| EE415 | For archiving and reporting purposes, the instructor gave each team an icon name from a list of “mountains and volcanoes”. This report will use the icon names for the sake of brevity. Table A.1 gives a summary of some team characteristics for Fall 2006 EE415. Each of the seven design teams wrote a proposal. There were several locations in these proposals where students showed ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. For this report student performance in the Introduction section will be cited as evidence that they have ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. Writing guidelines for the Introduction say in part, “As you climb the technical learning curve associated with your design project (by reading refereed journal articles and other literature), this section should be easy to write. Here are objectives for the Introduction: a) by way of a literature review it shows the reader that the team has accumulated a reading knowledge of the topics covered by your design project, b) it allows the reader to strengthen their background in these topics by reading the Introduction and by reading cited references, c) it shows the reader that you will not duplicate other’s work since your work will go beyond what is described in the Introduction, and d) it cites high quality references as epitomized by refereed engineering and science journal articles. Spend about 70% of the Introduction on engineering topics within the general discipline where your design project is located and only about 30% of the Introduction on your specific design project. Present an equivalent circuit whenever practical. Equivalent circuits of interest could be induction motor, autotransformer, solar cell, dc-ac inverter, charge controller, fuel cell, force transducer for a robot arm, stepper motor, oscillator, antenna, etc. Digital systems are not well represented by equivalent circuits but for some projects background information is needed on items such as FPGA, VHDL, digital communication protocol, etc.” Table A.2 lists teams and technical topics covered in the Introduction section of their proposal. The instructor reviewed the Introduction section of graded proposals and tabulated points lost to technical errors (see Table A.3.) Four teams lost 0 points, two teams lost 2 points each, and one team lost 6 points. Kilimanjaro lost two technical points due to failure to include figures with their technical descriptions (figures requested by the instructor on previously graded drafts). Tambora lost two technical points because they did not include an induction motor equivalent circuit (requested by the instructor on previously graded drafts.) Vesuvius lost six technical points due to lack of a feedback component in their technical descriptions and due to many confusing dynamics equations. In the instructor’s judgment, Tambora and Kilimanjaro could have easily addressed their technical weaknesses given one more iteration of writing their proposal; however, Vesuvius did not demonstrate clear ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. All members of the Vesuvius team received a course grade less than C thus they were required to repeat EE415. The Introduction in the written proposal shows that all teams not required to repeat EE415 demonstrated an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering; however it does not present evidence regarding individual student abilities. For that, the instructor invokes the fact that each student wrote an appendix in the proposal that described the project from their vantage point. These individual stuent scores are shown in Table A.4. Remarkably low scores (68, 68, 68, 72) appear for students # 8, 12, 20, and 26. Students #12 and 20 received a course grade of C- and must repeat EE415. Students #8 and 26 lost points from their work due to errors associated with writing style, figures and tables but lost no points due to technical erros. Thus the data shown in this section supports the contention that students passing EE415 Fall 2006 possessed suffiently strong ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering. |
| EE416 | For archiving and reporting purposes, the instructor gave each team an icon name from a list of “bird species”. This report will use the icon names for the sake of brevity. Table A.1 gives a summary of team activity for fall 2006 Semester. Each of the eight design teams wrote a final report, which contained their experiences including modeling, simulation and analysis. Table A.2 lists teams and topics covered in their final written reports for this semester. A review of the written final report evaluations shows that the work in this section of the reports was of sufficient quality and quantity to result in no loss of points (for technical content) for these eight teams. In addition, each team participated in weekly meetings with the instructor during the semester. These meetings focused on the progress and process of the teams. However, issues regarding math, science, and engineering knowledge being applied in the students’ modeling, simulation, and analysis activities were also discussed on a regular basis. Based upon these meetings, and the information in Table A.2, all of the fall 2006 students passing EE416 showed acceptable abilities to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. |
