See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/346410573

Teaching Advanced Vehicle Dynamics Using a Project Based Learning (PBL)

Approach

Article · November 2020

CITATIONS READS

22 640

1 author:

Sangram Redkar
Arizona State University
112 PUBLICATIONS 693 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sangram Redkar on 27 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Teaching Advanced Vehicle Dynamics Using a
Project Based Learning (PBL) Approach
Sangram Redkar
Arizona State University

Abstract
This paper presents an interesting practical applications using a commer- emphasis during the initial stages of the
teaching experiment carried out at Arizona cial dynamics simulation software (MSC- learning process was to make students
State University (ASU). The author offered ADAMS). The class composition for this aware of the capabilities and limitations of
a new course in computational/analytical course was quite diverse. Some students software used to solve vehicle dynamics
vehicle dynamics to senior undergraduate had more than 20 years of industrial expe- problems. This led to the development
students, graduate students, and practic- rience and some undergraduate students of an ‘engineering-sense,’ or an ability to
ing engineers. As the author initially ex- had little or no industrial experience. In make sense of the results obtained using
plored the possibility of incorporating a order to help students meet their learn- the software.
PBL approach in this course, the follow- ing goals, the author (instructor) adopted In this paper, we review this ‘under-
ing question arose: Can a PBL approach an integrated PBL approach. The author stand-crawl-walk-run’ PBL approach ad-
be successfully implemented in a diverse tuned PBL methodology for a diverse opted for this course and present some of
classroom where the individual students classroom and helped students meet their the challenges faced by the author. We
may have different skill sets and academic educational goals. evaluate this PBL pedagogy, qualitatively
expectations? This paper reports the ef- In the PBL approach used here, the and quantitatively and discuss the results
forts to find answers to this important ques- students were presented with theory con- of student survey, assessment, student
tion via a practical experiment. The author cepts and along with in-class tutorials, learning objectives and course evalua-
designed and offered a PBL course to a di- where the instructor discussed each step tions. We also present evidence that the
verse class of students and measured the in detail. Students were then assigned PBL is an effective approach for teaching
outcomes via qualitative and quantitative home-works that strengthened the under- a diverse class where students have dif-
assessment and triangulation approach. standing of the concepts, and finally, were ferent backgrounds, age, experience, and
The objective of this PBL course was asked to work on a real life project that academic expectations.
to present vehicle dynamics theory with forced them to ‘think outside the box’. The

perience, 30 percent of the graduate students

Introduction:
had less than two years of experience, and
In the fall of 2008, the graduate students 10percent of the senior undergraduate students
and practicing engineers requested the author, were interested in pursuing careers in automo-
an Assistant Professor in the Department of tive engineering.
Engineering Technology (ET) to offer a new Even though the project-based teaching is
course in computational vehicle dynamics that a very popular approach in STEM education,
would allow them to understand vehicle dynam- this approach needs to be implemented slightly
ics from a multi-body analytical dynamics point differently when the student population ranges
of view and use a commercial dynamics soft- from senior executives with 20 years or more
ware (MSC-ADAMS) to solve practical vehicle of experience to senior undergraduate students
dynamics problems (MSC Website, 2011). It is with little to no practical experience (Ramsden,
noted that MSC is the software company that 2002; Blumenfeld, 1991; DeFillippi, 2001; Hme-
has developed the multi-body dynamics simula- lo-Silver, 2004). A lot of “short term” Continuing
tion software ADAMS and various modules like Education Programs (CEP), industry training
ADAMS-View, ADAMS-Car, etc. This course courses, and certification classes use similar
was offered as a graduate/senior undergradu- teaching methodology. However, the differ-
ate course and had a unique class composition. ence between these “short term” CEPs and one
Forty percent of the students had 10 years or semester university courses is that the “short
more of industrial experience, 20 percent of the term” programs use a more focused approach
students had 20 years or more of industrial ex- and have very specific learning objectives. On

