they may wish to incorporate into their designs. These components include sensors, motors,
and valves.
Page 15.144.8
The overall objective of this project is to transfer 12 ounces of water from a reservoir into each
of three empty SnappleTM bottles and to then cap each bottle with a tennis ball. The entire
process must be completed by an automated device or system designed and built by each student
team.
Control
≠ The device or system must be operated in fully autonomous mode. In this mode the
device or system operates without any human interaction aside from a start command.
≠ The device or system cannot be controlled through direct manual interaction. A deduction
to the project score is applied for any human interaction after the initial start command.
Power
≠ The device or system can be powered entirely or in part by a regulated direct current
(DC) power supply that is provided to the project teams. The maximum allowed DC
voltage and power are 24 V and 140 W, respectively. Even then, the 24V supply is
traditionally only allowed for valves that explicitly require it, and motors are limited to
12V and 50W. This power limitation helps reduce the chance of electrical or mechanical
harm to students. No alternating current (AC) power can be used directly to power the
device or system. The device or system can be powered entirely or in part by gravity as
well.
Spatial Constraints
≠ The filling and capping procedures must take place within an operational space that is 2′
wide and by 3′ long. The height of the operational space is limited only by the ceiling in
the room. The entire device, including the operational space, structure and required
machinery must fit on top of a 2′ wide by 6′ long table.
≠ The bottles, balls, and reservoir must be outside of the operational space when the overall
process is initiated. The reservoir may not be moved once the process is initiated. The
filling and capping procedures must occur in the operational space, and the filled bottle
must be moved out of the operational space to complete the overall process.
Reservoir
≠ Each group uses an identical water reservoir that is provided by the faculty. It must have
at least 64 ounces of water at the beginning of each run. The reservoir has near its bottom
a port through which water can be drawn. The reservoir must be open to the. Water may
be drawn from the reservoir by a pump or by gravity, or other effects not violating the
rules of the project. Water that is taken from the reservoir may not be returned to the
reservoir, as would be required by food sanitation regulations.
Budget
≠ Each group is provided with a strict budget of $100.00. Most of the components for the
project are supplied from department stock. Available materials include wood, plastic
tubing, motors, sensors, actuators, microcontroller boards, and electronic devices. The
cost of these components is not counted as part of the team budget, although they will be
included in the estimated manufacturing cost. If the project requires some components
Page 15.144.9
that are not in the stockroom, students can buy them from their budget with faculty
approval.
Students are responsible for selecting appropriate components and materials for the project
within the constraints described above. Faculty and staff are available to help students with
component selection.
4. Facilities
As noted previously, the design project described in this paper is conducted in three different
locations: electronics laboratory, machine shop, and project workspace.
The electronics laboratory, shown in Fig. 2, is equipped with power supplies, digital multimeters,
microcontroller boards, computers, oscilloscopes, signal generators, solenoid bulbs, and other
electronic components. Students learn basic breadboard techniques and test programming logic
using LEDs during the initial period of laboratory exercises. Once the logic works as desired
students build prototypes and test circuit operation with sensors, actuators, and motor in the
electronics laboratory.
The machine shop in Fig. 3 is equipped with typical tooling for metal and wood, as well as a
welding shop. Although the York College machine shop is well-equipped, this project could be
completed without extensive machinery and/or welding.
Finally, the project workspace in Fig. 4 is used to integrate the electronics circuits with the
structural design. The York College project workspace is equipped with computers on mobile
carts, portable power supplies, large working benches, and other supplies. Again any space with
electrical outlets and that is large enough to hold the completed projects would be sufficient for
Page 15.144.10
this project.
Fig. 3: The machine shop
5. Project Progression
During the course of the semester, the students follow the design process as described in Section
2, above. Before the students are allowed to purchase or manufacture components, they must
provide documentation of their projects in the form of flowcharts, circuit diagrams, sketches,
parts lists, and Computer Aided Design (CAD) drawings. Figures 5 and 6 are two examples of a
portion of this documentation. Figure 5 is a flowchart outlining the basic controls of a typical
project and figure 6 is a CAD sketch of project design. Each team must also provide a Gantt
chart showing their project schedule. These schedules must be kept up-to-date throughout the
semester.
