skip to main content

Title: Innovative Delivery of 3D Printing
3D Printing (3DP), also known as Additive Manufacturing (AM) is the latest production technology. Its popularity in fabricating functional parts in all fields is growing day by day. The range of 3D printed products is limitless, including glass frames to hearing aids. It is thus important to train educators and students regarding this cutting-edge technology so that they become familiar with the functionality and implementation of it in several courses, laboratories, and projects. This paper reports several novel developments which have been implemented in the past few years, including details of these unique practices and feedback received from the educators and students.
; ; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
2021 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. This paper describes an evidence based-practice paper to a formative response to the engineering faculty and students’ needs at Anonymous University. Within two weeks, the pandemic forced the vast majority of the 1.5 million faculty and 20 million students nationwide to transition all courses from face-to-face to entirely online. Never in the history of higher education has there been a concerted effort to adapt so quickly and radically, nor have we had the technology to facilitate such a rapid and massive change. At Anonymous University, over 700 engineering educators were racing to transition their courses. Many of those faculty hadmore »never experienced online course preparation, much less taught one synchronously or asynchronously. Faculty development centers and technology specialists across the university made a great effort to aid educators in this transition. These educators had questions about the best practices for moving online, how their students were affected, and the best ways to engage their students. However, these faculty’s detailed questions were answerable only by faculty peers’ experience, students’ feedback, and advice from experts in relevant engineering education research-based practices. This paper describes rapid, continuous, and formative feedback provided by the Engineering Education Faculty Group (EEFG) to provide an immediate response for peer faculty guidance during the pandemic, creating a community of practice. The faculty membership spans multiple colleges in the university, including engineering, education, and liberal arts. The EEFG transitioned immediately to weekly meetings focused on the rapidly changing needs of their colleagues. Two surveys were generated rapidly by Hammond et al. to characterize student and faculty concerns and needs in March of 2020 and were distributed through various means and media. Survey 1 and 2 had 3381 and 1506 respondents respectively with most being students, with 113 faculty respondents in survey 1, the focus of this piece of work. The first survey was disseminated as aggregated data to the College of Engineering faculty with suggested modifications to course structures based on these findings. The EEFG continued to meet and collaborate during the remainder of the Spring 2020 semester and has continued through to this day. This group has acted as a hub for teaching innovation in remote online pedagogy and techniques, while also operating as a support structure for members of the group, aiding those members with training in teaching tools, discussion difficult current events, and various challenges they are facing in their professional teaching lives. While the aggregated data gathered from the surveys developed by Hammond et al. was useful beyond measure in the early weeks of the pandemic, little attention at the time was given to the responses of faculty to that survey. The focus of this work has been to characterize faculty perceptions at the beginning of the pandemic and compare those responses between engineering and non-engineering faculty respondents, while also comparing reported perceptions of pre- and post-transition to remote online teaching. Interviews were conducted between 4 members of the EEFG with the goal of characterizing some of the experiences they have had while being members of the group during the time of the pandemic utilizing Grounded theory qualitative analysis.« less
  2. One of the fastest growing fields in the broad field of engineering is Additive Manufacturing (AM), also known as 3D Printing. AM is being used in many fields including, among others, design, STEM, construction, art, and healthcare. Many educational institutions however, do not have the requisite capacity and resources to effectively educate students in this area particularly when it comes to rapid transition from design to small-volume level production. A coalition of several higher education institutions under a National Science Foundation (NSF) funded Advanced Technological Education (ATE) Project has been working towards providing educators with the skills and material resourcesmore »to effectively teach their students about 3D printing. The ultimate beneficiaries are high school and post-secondary students and include those in vocational fields. Before and during Fall 2019, Train the Trainer Studios (TTS) were conducted to train instructors, drawing participants from many institutions across neighboring states designed to provide hands-on instruction to participants. In addition, Massive Open Online Courses (MOOC) and webinars have also been made available to all participating instructors and other collaborators to openly share the information being generated through this ATE AM coalition. Evaluation of the TTS revealed many positive results, with the participants sharing many success stories after implementing the learned concepts at their institutions. From the evaluation findings, participants were largely satisfied with the delivery and quality of instruction they received from all the TTS presenters, with almost all of them, in all instances, indicating that the training they received would be useful in their programs. The current paper and proposed presentation will report on the lessons learned through this process, including sharing some of the success stories from the instructors and their students.« less