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 17

the other hand, a typical university course spans based instruction, community of inquiry, use of
over 16 weeks and has broader learning objec- technology tools, and multidisciplinary themes.
tives than the “short term” CEP course. The Thomas (1999) and Scardamalia (1991) discuss
author feels that the main difference between the various aspects of PBL. However, some in-
a “short term” course and semester course is teresting questions arise when one tries to un-
that the “short term” course provides the profes- derstand, implement, and assess PBL. PBL has
sional skills while the university course should been defined and implemented with so many
provide “an ability to develop and enhance pro- variations it is difficult to distinguish between PBL
fessional skill set”. and Non PBL. As an example, should the instruc-
One interesting example would be the “short tor define a project or should students choose
term” Finite Element Analysis (FEA) courses projects? What level of instructor involvement is
offered by many FEA commercial software ven- necessary? Should the projects be real-life proj-
dors. These courses equip the students with ects or academic projects? How is project based
the procedure of carrying out a FEA with the learning different than “intentional learning,” “de-
software, but fail to provide the “engineering sign experiments,” and “problem based learning”
sense”. The author has seen many instances (Scardamalia, 1991; Scardamalia, 1989; Brown,
where the students trust the software results 1992; Brown, 1996; Gallagher, 1995; Gallagher,
blindly, and arrive at erroneous results and de- 1995). Is active learning a subset or superset
signs. Thus, the author wanted to present the of PBL? How is an integrated lecture/lab class
material via PBL so that the student can learn different from PBL or discovery learning? Many
the skill set and develop an ability to make graduate level classes have projects; can they
sense out of the software results. This is pos- be classified as a PBL? Are there any grades in
sible if the students have the theoretical under- PBL?
standing of the material, know the advantages It can be noted that the idea of assigning
and limitations of particular software, work out class projects is not new. So when and why
and validate the test cases, and extend this would PBL be different compared to a hands-
knowledge to solve the practical problems. on, discovery-based learning approach? The
Development of a semester-long PBL five important criteria that separate PBL from
course for a diverse student population needed other learning methodologies as presented by
a strong collaboration from the industry, MSC Thomas (1999) are centrality, driving question,
software, and the university. The central idea constructive investigations, autonomy, and re-
behind the course was that the analytical ve- alism.
hicle dynamics theory would be covered by Another important part of PBL research is
the instructor, U-Haul Technical Center would studying student characteristics and their rela-
suggest and support suitable ‘real life’ projects, tionship with PBL. There are various student
and the students would work on these projects characteristic variables that can affect the ef-
using MSC ADAMS software suite (specifically, fectiveness of PBL. Several PBL practitioners
ADAMS View, ADAMS Car, ADAMS Chassis have stated that PBL, because of its unique
etc) (U-Haul, 2011). The MSC university pro- features, is a more effective means of adapting
gram supported this idea and provided ASU to students’ various learning styles or “multiple
with an academic network license for 150 seats intelligences” than the traditional instructional
(MSC Academia, 2011). This academic license model (Gardner, 1991; Diehl, 1999). In this pa-
allowed the students to work on class projects per, we would like to present evidence that PBL
and homework problems using MSC-ADAMS. can be tuned to students’ various learning abili-
The MSC university program manager also ties and expectations in a diverse classroom.
provided the instructor MSC-ADAMS study ma- The past research on PBL and student char-
terial that is used by MSC software in their com- acteristics has looked at investigating learning
mercial “short term” CEP training programs. styles of students who were characterized by
their teachers as “pleasant surprises” (students
who perform poorly in conventional classrooms,
1. Instruction Methodology:
but who do well in PBL activities) and “disap-
The PBL approach has been used in STEM pointing surprises” (students who performed
education to enhance understanding of the well in conventional classrooms, but who turned
course material. It has been reported that this in poor projects or no projects at all) (Rosenfeld,
approach is effective and widely used in variety 1998).
of classroom settings (Thomas, 2000). Some of Researchers have studied the effect of
the important characteristics of PBL are project gender and PBL. Boaler et. al (1998) have