Page 15.144.11
Fig. 5: A functional diagram of a typical project
While the students are learning the basics of design, they are also learning enough circuit design
and programming to handle sensor input and motor / valve actuation. Figure 7 depicts a control
Page 15.144.12
At three points during the semester, the students are required to present their progress to the
entire class. These presentations are treated as if they were presenting their project to potential
customers and therefore are required to dress and act professionally.
After each subsystem (conveyance, water delivery, and capping) within the project is fabricated
and tested, the final product is assembled and tested. This usually occurs within the last two or
three weeks of the semester. At the end of the semester, the students demonstrate their final
working prototype to the class and faculty.
6. Prototype Demonstration
A test of each prototype is conducted at the end of the semester to determine which team has
produced the most effective filling and capping system. The entire class is present to watch as
well as engineering and computer science faculty members (whether or not they are directly
associated with the course), and many times student family members. There were 14 teams in
the spring semester of 2009. The competition took place in the project workspace. Fig. 8 shows a
filling and capping station and the liquid measurement station.
The filling and capping system is judged on a number of factors such as the total time required to
fill the bottles, the accuracy to which the bottles are filled, the amount of spillage during the
transfer process, the ability to cap each of the bottles, and the degree of autonomy of the filling
process. Other factors that are evaluated include the simplicity, creativity, and manufacturing
cost of the design. The contributions of each team member are also determined via instructor
observation and peer evaluations. The final project evaluation can is based on the following
criteria:
Page 15.144.13
Fig.8: (a) Filling and capping station (b) Liquid measurement station
Liquid transfer, spillage, and capping are directly measureable. The transfer time is a relative
score that depends on the fastest design. The functionality component judges the degree of
autonomy of the design project. The ideal design project should not have any human interaction
Page 15.144.14
except pressing the start switch. The subjective score measures qualitative aspects of the
prototype and the design process listed above. Fig. 9 shows a project from the spring semester of
2009.
Fig. 9: An automated liquid filling and capping project from the spring semester of 2009
7. Course Assessment
Two sets of surveys were administered. One covered course outcomes and was administered to
juniors one and a half years after completing the course. The other primarily dealt with attitudes
towards engineering and was administered at freshman orientation before taking any engineering
courses, and then repeated on the last day of the course, at the end of the student’s freshman
year.
Table I summarizes the results of the outcomes survey given to juniors. Twenty-nine mechanical
and electrical engineering juniors took the survey, checking Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, or
Strongly Disagree for each of the statements. The numbers in the table represent the total
number of check marks in each category for each question. There were a total of 257 Strongly
Agrees and Agrees and a total of 35 Disagrees and Strongly Disagrees. It should be noted that a
portion of the Disagree and Strongly Disagree responses in the categories relating to the machine
shop, electrical circuits, and programming can be attributed to the fact that student teams were
allowed to assign different responsibilities to different team members, and therefore some did not
gain experience in all three areas.
The outcome surveys also asked the students to comment on: 1) Things I liked best about this
course; and 2) Suggestions for improvement. Table II contains the entire list of the student
comments. Note that we moved a computer programming course into the same semester in the
student’s curriculum after these students had completed the course. Because of this, we expect
fewer issues with the programming section in future years.
Page 15.144.15
This section now examines the results of the survey given to the students regarding the design
course. The students were surveyed twice. First, they were surveyed during the freshman
orientation before they took the course. The second time they were surveyed was when they
finished their freshman year (FY), right after the taking this course. The student feedback after
completing the design project is taken as a reflection of the students’ observations about the
course and engineering.
Fig. 10 shows the results for intended student majors during the open house orientation (the
students’ entering majors) and the actual major after completing the freshman year. During
orientation there were no non-engineering majors, but 6% of the students who completed the
design project either declared to pursue other disciplines or came from other disciplines. The
data shows that some students switched between the closely-related computer and electrical
engineering majors. Most declared mechanical engineering students, however, remained with
that program. This may be because the electrical and computer engineering majors are so
closely related, and the project has helped students to decide which specialization area better
suits their interests.
