Pierce, R. S., & Nathan, R., & Howard, W. E., & Sylcott, B. (2018, June), Machine Design: Different Pedagogical Approaches to Achieve Targeted Outcomes  Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. 10.18260/1-2--30780

\bibitem{asee_peer_30780}
  Pierce, R. S., \& Nathan, R., \& Howard, W. E., \& Sylcott, B. (2018, June), \emph{Machine Design: Different Pedagogical Approaches to Achieve Targeted Outcomes}
  Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah.
  10.18260/1-2--30780

Robert Scott Pierce P.E., Rungun Nathan, William E. Howard, and Brian Sylcott.  "Machine Design: Different Pedagogical Approaches to Achieve Targeted Outcomes".  2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah, 2018, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2018.  https://strategy.asee.org/30780 Internet.  28 May, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_30780}
  Robert Scott Pierce P.E., Rungun Nathan, William E. Howard, and Brian Sylcott.
  "Machine Design: Different Pedagogical Approaches to Achieve Targeted Outcomes".
  \emph{2018 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah, 2018, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2018.
  https://strategy.asee.org/30780 Internet.  28 May, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_30780
author = "Robert Scott Pierce P.E., Rungun Nathan, William E. Howard, and Brian Sylcott"
title = "Machine Design: Different Pedagogical Approaches to Achieve Targeted Outcomes"
booktitle = "2018 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition "
year = "2018"
month = "June"
address = "Salt Lake City, Utah"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://strategy.asee.org/30780}
number = {10.18260/1-2--30780}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Most undergraduate Mechanical Engineering and Bachelor of Science in Engineering Mechanical Concentration curricula include a junior-level course on the topic of machine design.  The content of this course has its roots in academic research in solid mechanics, mechanisms and machine elements.  Textbooks for the course focus heavily on the derivation and application of methods used to analyze and predict failure of individual machine elements such as shafts, bearings, gears and some other components like springs, rivets, and fasteners.  The content of most machine design courses reflect this emphasis on analytical methods.  Outcomes for these courses focus on the ability of the student to predict failure of machine elements subjected to variety of different loading conditions.  This emphasis is reasonable since the ability to predict failure of individual machine elements is arguably the most important outcome for this course.  
While a focus on analytical methods should enhance students’ ability to predict failure in machine elements, achievement of this outcome may come at the expense of other important outcomes.  These include the ability to use computer-aided engineering tools such as finite-element analysis, the ability to think at the systems-level, or the ability to select off-the-shelf components from vendor catalogs.  All of these outcomes are important in the practice of machine design and all utilize skills that are best learned through experience.  For this reason, many instructors have begun to include project-based assignments in their machine design courses.  A well-designed project can simulate the experience of working as a machine design engineer.  This gives students the chance to apply their newly-learned analytical skills and to develop the experience-based skills that are important to the practice of machine design.
In this work, we compare different pedagogical approaches to teaching machine design.  The authors teach machine design at three different regional, comprehensive public universities with similar student populations.  The pedagogical approach in the different courses ranges from the classic, analysis-focused approach to a strongly project-based approach.   We discuss and compare the different approaches in terms of the use of class time, assessment methods, and desired outcomes.  We present and discuss data on achievement of outcomes from course assessment and from student surveys.  We combine and present the ABET outcomes assessed in this course at the individual institutions.  We conclude by presenting relationships between course content, instructional approach, and outcomes achieved. 

Keywords: Machine design, Project based, Mechanical system
 [1]      Le, X.L., Duva, A.W., Jackson, M., “The Balance of Theory, Simulation and Projects for Mechanical Component Design Course,” Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June, 2014.

[2] Monterrubio, L.E.,  Sirinterlikci, A., “A Hands-on Approach in Teaching Machine Design,”  Proceedings of the 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June, 2015.

[3] Malak, P.W., Nagurka, M.L., “Machine Design Experiments Using Mechanical Springs to Foster Discovery Learning,” Proceedings of the 121st ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June, 2014.

AU  - Robert Scott Pierce P.E.
AU  - Rungun Nathan
AU  - William E. Howard
AU  - Brian Sylcott
CY  - Salt Lake City, Utah
DA  - 2018/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Machine Design: Different Pedagogical Approaches to Achieve Targeted Outcomes
UR  - https://strategy.asee.org/30780
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--30780
ER  -