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 18

discussed that PBL can be used to engage “re- and analysis process (‘crawl’). Later, project
luctant students” in the course. It is interesting assignments (home-works) were given to the
to note that in these studies the students had students so that they could work out the prob-
similar backgrounds and course expectations. lems on their own (‘walk’). Finally, the students
In this study, we report the effectiveness of PBL were assigned some real-life projects to test
in a diverse classroom where the students have and hone their skills (‘run’). At the beginning
different backgrounds, ages, and expectations. of the course, the students were presented with
There is a significant body of PBL research this teaching approach and suggested to select
where the challenges in PBL implementation a project that can be developed in a building
are reported (Krajcik, 1998; Krajcik, 1994). The block approach throughout the semester. It is
challenges while implementing PBL when the noted that this approach is termed as “under-
student population is diverse are slightly differ- stand-crawl-walk-run” to indicate its relation-
ent. In this work, we also present the challenges ship to MSC’s “crawl-walk-run” approach. The
that the instructor faced while presenting the relative relationship between these phases is
material via PBL. shown in Table 1. Table 1 was developed by
We propose a simple “understand-crawl-walk- mapping the material covered, assignments,
run” approach to PBL with teaching advanced ve- and projects during the semester and teaching
hicle dynamics as a case study. We try to answer material to course progression. It is interesting
the following fundamental questions. to note that these phases overlap each other.
However, as the course advances, the overlaps
1. Can PBL be implemented for a classroom
between these phases reduce. Initially, the stu-
when the student population is diverse
dents have to go back and forth between “un-
in terms of background, experience, and
derstand” and “crawl” and need to spend a lot of
age?
time correlating the theory material to software
2. How do we measure if PBL was successful
applications. As the students become familiar
or not?
with the software and understand the strengths
3. What are the challenges while implement-
and weaknesses of the software, the transition
ing PBL for such a diverse classroom? Are
from “crawl” to “walk” and from “walk” to “run” is
these challenges typical?
much smoother and faster, which is analogues
4. Can we provide some evidence-based
to the natural process of an infant learning loco-
guidelines for designing, implementing and
motion.
assessing PBL effectively and efficiently?
The Multi-body Systems Approach to Ve-
The course we implemented this “under- hicle Dynamics by M. Blundell and D. Harty
stand-crawl-walk-run” PBL approach involved (2007) was selected as a text for the course
some theoretical material and hands-on proj- because it discussed the computational multi-
ects using the MSC ADAMS software suite. body dynamics with software applications. Prof.
The study material provided by MSC was Blundell from Coventry University provided his
based on MSC’s ‘crawl-walk-run’ approach. In teaching material and assignments to the in-
this approach, students build and analyze mod- structor (Coventry Website, 2011). The instruc-
els of progressively complex assemblies and tor was able to offer this course in fall of 2008
systems. The instructor decided to adopt this because of generous support from MSC Soft-
approach with slight modifications (understand- ware, U-Haul Technical Center, and Coventry
crawl-walk-run). Initially, the theory material University. This was a very unique endeavor,
was presented and explained the theoretical where a team from the industry and universities
concepts outlined in the text (‘understand’). from the US and abroad came together so that
Some simple tutorials were presented where the students can have a very good ‘cutting edge
the students were guided through the modeling and hands-on’ learning experience.

Course Progression
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Understand
Crawl
Walk
Run
Table 1: Various phases of the approach

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 19

 Topic Topic Name Weeks Focus Area
No
1 Introduction 1 Course Outline, Projects
discussion and project
assignments.
2 Kinematics and Dynamics of 2,3 Review of concepts in Dynamics
Rigid Bodies of Multi-body systems
3 Multi-body Systems Simulation 4,5 Introduction to ADAMS-View,
Software ADAMS-Car
4 Modeling and Analysis of 6,7 Types of suspensions, suspension
Suspension Systems modeling and analysis using
ADAMS-Car
5 Tire Characteristics and 8, 9 Introduction to tire models,
Modeling applications of tire models,
modeling tire in ADAMS-car
6 Modeling and the Assembly of 10, 11, Modeling and assembling
the Full Vehicle 12 subsystems to create full vehicle
7 Simulation Output and 13, 14 Virtual testing using ADAMS-Car
Interpretation
8 Project presentations 15,16
Table 2: Course Outline and Schedule