  3. Shortlidge, Erin (Ed.)
    The ability to navigate scientific obstacles is widely recognized as a hallmark of a scientific disposition and is one predictor of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics persistence for early-career scientists. However, the development of this competency in undergraduate research has been largely underexplored. This study addresses this gap by examining introductory students’ emotional and behavioral responses to research-related challenges and failures that occur in two sequential research-based courses. We describe commonly reported emotions, coping responses, and perceived outcomes and examine relationships between these themes, student demographics, and course enrollment. Students commonly experience frustration, confusion, and disappointment when coping with challengesmore »and failures. Yet the predominance of students report coping responses likely to be adaptive in academic contexts despite experiencing negative emotions. Being enrolled in the second course of a research-based course sequence was related to several shifts in response to challenges during data collection, including less reporting of confusion and fewer reports of learning to be cautious from students. Overall, students in both the first and second courses reported many positive outcomes indicating improvements in their ability to cope with challenge and failure. We assert that educators can improve research-based educational courses by scaffolding students’ research trials, failures, and iterations to support students’ perseverance.« less
  4. Our NSF-funded ITEST project focuses on the collaborative design, implementation, and study of recurrent hands-on engineering activities with middle school youth in three rural communities in or near Appalachia. To achieve this aim, our team of faculty and graduate students partner with school educators and industry experts embedded in students’ local communities to collectively develop curriculum to aim at teacher-identified science standard and facilitate regular in-class interventions throughout the academic year. Leveraging local expertise is especially critical in this project because family pressures, cultural milieu, and preference for local, stable jobs play considerable roles in how Appalachian youth choose possiblemore »careers. Our partner communities have voluntarily opted to participate with us in a shared implementation-research program and as our project unfolds we are responsive to community-identified needs and preferences while maintaining the research program’s integrity. Our primary focus has been working to incorporate hands-on activities into science classrooms aimed at state science standards in recognition of the demands placed on teachers to align classroom time with state standards and associated standardized achievement tests. Our focus on serving diverse communities while being attentive to relevant research such as the preference for local, stable jobs attention to cultural relevance led us to reach out to advanced manufacturing facilities based in the target communities in order to enhance the connection students and teachers feel to local engineers. Each manufacturer has committed to designating several employees (engineers) to co-facilitate interventions six times each academic year. Launching our project has involved coordination across stakeholder groups to understand distinct values, goals, strengths and needs. In the first academic year, we are working with 9 different 6th grade science teachers across 7 schools in 3 counties. Co-facilitating in the classroom are representatives from our project team, graduate student volunteers from across the college of engineering, and volunteering engineers from our three industry partners. Developing this multi-stakeholder partnership has involved discussions and approvals across both school systems (e.g., superintendents, STEM coordinators, teachers) and our industry partners (e.g., managers, HR staff, volunteering engineers). The aim of this engagement-in-practice paper is to explore our lessons learned in navigating the day-to-day challenges of (1) developing and facilitating curriculum at the intersection of science standards, hands-on activities, cultural relevancy, and engineering thinking, (2) collaborating with volunteers from our industry partners and within our own college of engineering in order to deliver content in every science class of our 9 6th grade teachers one full school day/month, and (3) adapting to emergent needs that arise due to school and division differences (e.g., logistics of scheduling and curriculum pacing), community differences across our three counties (e.g., available resources in schools), and partner constraints.« less
  5. Hands-on design experiences to introduce first year students to chemical engineering are limited.[1] The College of Engineering, Architecture and Technology (CEAT) Summer Bridge Program at Oklahoma State University is a three-week camp designed to acclimate first year students to college life while providing calculus and physics preparatory short courses and design experiences from multiple disciplines in CEAT.[2] Since first-year students enjoy and value hands-on experiences,[2] we have developed a hands-on design module on the topic of pharmaceutical dosing for the chemical engineering portion of the Summer Bridge Program. We have taught the design module in nine sessions that were eachmore »two hours per day over three days during the 2015 – 2018 offerings of the Summer Bridge Program. The detailed lesson plan for using the design module to introduce mass balance and design concepts and an overview of the initial version of the MATLAB app were discussed in our previous ASEE conference proceedings paper.[2] In the present work, we discuss a redesigned MATLAB app (Figure 1) that has been expanded from two drugs and four cases to five drugs and eight cases. The new version of the MATLAB app is available as SB17CHE.mlappinstall on our GitHub repository.[3] Any future updates to the software will be released to the same archive. Additionally, we include a new section focused on our experiences in teaching chemical engineering design concepts using the MATLAB app and in responding to typical student questions. Our aim is to provide a tutorial for other educators interested in using the MATLAB app in their classroom or outreach activities related to chemical engineering design. For those interested in creating similar computational instructional tools, we have published details regarding the software implementation of the app and its documentation.[4]« less