Participants
In this section you will be asked:
What people have worked on your project?
What other organizations have been involved as partners?
Have you had other collaborators or contacts?
Bector, Sunil
Boggs, Michael
Challa, Rajasekhar
Dick, Kimberly R.
Eddy, Benjamin F.
Frillman, Sharron A
Goettsch, Mark
Graham, Austin
Hadley, Nathaniel T.
Kohout, Patrick H.
Latour, Jessica E
Ohland, Matthew W
Park Jr, William J
Press, Keith F.
Reeder, Justin
Sill, Benjamin L.
Soundararajan, Senthil
Stephan, Elizabeth A.
Von Ins, Christopher D
Welsh, Roy I
Wensley, Charles Alex
Researched and develop laboratories that use real-time sensors, research and develop
parallel laboratories that study the same material without the sensors, and interface with
other project personnel -- faculty, laboratory manual editor, students.
Involvement of the partner schools has been delayed in order to ensure that the
laboratories are properly developed.
Organizations—Pasco
Richard Briscoe, Atlantic coast education technical representative, PASCO Scientific
Sean McKeever, PASCO scientific, Physics Products Marketing Manager
Collaborators and Contacts
Scott Schiff of Clemson's Civil Engineering department has borrowed a force/motion
sensor pair to investigate uses of the sensors in teaching statics and other engineering
courses.
Prasad Rangaraju of Clemson's Civil Engineering department has borrowed a pH sensor
to investigate uses of the sensor in teaching about the concrete curing process. Rashmi
Ranjan Pattnaik, Dr. Rangaraju's graduate student, is leading the experimentation with
the sensor.
Hanqi Zhuang, Professor of Electrical Engineering at Florida Atlantic University,
requested and was sent a copy of the EXPERT proposal.
I have had five classroom observers this semester who wanted to learn how the laptops
were being used in my classes. A number of faculty have expressed an interest at learning
how to teach with laptops in their own classroom.
A number of other faculty who have seen demonstrations of the sensors or read about this
project have also expressed an interest in hosting a test site: Ed Wheeler at Rose Hulman
Institute of Technology, Geoff Silcox at University of Utah, and Kurt Gramoll at
Oklahoma State University.
Activities and Findings
This section will serve as your report to your program officer of your project's
activities and findings. Please describe what you have done and what you have
learned, broken down into four categories:
Describe the major research and education activities of the project.
Describe the major findings resulting from these activities.
Describe the opportunities for training and development provided by your project.
Describe outreach activities your project has undertaken.
If in doubt about the category in which to report a particular result, please use the
"What"/"Why" buttons. If still in doubt, report in whichever category seems to you
closest.
The following sensor-based laboratory modules have been retained for ongoing
development:
Cantilever beam—determine the factors contributing to beam stiffness using beams of
various lengths, depths, widths, and geometries. This lab was expanded considerably,
illustrating the effect of cantilever length, width, depth, material. A setup that can
measure tip displacement as the cantilever length varies continuously is a particularly
valuable contribution.
Estimation—use the sensors to measure some reference quantities to build a sense of
scale in a variety of measurable quantities.
Fluid Flow—determine the frictional relationship of fluid flowing through various valves
and fittings, especially highlighting the way in which fluid flow is analogous to
mechanical (spring) and electrical systems. To be developed further in Summer 2004.
Force components—Studying the weight distribution as a weight is moved along a wire
between two supports as well as the change in support wire tension as a function of
support separation (causing the support wire to become more level).
Frequency / vibration—investigate the parameters affecting the vibration characteristics
of a system. Make special note of the effect of sampling rate by observing what happens
as the vibration frequency approaches the sampling frequency.
Hooke’s Law—examine the force-displacement behavior of springs using force &
motion sensors.
Humidity—determine the relationship between absolute humidity, relative humidity,
dew point and temperature.
Impulse—examine the force-time relationship in the process of absorbing an impact and
compare this to the force-time relationship of accelerating the object in the first place and
the momentum the object had when traveling in between. To be developed further in
Summer 2004.
Light / magnetism / sound—study the inverse-square relationship of these as well as
other properties such as diffusion.
Pendulum—investigate the parameters governing the rotational displacement of a
pendulum. Study the effect of length, mass, initial displacement, wind, and obstacles.
pH—study off-the-shelf antacids to determine which had the quickest response, which
resulted in the most neutralization, and which was the most cost-effective.
Soils—examine the effects of acid rain on soil conservation and the buffering ability of
soil.
Temperature—examine the behavior of water as it cools and heats; determine the
wattage of immersion heaters used in the experiment based on the heating curve.