2. Course Learning Objectives and Twenty percent of the students had 20 years
Syllabus Structure: or more of industrial experience (‘Group A’), 40
percent of the students had 10 years or more
This PBL course had two primary course
of industrial experience (‘Group B’), 30 percent
learning objectives. After successful completion
of the graduate students had less than 2 years
of the course:
of experience (‘Group C’), and 10 percent of
1. The students should be able to understand
the senior undergraduate students (‘Group
multi-body system approach to vehicle dy-
D’) were interested in pursuing careers in au-
namics.
tomotive engineering. At the beginning of the
2. The students should be able to use multi-
course, the instructor conducted a brief student
body computational software (MSC-AD-
survey to understand following:
AMS) to solve vehicle dynamics problems.
a) Student comfort level in analytical/theoreti-
It is to be noted that vehicle dynamics is a cal dynamics
complex subject that involves concept from de- b) Student comfort level in mathematical con-
sign, system analysis, vehicle handling, and cepts like matrices, vectors transformation,
safety. In order to understand multi-body system and calculus.
approach to vehicles, one has to consider vari- c) Student comfort level in modeling and
ous subsystems such as steering, suspension, drafting.
tires, chassis, etc. The second objective focuses d) Student understanding of practical vehicle
on understanding and modeling the subsystems dynamics problems.
and assemblies in MSC-ADAMS, parameter e) Student ability to correlate simulation re-
specifications, studying performance, simula- sults to actual experiments.
tions, and interpretation of the test results. Thus, f) Student experience with actual vehicle han-
the lecture schedule was comprised of topics dling/dynamic testing.
(shown in Table 2) like vehicle dynamics, intro- g) Student expectations (self-learning objec-
duction to simulation, and testing. MSC training tives).
material was incorporated as appropriate.
The basic purpose of the survey was to
tailor the course content to students’ back-
3. Class Composition and Academic
grounds, expectations and experience and to
Expectations: offer a project based learning experience. The
This class had a unique class composition. students were asked to self-evaluate on the

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 20

 Question Group A Group B Group C Group D

(a) comfort level in Low Medium High Medium

analytical/theoretical
dynamics
(b) comfort level in Medium Medium Medium Medium
math
(c) comfort level in Low High Medium High
modeling and
drafting
(d) understanding of High High Medium Low
practical problems
(e)ability to High High Medium Low
correlate simulation
results to actual
experiments
(f) experience with High High Low Low
actual vehicle
handing/dynamic
testing
Table 3: Student Survey Results

scale of 1-10, where 1 is the lowest and 10 cor- and vehicle assembly problem. The students
responds to the highest. The scale ‘High’ refers were asked to prepare project proposals that
to score of 8 and above, ‘Medium’ refers to the were reviewed by the instructor. It is noted that
score of 4 to 7 and ‘Low’ refers to scores 3 and simulations, when used in conjunction with the-
below. The outcome of survey questions (a-f) ory, could be very useful in learning and teach-
is presented in Table 3. ing (Barron, 1998; Shtub, 2009; Babich, 2009).
Students from ‘Group A’ expected more un- However, for this class, some of the simulation
derstanding and correlation of software simula- project proposals were either too broad or too
tion and experimental testing. Students from specific. Some proposals needed resources
‘Group B’ wanted to focus on developing soft- and background beyond the scope of the
ware as well as analytical skills. Students from course. Another important factor emphasized
‘Group C’ expected to get more understanding by the instructor was that the projects should
of the software and detailed modeling and anal- have a building block (subsystem-assembly-
ysis procedure. The students from ‘Group D’ analysis-simulation-validation) approach that
were keen on learning the software and simula- would fit the ‘understand-crawl-walk-run’ teach-
tion approaches. ing philosophy as shown in Figure 1.
It can be noted that the class population
Some of the sample projects students worked
had a lot of expectations for this course. At the
on were:
beginning of the course, the students were pre-
sented with PBL approach and asked to select a) Trailer analysis: In this project, students
a project that can be developed via a building proposed to study the dynamic performance of
block approach. Interestingly, the students in larger trailers with a load compensating linkage
‘Group A’ proposed to work on a practical sub- between the front and rear spring systems.
assembly problem instead of a full vehicle. The b) Modeling and dynamic simulation of
students in ‘Group B’ proposed to model and SUV-trailer combination: In this project, the
analyze a vehicle dynamics problem for which students proposed to analyze a SUV-Trailer
the experimental test data was available. The combination and study pulse steer, yaw mode
students in ‘Group C’ proposed to work on a ve- oscillatory stability, and under-steer testing.
hicle subassembly-integration problem and stu-
dents in ‘Group D’ wanted to work on the model- c) Dynamic analysis and testing of surge
ing and analysis of ‘SAE-Mini Baja’ subsystem brake: In this project, a student proposed to

