2038 Moorhouse
Ferndale, MI 48220
July 5th, 2014
Darin R. Ellis, Associate Dean of Academic Affairs and Student Services
Wayne State University College of Engineering
5050 Anthony Wayne Drive
Detroit MI, 48202
Dear Dr. Ellis,
The poor condition of equipment for the Basic Engineering courses BE 1200 and BE 1310
creates an artificial barrier of education by continually forcing students to rely on instructors to
complete laboratory assignments. Surveys conducted by our team indicate that upwards of 66%
of engineering students were dissatisfied with the condition of the equipment in both BE 1200
and BE 1310. Outdated and broken equipment prevent instructors from giving the students the
best possible learning environment while contributing to a decrease in student satisfaction. Our
team’s research has concluded with three possible solutions for BE 1200 and BE 1310.
The following document contains research pertaining to the laboratory equipment. We expect to
submit this research and our recommendation to the Technology Advisory Committee (TAC) as
well as the Director of Basic Engineering, Dr. Potoff, for evaluation and possible
implementation. The following proposal below is divided into sections detailing our research
regarding these two classes and their associated laboratory equipment. The proposal also
contains evaluation of multiple potential solutions based on how they fulfill specific criteria.
Lastly, this report recommends the best option to Dr. Potoff and the TAC.
Three potential solutions were identified for both BE 1200 and BE 1310. Potential solutions for
BE 1200 include: donation of existing equipment to Beer Middle School’s Science Club and
replacement with either a slightly updated model of Lego Mindstorm kit or the newest model. A
third potential solution for BE 1200 is completely replacing the existing Lego kits with Arduino
circuit boards. Potential solutions for BE 1310 include: Repairing broken equipment, replacing
broken equipment with certified used equipment, or replacing broken equipment with new
equipment. All three of these solutions would be considered by comparing two lab equipment
vendors; LabEquip and AL-TAR.
Our research consisted of classroom observation, surveys involving faculty, key decision makers,
and students. Interviews were also conducted with all three of these groups. Secondary research
included internet inquiries with laboratory equipment suppliers and repair services.
We thank you in advance for reviewing the following proposal and considering our
recommendation. Any feedback or questions regarding this document would be greatly
appreciated and can be directed to as1991@wayne.edu.
Best Regards,
The A-Team
Improving Lab Equipment for Introductory Engineering Courses
Prepared For:
Dr. Darin R. Ellis, Associate Dean, Academic Affairs and Student Services
Dr. Farshad Fotouhi, Dean, Wayne State University College of Engineering
Dr. Jeffrey Potoff, Director, Basic Engineering
Wayne State University-Technology Advisory Committee
Prepared By:
Andre’ Davis
Mike Kaminski
Caleb Latimer
Curt Loveday
Colin Weir
July 26th, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ i
INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1
RESEARCH METHODS AND RESULTS .................................................................................. 2
SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................................... 2
DONATION OPPORTUNITY............................................................................................................ 4
EQUIPMENT INVENTORY .............................................................................................................. 5
INTERNET INQUIRES ................................................................................................................... 5
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ............................................................................................................ 9
CRITERIA ................................................................................................................................10
EVALUATION..........................................................................................................................11
RECOMMENDATION..............................................................................................................13
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................15
APPENDICES ...........................................................................................................................16
APPENDIX A: STUDENT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ANSWERS ...........................................16
APPENDIX B: FACULTY SURVEY QUESTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ANSWERS ...........................................17
APPENDIX C: DECISION MAKER SURVEY QUESTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ANSWERS ...............................18
APPENDIX D: BE 1200 AND BE 1310 LAB EQUIPMENT INVENTORY ..................................................20
Improving Laboratory Equipment i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The lab equipment for BE 1200 and BE 1310 engineering courses at WSU has become worn
down. Incoming freshmen have had their turn to use the equipment in the BE 1200 and BE 1310
labs and the excessive usage has taken a toll on the equipment.
In turn the BE lab equipment has developed many operational issues, such as, power shortages,
lack of calibration and missing or broken components. As a result, troubleshooting the
equipment has become a major distraction which takes time away from the course for students.
Therefore the issue we address here is how to solve the problem of ineffective lab equipment.
We develop criteria, develop research methods, examine the issue and finally offer a positive and
affordable alternative to remedy the issue.
By identifying the most relevant criteria for our solution to meet we narrowed our choice down
significantly. The criteria we identified as:
●
●
●
●
Stakeholder impact
Classroom Experience
Ease of Implementation
Cost
From these criteria we developed research methods to garner more information. By conducting
different types of research we were able to start piecing together a solution based around all of
them. The research we conducted is the following:
Primary
● Student/faculty surveys
● Interviews with professors
● Interviews with deans/decision makers
Secondary
● Repair costs
● Price comparisons between suppliers
● Warranty information
We recommend to replace the Legos Mindstorms kits with the newest EV3 model for BE 1200
and using LabEquip certified used equipment for BE 1310. These solutions are what we have
deemed most effective due to the criteria we have listed and offer the best course of
improvement which will be explained more in the body of this document.