Vertical forces—study the distribution of forces as an applied load begins at a cantilever
end, moves toward one support, passes that support and travels toward another support,
and passes that support to continue onto a symmetrical cantilever end. The continuous
feedback from force sensors at each support demonstrates the process by which the
weight of the moving object is transferred from one support to the other.
VIRC—study relationships among voltage, current, resistance, and capacitance.
A workshop titled, “Using real-time sensors in the classroom” has been scheduled for the
ASEE 2004 Conference in Salt Lake City (session 0431). The workshop abstract is
“Participants in this workshop will discuss how using real-time sensors in the classroom
affects how faculty teach, how students learn, and what material can be taught.
Pedagogical approaches to using these advanced educational technologies will be
discussed and practiced. Participants are asked to bring laptops if possible, to permit the
hands-on use of sensors during the workshop. All participants will be eligible to apply to
be a test site for new pedagogical materials. Test sites will receive financial support for
the purchase of sensors and related equipment.” Based on the integration of sensor-based
demonstrations into a workshop on freshman programs, some faculty have already
volunteered to host a test site. Website dissemination of laboratory materials has been
delayed indefinitely because it appears likely that the materials will be published in a
copyrighted work published in collaboration with Pasco. Website dissemination might
curtail the development of that potentially beneficial partnership.
The EXPERT project is also serving as a catalyst for the adoption of the pedagogical
approaches proven through the NSF-sponsored SCALE-UP project at NC State. This is
only fitting, since the development of the EXPERT project is tied to the SCALE-UP
project—the early work SCALE-UP followed from the SUCCEED Coalition sponsored
Integrated Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, and Chemistry project at NC State.
Furthermore, Jeff Saul, who worked on that project at NC State, subsequently took a
position at the University of Central Florida and received NSF funding for “Creating
Large Activity-based Introductory Courses for Physics and Chemistry by Adapting the
SCALE-UP Approach and Curriculum.” PI Ohland met Jeff Saul at the “Campus One”
laptop computing conference at the University of Central Florida in February 2001 and
was intrigued to study the pedagogical impact of the sensors used in the SCALE-UP
curriculum.
Findings
Results from testing the laboratories in the Fall 2003 at Clemson University yielded an
unexpected but intriguing result—the students in the labs without electronic sensors did
just as well as those using the electronic sensors. This finding would support what some
experts in educational research have long suspected—that good teaching is what matters
most. This finding points to the critical need for faculty development—if educational
design is more important than classroom technology, improving engineering education
requires that a large number of faculty are supportive and informed about modern
teaching methods.
In the coming year, Ohland and his team will seek to refine their methods to be certain of
these findings. They did find that classes that were “behind” at the beginning of the
semester seemed to “catch up” by the end of the semester, possibly indicating that the use
of the sensors helped level the playing field for students who did not have the chance to
work with quality lab equipment in their public school.
In addition, Ohland will work with faculty at other institutions to test the findings in other
settings and, in the process, expand the reach of the research findings and build
connections between various engineering colleges. Pasco, the developer of the sensors,
has already expressed an interest in working with Ohland in the development of curricula
for engineering colleges. If the reaction of other Clemson faculty to the possibilities
presented by the use of the sensors in the curriculum is any indication, adoption by
interested faculty at other institutions will happen quickly.
The findings to this point have been largely qualitative and related to the choice of
activities.

It is much easier to design experiments of discovery (science experiments) than of
synthesis (engineering experiments). This has been a significant challenge and is
due to a combination of effects: the engineering curriculum is comprised mostly
of science through the junior year, the undergraduate students hired to work on
the project were most comfortable in developing science laboratories similar to




labs from their prior experience, and the fact that the laboratories that accompany
Clemson’s Physics classes are not required in the engineering curriculum (which
encourage us to introduce that material where possible). A number of the
laboratories had to be abandoned or completely redesigned in order to introduce
engineering principles to engineering freshmen.
There are some experiments that cannot be done without the sensors, so
accessibility of certain experiments is improved. This is a promising
characteristic, especially for those in certain fields where the PASCO sensors
represent a breakthrough in the affordable measurement of phenomena of interest
(such as a $179 3D accelerometer, which is of significant interest to faculty in
bioengineering). This also represents a significant challenge to the project—labs
for which a parallel version cannot be created that does not use the sensors cannot
be evaluated against a control group, and less rigorous assessment approaches will
need to be used. It is hoped that the pedagogical usefulness of the sensors can be
demonstrated using laboratories for which a control can be designed, and that
qualitative methods may be used to extend the conclusions to laboratories that fall
in this category.
Electronic sensors can take large numbers of data quickly, thus reducing the
drudgery of some labs, leaving time for the students to contemplate what is really
happening. This is a well-known benefit of instrumentation. The low-cost
approach to this benefit will make it more accessible to the classroom.