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 21

model, analyze, and simulate surge brake as- Understand Crawl
sembly. The results from the simulations would -Dynamics Background -Subsystem Modelling
be compared to experimental results. Figure 2 -Vehicle Dynamics -Subsystem analysis
shows the surge brake assembly and braking -Simulation and testing methods - Spring Damper, Vehicle body
mechanism, Figure 3 shows the MSC-ADAMS Steering, Tire Tutorials
model, and Figure 4 shows the compression
spring deformation and driving torque require-
ment per stroke. This analysis helped to de-
sign the surge brake durability testing machine
shown in Figure 5. Shah (2008) discusses
more details about this project. Run Walk
- Integrating vehicle -Modifying tutorials as per
d) Dynamic analysis of a torsion bar system: subassemblies project
In this project, a student proposed to model, -Developing full vehicle - Creating subassemblies
simulate and analyze a torsion bar system -Vehicle simulation and testing -Analyzing Subassemblies
(shown in Figure 7) for trailers. The simula-
tion results (forces on torsion bar) for a typical
vehicle-trailer maneuver are shown in Figure 8. Figure 1: Teaching Methodology
More details about the project are discussed by
Shah (2008) in ‘Leading arm and trailing arm
suspension design.’
e) Steering-Suspension system analysis: In this
project, the students proposed to model and
analyze simple steering-suspension geometry
and create a template. This assembly would
be similar to SAE-Mini Baja car suspension-
steering system.
As the students started working on the proj-
ects, they encountered several problems. To (a) Surge Brake
assist them further, the ET Department and
ATIC organized a MSC Software hands-on (b) Surge Brake Mechanism
workshop (Arizona State, 2011). The university
program managers of MSC software enthusi-
astically expressed their support and helped to
organize this event (shown in Figure 9). The
objectives of this workshop were to introduce
faculty, students, and practicing engineers
to MSC software products, discuss the MSC Figure 2: Surge Brake Assembly (Shah, 2008).
university program, and address the problems

Figure 3: Surge Brake ADAMS-Model (Shah, 2008).

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 22

 a) Spring Deformation

b) Torque Requirement

Figure 4: Simulation Results (Shah, 2008).

students faced while working on their projects.

Two hands=on sessions (discussed below)
were also organized to familiarize participants
with Virtual Product Development (VPD) tech-
nology.

Session I: [Link]-Mechanical
System Simulation
In this session, the speaker discussed MSC-
ADAMS. Often called a multi-body dynamics
program, ADAMS is MSC’s tool for studying
systems with large motions, with both rigid and
flexible bodies without any assumptions about
linearity. It automatically includes both geomet-
ric and inertial nonlinear effects. Typical appli-
cations from orbital dynamics and full-vehicle
handling down to disc drive head response and
nano-fabricator controls were also presented.

Figure 6: Surge Brakes Durability testing Machine (Shah, 2008).

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 23

Session-II: MSC. Nastran-Finite
Element Analysis
In this session, applications of MSC’s analytical
simulation software to support effective design
and assessment of product designs were pre-
sented. The speaker demonstrated the finite el-
ement modeling process by presenting a linear
static problem and a more complex transient
dynamic impact problem.