Table I
Junior Survey Statements and Summary of Responses
Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
I learned about the differences among computer, 12 11 6
electrical, and mechanical engineering majors:
I improved my teamwork skills: 11 17 1
These questions address course objectives which were established by the faculty. The questions
about the engineering profession mainly focused on the breadth of engineering expertise required
for a successful project and cooperation between engineers from various disciplines. During the
open house 77% students said that electrical, computer, or mechanical engineers cannot work
alone. After they completed the course 83% agreed that engineers need to work together. This is
a positive improvement towards understanding the broader nature of engineering design.
The second set of questions was on teamwork. 90% of the students agreed that a team would
include others such as production workers and salespeople. Before they took the class 73%
agreed that engineers should work in a group, but after taking the class 86% believed this.
Seventy-two percent also thought that working as team would reduce the time to finish the
project when they started the class. But, surprisingly, after completing the course only 61%
agreed with the same statement. This could be because some teams worked became
dysfunctional as the semester progressed.
The survey also asked about communication skills. Before taking the class only 40% of the
students thought that writing was an important skill to acquire in order to be a successful
engineer. Afterward, 67% of the students believed that writing skills are important for success
in the field. This is a positive improvement in understanding of the value of communication. A
large majority of incoming engineering students (93%) were proud of the major. This fell to
88% after the freshman year, which correlates with the approximate 6% that chose to leave the
major.
Page 15.144.19
Table III
Freshman survey questions and summary of responses
8. Conclusions
Page 15.144.20
This paper detailed a freshman design project in engineering taught at York College. This course
is motivational in nature and based on hands-on experience, exposing the students to aspects of
computer, electrical, and mechanical engineering. The course format is a combination of lecture
and laboratory exercises, which includes time in the electronics laboratory, the machine shop,
and the project workspace. The freshman students are involved in designing an
electromechanical autonomous bottle filling and capping system, which requires a design team
skilled in several aspects of engineering. The course meets the program’s goal of engaging the
freshman engineering student in a design project, exposing them in an interesting way to the
breadth of engineering, and motivating them in their engineering studies.
The student surveys presented in this paper convey much information about the effectiveness of
the course. Students’ understanding of engineering as a whole and of the value of
communication has been improved after they completed the course. Survey also showed that
students had a mix feeling about the teamwork after they completed the project. The surveys
showed that students had a better understanding of the breadth of engineering through the design
project.
9. References
1. Daniel Frey, “Project Based learning, The Importance of Freshman-Year Projects,” MIT
Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XIX, No. 4, February 2007.
3. John W. Pierre, et al., “A One Credit Hands-On Introductory Course in Electrical and
Computer Engineering Using a Variety of Topic Modules,” IEEE Transactions on Education,
Vol. 52, No. 2, May 2009.
4. M.J Piket-May, J.P Avery, “Freshman design projects: a university/community program
providing assistive technology devices,” 26th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference.,
Vol. 2, Issue , 6-9, Nov 1996.
5. Seung Han Kim, Jae Wook Jeon, “Introduction for Freshmen to Embedded SystemsUsing
LEGO Mindstorms,” IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, February 2009.
6. J. Parker, D. Cordes, J. Richardson, “Engineering design in the freshman year at the
University of Alabama-Foundation Coalition program,” 25th Annual Frontiers in Education
Conference., Vol. 2, Issue , 1-4, Nov 1995.
7. Oguz A. Soysal, “Freshman Design Experience: Solar Powered Irrigation System for a
Remote farm,” ASEE Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri June 18-21, 2000.
8. Joan A. Burtner, “Nine Years of Freshman Design Projects at Mercer University,” ASEE
Annual Conference & Exposition, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, June 15-18, 1997
9. Kenneth W. Hunter, Sr., “A Multidisciplinary Team Design Project for First-Semester
Engineering Students and Its Implementation in a Large Introduction to Engineering
Course,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 20-23, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah.
10. Geraldine B. Milano, Richard Parker, George Pincus, “A Freshman Design Experience:
Retention and Motivation,” ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 23-26, 1996,
Page 15.144.21
Washington DC.
11. C.L. Dym, A.M. Agogino, O. Eris, D.D. Frey, L.J. Leifer, “Engineering Design Thinking,
Teaching, and Learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 94, no. 1, pp. 103-114,
2005
Page 15.144.22