MAE 4291: SENIOR DESIGN Presentation Review November 10, 2008

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
September 27, Writing Do Now At first we were fine with not having homework. I didnt realize that my grade would only be based on test scores then.
Advertisements

Using portfolios to engage first year geoscience students in their subject and to develop learning skills. Alan Boyle & Dave Prior.
Making Assessment Count (e-Reflect) Mark Clements and Gunter Saunders University of Westminster Mark Kerrigan University of Greenwich.
Class of  GPA  SAT/ACT Scores  Application/extracurricular activities.
Improving your paper SUGGESTIONS FOR SUCCESS. Writing = Revising  Writing IS a process  This paper WILL take hard work to get a good grade (or even.
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: ADVICE AND GUIDANCE FOR LINE MANAGERS Monday 1st September C am.
POGIL vs Traditional Lecture in Organic I Gary D. Anderson Department of Chemistry Marshall University Huntington, WV.
Genius online Appraisal Management System 1. Appraiser Configuration Getting Started Appraisal Management let the user to effectively conduct a users.
National Commission for Academic Accreditation & Assessment Preparation for Developmental Reviews.
MACHINE TOOL RESEARCH CENTER More advice on writing your NSF CAREER proposal Tony L. Schmitz, Assistant Professor Department of Mechanical and Aerospace.
Writing Program Assessment Report Fall 2002 through Spring 2004 Laurence Musgrove Writing Program Director Department of English and Foreign Languages.
Term Project Pick a system (discuss choice with me)  Want simple functionality, security issues, whole system (e. g., client and server side) Submit a.
S519: Evaluation of Information Systems Understanding Evaluation Ch1+2.
The Metacognitive Benefits of Self- and Peer Review Edward F. Gehringer Department of Computer Science North Carolina State University Our work in peer.
Implementing Active Learning Strategies in a Large Class Setting Travis White, Pharm.D., Assistant Professor Kristy Lucas, Pharm.D., Professor Pharmacy.
Grading Exams and Papers. Why should you work on this skill? Grades matter There are simple steps you can take to be as fair as possible!
Math 110: Pre-Calculus 1 Instructor: Mike Panitz
PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: ADVICE AND GUIDANCE FOR LINE MANAGERS.
Jeff Johnston Assistant Director, Center for Teaching Lecturer, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Vanderbilt University Meeting the learning.
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT ADVICE Or…how to get a 7 on your Internal Assessment.
Digby Regional High School Science Fair
Fair and Appropriate Grading
Mary Ann Guadagno, PhD Senior Scientific Review Officer CSR Office of the Director Review Issues – CSR Surveys.
ECE791 Senior Design Experience Project Requirements and Timeline.
Your Comments Mechanics Lecture 9, Slide 1 Just a thought, in the prelectures, when whoever is narrating them says "this all makes sense", it makes me.
SIF II Briefing Session 21 st September Briefing Session Content SIF Cycle I – overview Funding and arising issues SIF Cycle II – Process for evaluation.
Cluster and Grid Computing Course Project. Project Proposal Submit a one-page proposal to me by Tuesday, October 12 Two-person teams are encouraged No.
Helpful hints for planning your Wednesday investigation.
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT ADVICE Or…how to get a 7 on your Internal Assessment.
Improve Own Learning and Performance. Progression from levels 1-3 Progression from levels 1-3 At all levels, candidates are required to show they can.
INTERNAL ASSESSMENT ADVICE Or…how to get a 7 on your Internal Assessment.
Stephen L. Firsing III, PhD, MPA, MA John Delport, PhD Fredanna A.D. M’Cormack McGough, PhD, RD John Yannessa, PhD Mariel Celina Po, BS Kaitlyn Brown,
January 18, 2017 Bryan Weber Career Fairs Fall Semester Summary
Teacher Evaluation Timeline
Junior Guidance Spring 2017
Assessment in Language Teaching: part 1 Lecture # 23
ECE361 Engineering Practice
Writing Paper Three Monday, November 2.
Active Training Awards 2017: Transformational Leadership Award
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) State Plan: Update
Miscellaneous CHEN 4470 – Process Design Practice
Entrepreneurial Universities Initiative:
Genius Hour Final Requirements
ORAL UPDATE: WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 20
Junior Guidance Spring 2017
Demonstrating Progress In The Classroom Wednesday 12th December 2012 Today’s Session Objective: To add to my teaching toolkit so that I know many approaches.
Flipped Learning for a MBA Marketing Project
Higher physical education
Goal: To track your growth as a writer.
MAE 3291: JUNIOR DESIGN Final Team List Design Showcase Requirements
ASSIGNMENT #4 Based on your literature review so far:
Higher physical education
Bell Ringer Part I Monday November 6th
MAE 3291: JUNIOR DESIGN Presentation Review April 7, 2008
FSGP Process Step 1: Review of Scientific Merit
Summary Class 1.
METL Assessment: November Co..
Critically Critiquing
Exit Project Part 7: Revision and final copy
Scoring Open-Ended Items
IDEA Student Ratings of Instruction
Live-Scoring Argumentative Essay
MAE 4291: SENIOR DESIGN Presentation Review October 6, 2008
How much do I know about the topic?
Bell-ringer: 7 minutes What could you invent to measure something in a new way……. What would you call it? How would it work? What would it measure? What.
Bell-ringer: 5 minutes Copy CCSS/Objectives/HW
Bell-ringer: 5 minutes How could you verify your experiment results and conclusions? [Explain at least 2-3 ways.] Why is it important that you do so? Copy.
Go find a poem you like, and bring in one copy to class on Monday.
MAE 3291: JUNIOR DESIGN Presentation Review April 14, 2008
Miscellaneous CHEN 4470 – Process Design Practice
Presentation transcript:

MAE 4291: SENIOR DESIGN Presentation Review November 10, 2008 Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Department Florida Institute of Technology D. R. Kirk

Junior Design

JUNIOR DESIGN OVERALL PERFORMANCE (3-4.5 SCALE) PANTHER II PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV GLXP COEUS ARES MAV 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

JUNIOR DESIGN FINAL RANKING PIFAS HPV Channel Wing Panther II COEUS ARES GLXP Juggernaut 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

Senior Design I Presentation I

CHANNEL WING HPV COEUS MAV GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS 1. Team goal, objectives, and specifications are clear and well thought out HPV MAV CHANNEL WING COEUS GLXP ARES PANTHER II PIFAS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

CHANNEL WING HPV COEUS MAV GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS 2. The team has a good understand of the overall project and the main sub-systems, i.e., they understand the complexity and underlying nature of their proposal. HPV MAV CHANNEL WING COEUS GLXP ARES PANTHER II PIFAS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

CHANNEL WING HPV COEUS MAV GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS 3. Modeling and calculations that are being attempted make sense at this point, i.e., is this what should be calculated at this point or are they ignoring something more important that should be addressed sooner. HPV MAV CHANNEL WING COEUS GLXP ARES PANTHER II PIFAS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

4. Modeling and calculations are presented in sufficient detail. HPV MAV CHANNEL WING COEUS GLXP ARES PANTHER II PIFAS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

CHANNEL WING HPV COEUS MAV GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS 5. The team has presented sufficient evidence that the project or sub-system will succeed. HPV MAV CHANNEL WING COEUS GLXP ARES PANTHER II PIFAS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

AVERAGE SCORE CHANNEL WING HPV COEUS MAV GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

FINAL RANKING End of Junior Design PIFAS HPV Channel Wing Panther II COEUS ARES GLXP Juggernaut Mid-Term Fall Senior HPV Channel Wing ARES COEUS Panther II PIFAS GLXP Juggernaut PDR Fall Senior FDR Spring Senior 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

Senior Design I PDR

GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1. Team goal, objectives, and specifications are clear and well thought out GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 2. The team has a good understand of the overall project and the main sub-systems, i.e., they understand the complexity and underlying nature of their proposal. GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 3. Modeling and calculations that are being attempted make sense at this point, i.e., is this what should be calculated at this point or are they ignoring something more important that should be addressed sooner. GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

4. Modeling and calculations are presented in sufficient detail. GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 5. The team has presented sufficient evidence that the project or sub-system will succeed. GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

6. The team has addressed important questions GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

AVERAGE SCORE: 0 – 18 SCALE GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

AVERAGE SCORE: ZOOM-IN, 13 – 18 SCALE GLXP PANTHER II ARES PIFAS CHANNEL WING HPV MAV COEUS 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

FINAL RANKING End of Junior Design PIFAS HPV Channel Wing Panther II COEUS ARES GLXP Juggernaut Mid-Term Fall Senior HPV Channel Wing ARES COEUS Panther II PIFAS GLXP Juggernaut PDR Fall Senior HPV ARES Channel Wing GLXP PIFAS Panther II COEUS Juggernaut FDR Spring Senior 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? Nothing Each team is facing unique challenges Grading is still done on a team by team basis Everything Assessment of communication/presentation ability How you ‘stack-up’ relative to other teams Most interesting to me / and how this fits into a grade: How does each team deal with questions / rankings? Was there an attempt made to incorporate answers / suggestions / feedback? Does team even know what is going on with feedback / rankings? How will all of this information be incorporated into final report? What are you learning from projects that are going poorly? 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

OTHER COMMENTS / OBSERVATIONS Frustration with other teams not understanding your points NSF reviewer completely misunderstood my points/argument/discussion even though they were absolutely crystal clear! Conflicting comments / feedback Reviewer 1: Section 2.5 needs more scientific detail… Reviewer 2: Section 2.5 has too much detail… needs to be more of a summary… Addressing comments/critique turns out to not matter Review Round #1: received 9 comments that I addressed and re-submitted proposal Review Round #2: received 8 new comments ‘Survivor’ style voting in industry/NASA KSC: “We liked your proposal, but we only had funding for 2… we didn’t select you” Florida Tech Congressional Earmarking: “Great presentation Dan!… We love this work!... This will resonate well with the state congress!... Our lobbyist in Tallahassee thought this is a sure thing for funding… Well, in the end we didn’t pick you…” Assessment methodology is not fair NSF: Scientific merit vs. broader implications 1/14/2019 MAE 4291

NEXT STEPS Next class is on Monday, November 24th Wednesday (November 12) and Friday (November 14): Feedback from PDRs Review any modifications your team has made to final report outline Review questions from CDR presentations: Compile list of questions New vs. repeat questions Answer/address questions Due Monday, November 24th in class Final Report Draft #1: Due Friday, November 21st as electronic copy Distribute your report to two other teams for review: Monday, November 24th Report feedback/evaluation due on Friday, November 28th at noon Pick-up evaluated reports on Friday, November 28th after 3pm Final Report Draft #2 (optional): Electronic copy due by December 1st Feedback to you by December 3rd Final Report Due in electronic form on December 12th 1/14/2019 MAE 4291