4. Student Course Evaluations:

At the end of the course, course evaluations
were conducted. The students evaluated the
course (exclusive of instructor) based on fol-
lowing seven questions.
EVALUATION OF THE COURSE (exclusive of
the instructor)
1. Textbook/supplementary material in sup- Figure 7: Torsion bar for trailer
port of the course
2. Value of assigned homework in support of
the course topics.
3. Value of laboratory assignments/projects
in support of the course topics.
4. Reasonableness of exams and quizzes in
covering course material.
5. Weight given to labs or projects, relative
to exams and quizzes.
6. Weight given to homework assignments,
relative to exams and quizzes.
7. Definition and application of criteria for
grading.
Students graded the course and instructor
on a scale of A to E. This survey was compiled
and assigned a numeric score between 2 and 5
(where 5-Very Good, 4-Good, 3-Fair, 2-Poor).
Teaching is considered very important in the
Engineering Technology department at ASU
and departmental teaching evaluation averages
are typically very high. The instructor did not
have access to the evaluation data before the
grades were posted.
The teaching evaluations are very useful
to assess the effectiveness of the course and Figure 8: Simulation results
instructor, and provide valuable information so
that the course can be improved. In Figure 10,
the course evaluations for MET 591: Advanced
Vehicle Dynamics are presented and compared
with the departmental course evaluation aver-
ages.

5. Teaching Effectiveness:
It can be observed from Figure 10 that in most
criterions the student evaluations exceeded the
department average. In this section, we ana-

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 24

lyze each criterion, the author’s efforts to ad-
dress that criterion, and the student response
in detail.
EVALUATION OF THE COURSE (exclusive of
the instructor)
1. Textbook/supplementary material in
support of the course:
In the summer of 2008, the author reviewed
multiple textbooks to use for this course.
The author noticed that the conventional
analytical vehicle dynamics books did not
introduce the computational software tools
(like MSC-ADAMS) in sufficient details. On
the other hand, the books that presented
the applications and use of software in de-
tail did not have sufficient theory. Thus,
author used the text by Blundell and Harty
(2007) and supplemented the text by the
commercial “short term” training material
provided by MSC Software Corporation
(MSC Software, 2011). To make sure that
the transition from theory to software ap-
plication is smooth, the author also wrote
and presented some ‘bridge tutorials and
problems.’
2. Value of assigned homework in sup-
port of the course topics.
As the course was based on a PBL ap-
proach, the home-works had practical
applications associated with them. For
example, one home-work was a simplified Figure 9: MSC Software Hands on Workshop
vehicle-trailer configuration and students

Figure 10: Teaching Evaluations for MET 591: Advanced Vehicle Dynamics

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 25

No. Course Objective Average Comments/Observations
Score
1 Develop an ability 2.7 1. The discussion of multi-body dynamics
to understand helped students
multi-body system 2. The projects and overall objectives of the
approach to vehicle course-industry and school collaboration were
dynamics. appreciated by students.

2 Develop an ability 2.6 1. Introductory class on MSC-software was

to use multi-body helpful.
computational 2. Students feel comfortable with the software
software (MSC- and are confident that they can build on that
ADAMS) to solve foundation.
vehicle dynamics
problems
Table 4: Student Exit Survey

were asked to model it and compare ana- constituted a significant amount of the
lytical and MSC-ADAMS solutions. In other grade in tune with the PBL philosophy.
home-works students were asked to ana- 6. Weight given to homework assign-
lyze a simple spring mass damper system ments, relative to exams and quizzes.
using MSC-ADAMS and then use it further The homework assignments and project
for the suspension analysis. reports constituted about 25 percent of
3. Value of laboratory assignments/proj- the grade. The students were encouraged
ects in support of the course topics. to log on to ASU’s network and use the
The lab assignment for this course includ- software for homework via remote log on.
ed solving tutorials, computer simulations, Instructor assistance was available for the
and examples using the MSC-ADAMS students who had difficulties while doing
software. Depending upon the type of the homework via WebEx.
project students selected, examples were 7. Definition and application of criteria for
discussed and worked out in the lab. The grading.
final course projects were real-life projects The following scale was used for grading:
and students were asked to solve them, A: >85%
write course reports, and present the work B: 85-76
in front of the class and instructor. C:75-66
4. Reasonableness of exams and quizzes D: 65-55
in covering course material. E<55.
All the exams for this course were take- Students were informed about the current
home projects where student worked on grades and statuses in a timely manner.
the problems and instructor assistance In the context of student evaluation, the first
was available in case students had any course objective related to the following evalu-
questions. The mid-term and final projects ation questions
were associated with text material and 1. Textbook/supplementary material in sup-
course notes. port of the course
5. Weight given to labs or projects, rela- 2. Value of assigned homework in support of
tive to exams and quizzes. the course topics
For this course the following weights were 3. Reasonableness of exams and quizzes in
used for grading covering course material.
Projects (Mid-term and Final): 30%, The second course objective related to:
Research Paper/Report : 30%, 1. Value of laboratory assignments/projects
Assignments (Lab and Homework): 20%, in support of the course topics.
Class Participation: 20%. 2. Weight given to labs or projects, relative to
Thus, the lab assignments and projects exams and quizzes.

