Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byErik Bishop Modified over 9 years ago
1
Melting-Pot Design at Oakland University Michael A. Latcha, Ph.D. Debatosh Debnath, Ph.D. Imad Elhajj, Ph.D. Edward Y.L. Gu, Ph.D. Richard E. Haskell, Ph.D.
2
Reasons for change n Assessments of senior design showed significant problems Most problems traced to lack of multidisciplinary expertise Problems had to be limited to expertise of single field, not real-world in scope or complexity Great duplication of effort across School, stretching limited resources
3
The “Melting Pot” Approach Overview n Combine all engineering and computer science senior design courses n Combined course supervised by team of professors from Electrical, Computer and Mechanical engineering n Design groups are assigned based on field, skills and experience n Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors n Questions are almost always answered only with “I don’t know, let’s find out” n Always culminates in a public competition/expo
4
Combine 5 courses into one n Combine all engineering (computer, electrical, mechanical and systems), and computer science senior design courses n Combined course supervised by 3 professors from Electrical, Computer and Mechanical engineering Design groups meet 20 min/week with faculty, other times as needed
5
Assigning design teams n Design groups are assigned based on major field, skills and experience 70-100 students/semester Roughly 40% electrical, 40% mechanical, 15% computer/computer science, 5% systems Assignments based on field, life experiences and skills, interests
6
Don’t answer questions n Questions are (almost) always answered only with “I don’t know, let’s find out” Forces students to rely on research skills rather than faculty expertise Allows students to watch faculty learn Generates more freedom in choice of projects
7
The importance of competition n Always culminates in a public competition/expo Self-motivation is the only effective kind Simple competition is sufficient Rules of competition provide reasons and justification for engineering decisions Expositions are great for public relations
8
Choice of design projects n Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors W’04: line-following autonomous cars, additional payload of 15 lb, 100-m closed circuit track with obstacles
9
Choice of design projects n Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors F’04: Rope-climbing robots, to top of 100’ tower, in any weather
10
Choice of design projects n Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors W’05: Ball-throwing robots, autonomously targeted and fired
11
Choice of design projects n F’05-W’07: “ develop a multidisciplinary product that could be competitive on the global market” do-it-yourself zone-controlled HVAC system remote trailer-hitching assistant infant simulator with respiration and pulse diagnostic muscular rigidity test
12
Choice of design projects n Planned for F’07: Each group to develop a small autonomous robot All of the robots must collectively cooperate to perform a task (marching band?) Communication between robots to be decided by communications committee, with representatives from each design group
13
Fund the cost of prototypes n Pre-W’06 Project costs funded by students, usually limited by project description n Since W’06 Projects funded by Provost’s Undergraduate Research initiative, $1000 per design group
14
Assessment and Improvement n Initial assessments showed marked improvement over separate design projects n Concept extended to new multidisciplinary sophomore design course Projects involve microprocessor control of dynamic systems
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.