The sensors introduce a new level of complexity to the laboratory, and can
distract from the lab’s purpose if care is not taken. This was especially noted in
that the sensors did not always have as large a range as might be expected of
industrial-grade instrumentation. Further work will seek to reconcile the
limitations of the sensors with the objectives of the laboratories.
In some situations, the sensors are a hindrance to students developing a hands-on
feel for what is happening. This was a concern expressed by some students and by
some faculty as well. Project faculty believe that the most significant issue is the
group size—whereas a non-sensor-based laboratory might actively engage four
students in the process of data-taking, the automation of data collection allows
some of the team members to disengage, and lose out educationally. Our proposed
solution is to form 2-3 person teams in the laboratory rather than 4-person teams.
It is hoped that careful planning can achieve this logistic change without requiring
additional laboratory equipment—if groups can alternate activities in the
laboratory, and thus use the same equipment at different times, this should be
possible.
Publications and Products
In this section, you will be asked to describe the tangible products coming out of
your project. Specifically:
What have you published as a result of this work?
Journal publications
Books or other non-periodical, one-time publications
What Web site or other Internet site have you created?
What other specific products (databases, physical collections, educational aids,
software, instruments, or the like) have you developed?
A.G. Yuhasz, Ohland, M.W., E.A. Stephan, “The Use of Sensors in the Engineering
Classroom: Experimental Design Considerations” in press Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Ed.,
Salt Lake City, Utah, June 2004.
Ohland, M.W., E.A. Stephan, B.L. Sill, and W.J. Park, “Applications of real-time sensors
in the freshman engineering classroom” in press Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Ed., Salt Lake
City, Utah, June 2004.
Ohland, M.W., E.A. Stephan, and B.L. Sill, “Clemson University’s EXPerimental
Engineering in Real Time (EXPERT) Program: Assessing the benefit of real-time
sensors in the curriculum,” Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Ed., Nashville, Tennessee, June
2003.
Sill, B.L., M.W. Ohland, and E.A. Stephan, “Keeping the ‘General’ in General
Engineering: Designing Multidisciplinary Courses for the First Year of Engineering,”
Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Ed., Nashville, Tennessee, June 2003.
Laboratory experiments developed, currently used only at Clemson University
Contributions
Now we invite you to explain ways in which your work, your findings, and specific
products of your project are significant. Describe the unique contributions, major
accomplishments, innovations and successes of your project relative to:
the principal discipline(s) of the project;
other disciplines of science or engineering;
the development of human resources;
the physical, institutional, or information resources that form the infrastructure for
research and education ;
or other aspects of public welfare beyond science and engineering, such as
commercial technology, the economy, cost-efficient environmental protection,
solution of social problems;
Results from prior research on the effectiveness of a variety of classroom technology are
inconclusive. The confusion in these studies largely results from fact that classroom
experiments cannot be “controlled” in the same way that other engineering experiments
are controlled—engineering faculty must be sure to give every student the best education
possible. As a result, where studies have found benefit from the use of classroom
technology, that benefit could have been caused by other factors—a superior or more
enthusiastic instructor, a better group of students, or course design changes made to
support the use of technology.
The value of Clemson’s EXPERT project is that the research team designed parallel sets
of laboratories—one set of laboratories that use electronic sensors to collect data, and
another set of laboratories on the same subjects in which data is collected by hand. In this
way, both sets of labs use effective teaching methods. With the labs educationally similar,
the next challenge is to make sure that the effect of having a different instructor doesn’t
confuse things. Here, the research benefits from the fact that Clemson’s General
Engineering program teaches all of Clemson’s 800 freshman engineering students (and
many transfer students as well). Five different faculty members taught a total of 20 labs
in Fall 2003—half were taught labs using the sensors and half were taught using the
alternative materials. The structured research trials will help control potential
confounding effects.
Special Requirements
This section will show if (but only if) you are filing a required project report, in which
case you need to click it to respond to obligatory questions bearing on contractual or legal
requirements.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------MIDDLE BOX – Section II - Administer the Report
The four buttons/links at this location allow you to administer this report.
Attach File
This function allow you to attach one file to your report for graphical materials such as
tables or charts that are essential to your report. The file should contain only graphical
material. You should then make reference to the tables, charts, etc., contained in the file
in your text as necessary. If you have materials such as prints, videos, etc., that are
essential to your report but cannot be submitted electronically, you should send those
materials directly to your NSF Program Officer. To attach a file you must first create the
file using appropriate software FastLane PDF Instructions for Proposal Preparation and
Project Reporting.
Once you have created your file, you can attach the file by clicking the "Browse" button
and selecting it from your directory. Next, click the "Transfer" button to send your file to
FastLane.