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 26

 It can be observed from Figure 10 that this Acknowledgement:
course met or exceeded the departmental
The author would like to thank Mr. Paul
course evaluation average when the evaluation
Grabill of U-Haul Technical Center, Mr. Dan
questions are mapped to the course objectives.
Abir, Mr. Lindley Bark, Dr. Andrew Elliot and
Hence, we can conclude that the course objec-
Mr. Jim Ryan of MSC Software. Special words
tives were successfully met.
of thanks go to Ms. Casey Radigan, University
It can also be noted that at the end of the
Program Manager at MSC software, for her
course, an exit survey was conducted that asked
help and support. The author is also thankful to
students to evaluate if the course objectives
Dr. Mike Blundell for sharing his course materi-
were met on the scale of 0-3 where 0- course
al. The author is also thankful to Dr. Anshuman
objectives were not met at all, 1- course objec-
Razdan and Ms. Jane Laux for their help and
tives were partially met, 2- course objectives
support in organizing MSC software workshop
were completely met, and 3- course objective
through ATIC.
were exceeded. The students were also asked
to provide reasons for their numeric score. The
results of this survey are presented in table 5. It References:
is noted that since this was an anonymous sur-
Arizona State University College of Technology
vey the student scores and comments cannot be
and Innovation Website. (Retrieved 2011,
mapped against the student profile (or groups)
Feb. 22). http:/[Link]/
similar to the survey presented in Table 4.
Based on the student evaluation of the course Babich, A., & Mavrommatis, K. (2009). Teach-
and exit survey, it can be seen that this course ing of complex technological processes
met the course objectives successfully. It is using simulations. International Journal of
also noted that the students suggested some Engineering Education, 25(2), 209-220.
improvements like: Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J.,
1. Incorporating more tutorials Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., Brans-
2. Offering this course as a two-semester ford, J. D., & The Cognition and Technol-
course ogy Group at Vanderbilt. (1998).Doing
3. Offering a follow-up course with understanding: Lessons from research
on problem- and project-based learning. The
6. Conclusion: Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271-311.
The ‘Advanced Vehicle Dynamics’ course Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W.,
presented a case where ASU, local industries, Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A.
and MSC software came together to offer stu- (1991).Motivating project-based learning:
dents an excellent educational experience. The Sustaining the doing, supporting the learn-
instructor adopted the ‘understand-crawl-walk- ing. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4),
run’ type of teaching philosophy mixing theory 369-398.
and practice. Because of the diverse class Blundell, M., & Harty, D. (2007). The multibody
composition and varied student expectation, systems approach to vehicle dynamics.
the instructor used a PBL approach, where the Elsevier Publishing.
students could concentrate and achieve their
individual learning goals. The routine class Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathemat-
discussions helped students to understand the ics: Student experiences and understand-
material. A hands-on workshop was organized ings. Journal for Research in Mathemat-
for the problems and questions that needed ics Education, 29, 41-62.
‘expert help’. Specific efforts to encourage Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: The-
active learning included blending theory with oretical and methodological challenges in
practical industrial applications, case studies, creating complex interventions in class-
well defined yet flexible curriculum, and peri- room settings. Journal of the Learning Sci-
odic assessments that resulted in high teaching ences, 2, 141-178
evaluations and meeting the course objectives.
Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psy-
Thus, we can observe that well-designed PBL
chological theory and the design of in-
can be a very effective approach to instruct a
novative learning environments. On pro-
diverse class of students.
cedures, principles, and systems. In L.
Schauble & R. Glaser (Eds.). Innovation in