Check Completeness This function will run an automatic check of your report and let you
know of any information you have left out that is necessary to a minimally complete
report. The system normally will not allow you to submit an incomplete report when a
report is required. There are no completeness requirements for interim or post-award
updates. Be forewarned: the system may let through a report that your program officer
might consider insufficient or might ask you to flesh out in particular respects.
Review and Submit This function will allow you to review a "printout" of your report,
just as it will go to your program officer, and perhaps to reviewers. If you are satisfied, it
will enable you to formally submit the report to NSF. When you submit, a read-only copy
of your working record will be entered into the NSF database. Your original working
record will remain, to be added to or changed in subsequent reports.
Unsubmit Pending Reports Prior to approval by your NSF program officer, this function
will allow the user to access his submitted report and remove it from the pending queue at
NSF.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------RIGHT BOX – Section III - About this Award
These functions will take you to the screens where you can review basic facts and
contacts pertaining to your award, you and the other investigators, your home
organization, and your NSF contacts. If you find any of this information incorrect, you
can let NSF know through these screens what needs revision.
Review Facts and Contacts This feature allows you to view basic facts about your award
and to make revisions to the award data displayed if needed. This screen does not allow
for updates/revisions to PI information. If you need to edit your personal information
(name, address, phone, email, demographic information) you may do so by clicking Edit
PI Info. under PI/Co-PI Functions on the FastLane Homepage.
Review Past Submissions Allows you to view and print hardcopies of past submissions
Assign or Change PIN Allows you to assign or change the 5 character Information
Number award. Another FastLane user to whom you give this "Award Pin" can use it to
gain entry and make entries into the report on your project.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GETTING HELP WITH FASTLANE
You may send technical FastLane questions and comments to the FastLane Help Desk
using the "Comments on the Project Reporting System" at the "Project System Control"
screen or "comments" feature on each FastLane screen. You can also contact the
FastLane Help Desk by sending an e-mail to fastlane@nsf.gov or calling (800) 673-6188.
For questions about the content of your report and all other non-FastLane questions,
please contact the appropriate NSF program office. If you do not know who to contact,
that information is available from the FastLane homepage at NSF Contacts.
Use the Back button on the toolbar to return to the previous screen.
02/14/02
Describe the work done under this award in terms understandable to a lay
audience. Avoid technical terms and do not use formulae. For example, rather than
giving the chemical name of a substance in the human body, describe its function
(i.e., "the substance that causes blood to coagulate," or "a major genetic contributor
to the disease X"). Be sure to include a description of the work that is related to
NSF's Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) goals. Descriptions over 150
words may be cut.
Dr. Matthew Ohland’s EPSCoR Co-funded research focuses on improving the education
of engineering students. In Clemson's EXPerimental Engineering in Real Time
(EXPERT) Project, Ohland explores the value of using sensors connected to laptop
computers in the classroom. Dr. Ohland and his research team predicted that by watching
something happen in the physical world - a hand moving, a spring stretching, chemicals
mixing, or an electrical circuit changing - and seeing at the same time the output of these
sensors-graphs on the computer screen representing what is happening - that students will
learn more about both what is happening and how to graph it. The overarching goal of the
project is to understand better how to educate engineering students for the 21st century by
improving their skills in graphing and visualization.
Describe the products, scientific advances, or other outcomes of the activity that
relate to NSF GPRA goals. Include outputs (immediate, observable results of an
activity), outcomes (longer-term results in the form of processes or things), and
impacts (long-range project consequences like collaborations, awards, or other
achievements).
Results from testing the laboratories in the Fall 2003 at Clemson University yielded an
unexpected but intriguing result—the students in the labs without electronic sensors did
just as well as those using the electronic sensors. This finding would support what some
experts in educational research have long suspected—that good teaching is what matters
most. This finding points to the critical need for faculty development—if educational
design is more important than classroom technology, improving engineering education
requires that a large number of faculty are supportive and informed about modern
teaching methods.
In the coming year, Ohland and his team will seek to refine their methods to be certain of
these findings. They did find that classes that were “behind” at the beginning of the
semester seemed to “catch up” by the end of the semester, possibly indicating that the use
of the sensors helped level the playing field for students who did not have the chance to
work with quality lab equipment in their public school.
Enter full bibliographic citations for one or two major research publications
resulting from this project/award.
A.G. Yuhasz, Ohland, M.W., E.A. Stephan, “The Use of Sensors in the Engineering
Classroom: Experimental Design Considerations” in press Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Ed.,
Salt Lake City, Utah, June 2004.
Ohland, M.W., E.A. Stephan, B.L. Sill, and W.J. Park, “Applications of real-time sensors
in the freshman engineering classroom” in press Proc. Amer. Soc. Eng. Ed., Salt Lake
City, Utah, June 2004.