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 27

 learning: New environments for education MSC Software Academia Webpage. (Retrieved
(pp. 289-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl- 2011, Jan. 2).
baum Associates. http ://[Link]/university/
Coventry University Website. (Retrieved 2011, Ramsden, P. (2002). Learning to teach in high-
Feb. 10). [Link] er education. Routledge, N Y.
DeFillippi, Robert J. (2001). Introduction: Proj- Rosenfeld, M., & Rosenfeld, S. (1998). Under-
ect-based learning, reflective practices standing the “surprises” in PBL: An explo-
and learning. Management Learning, ration into the learning styles of teachers
32; 5. and their students. Paper presented at
the European Association for Research
Diehl, W., Grobe, T., Lopez, H., & Cabral, C.
in Learning and Instruction (EARLI), Swe-
(1999). Project-based learning: A strategy
den.
for teaching and learning. Boston, MA:
Center for Youth Development and Educa- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1991). Higher
tion, Corporation for Business, Work, and levels of agency for children in knowledge
Learning. building: A challenge for the design of new
knowledge media. Journal of the Learning
Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., & Rosenthal,
Sciences, 1, 37-68.
H. (1995). The effects of problem-based
learning on problem solving. Gifted Child Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLearn, R. S.,
Quarterly, 36, 195-200. Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Com-
puter supported intentional learning en-
Gallagher, S. A., Stepien, W. J., Sher, B. J.,
vironments. Journal of Educational
& Workman, D. (1995). Implementing
Computing Research, 5, 51-68.
problem based learning in science class-
rooms. School Science and Mathematics, Shah, B. (2008). Design and construction of
95,136-146. surge brake durability testing machine.
MS Project report/MET 591 class project
Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind. New
report, Arizona State University.
York: Basic Books.
Shah, M. (2008). Leading arm and trailing arm
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based
suspension design. MET 591 Class proj-
learning: What and how do students learn?
ect report, Arizona State University.
16(3), 235-266.
Shtub, A., Parush, A., &Hewett, T. (2009).
Jones, B. F., Rasmussen, C. M., & Moffitt, M.
Guest editorial: The use of simulation in
C. (1997). Real-life problem solving.: A
learning and teaching. International Jour-
collaborative approach to interdisciplinary
nal of Engineering Education, 25(2), 206-
learning. Washington, DC: American Psy-
208.
chological Association.
Thomas, J. W., & Mergendoller, J. R. (2000).
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W.,
Managing project-based learning: Prin-
Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E.
ciples from the field. Presented at the An-
(1998). Inquiry in project-based science
nual Meeting of the American Educational
classrooms: Initial attempts by middle
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
school students. The Journal of the Learn-
ing Sciences, 7, 313-350. Thomas, J. W., Mergendoller, J. R., & Michael-
son, A. (1999). Project-based learning: A
Krajcik, J. S., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W.,
handbook for middle and high school
& Soloway, E. (1994). A collaborative mo-
teachers. Novato, CA: The Buck Institute
defor helping middle-grade science teach-
for Education.
ers learn project-based instruction. The
Elementary School Journal, 94, 483-497. U-Haul Website. (Retrieved 2011, Feb. 12).
[Link]
Meyer, D. K., Turner, J. C., & Spencer, C. A.
(1997). Challenge in a mathematics class-
room: Students’ motivation and strategies
in project-based learning. The Elementary
School Journal, 97(5), 501-521.
MSC Software Website. (Retrieved 2011, Feb.
22). [Link]

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 28

Sangram Redkar received his PhD from Auburn University in 2005. He joined Arizona State University
in the fall of 2007 as a tenure track assistant professor. Dr. Redkar has a keen interest in engineering
education. Dr. Redkar’s research interests are a) Nonlinear Dynamics and Control b) Inertial navigation and
GPS c) Design, Dynamics and control of Micro-Electro Mechanical Systems (MEMS). He has graduated 10
MS students and one PhD student. His research work at ASU (since fall of 2007) has resulted in 18 journal
publications, nine peer reviewed conference papers and one research monograph.

Journal of STEM Education Volume 13 • Issue 3 May-June 2012 29

Copyright of Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research is the property of Institute for STEM
Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.

View publication stats