Improving Laboratory Equipment 1
INTRODUCTION
Wayne State University’s College of Engineering has a series of classes which focus on
introducing new students to the core aspects of engineering. These are the Basic Engineering
courses.
The very first course in this series is BE 1200, Basic Engineering 1: Design in Engineering. This
class teaches students core principles of design, teamwork, and professional ethics. This course
does this by utilizing the Legos Mindstorm robotics kit. This robotics kit utilizes Legos along
with a central CPU unit to allow students to design and program robots to perform tasks and
solve problems. The next course in this series is BE 1300, Basic Engineering 2: Materials
Science for Engineering Applications. This class teaches students the fundamentals of materials
science and how differing material properties impact engineering applications. BE 1310 is the
laboratory section associated with BE 1300 and helps students gain experience with various
essential engineering tools.
We conducted various types of research into this issue. We began with surveys of students and
instructors associated with the classes of focus. We found that approximately 66% of students
and instructors were dissatisfied, to some degree, with the quality of equipment in these classes.
We also conducted interviews with instructors and decision makers to gain a great depth of
understanding behind the equipment issue.
As well as the primary research with stakeholders mentioned in the previous paragraph we also
looked into implementation. We contacted companies that would potentially replace the
equipment. For BE 1200, this meant referencing the Lego Mindstorms and Arduino websites for
information on the price of the equipment, while for BE 1310 we contacted LabEquip and ALTAR, laboratory equipment vendors, for quotes on equipment repair or replacement. This
research helped us to determine both ease of implementation and cost effectiveness for our
potential solutions.
The purpose of the report is to discuss, evaluate and recommend the most feasible solutions to
the equipment issue with BE 1200 and BE 1310. By clarifying the existing issues and evaluating
all possible solutions against the criteria we will define, we will provide the most effective and
feasible solution to the decision makers with the College of Engineering.
RESEARCH METHODS AND RESULTS
Our research consisted of gathering information from both primary and secondary sources. The
Primary Research included surveys, interviews, and classroom observations. The Secondary
research was performed by use of the internet and equipment repair and replacement retailers.
Our secondary research mostly aided us in deciding what options were available in order to
determine if the equipment needed to be repaired or replaced
SURVEYS AND INTERVIEWS
Student Survey
To gather stakeholder interest we inquired into what students and instructors think of the current
situation when related to the equipment that is used in these courses. For our initial inquiry we
sent a survey to all engineering undergraduate students. We received over 70 responses to this
survey from students who have taken one or both of these classes. The student survey sent out
asked them to rank their satisfaction with equipment in each of the classes being studied on a 1 to
5 scale. Our goal is to get a majority of students ranking the equipment as a 4 or 5 with no
students reporting a score of 1. For BE 1200 only 40.8% of students ranked their experience as a
4 or 5 (See Figure 1a). We also had 14.8% of students ranking their equipment experience as a
1. For BE 1310 only 34% of students that responded to our survey rated the quality of their
equipment experience as a 4 or 5. On the positive side, only 12% of students rated their
experience as a 1 (See Figure 1b).
Figure 1a: Student Survey Results for BE 1200
Improving Laboratory Equipment 3
Figure 1b: Student Survey Results for BE 1310
Students also were given the opportunity to leave a short comment on their experience in this
class. These helped us to achieve a better understanding as to what specific circumstances
influenced their numeric scores. Most of these responses focused on the difficulty with technical
errors, lack of availability, and necessity for instructor assistance to start the lab. The questions
asked in our survey, as well as more detailed responses can be seen in Appendix A.
Instructor Survey
As can be seen from the student survey responses there is room for improvement, as neither class
meets our designated quality standard from student perspective. To further solidify this opinion
we contacted instructors and asked them to answer a few short questions as to how their
experience with the class and with student equipment experience has been in the lab work. We
received responses from two instructors. Their full responses and the questions asked to them
are located in Appendix B The first is Qian Zhong, a teaching assistant in charge of the summer
section of BE 1310. The second is Dr. James Lenn, the professor for the summer section of BE
1200. One of the questions on the Google form we sent out to the instructors asked how many
student complaints about equipment are voiced in their courses on a percentile scale. Dr. Lenn
said in his response that 9 in 10 students in a BE 1200 course complain about equipment (Lenn,
Google Form) while in BE 1310, Qian said that 3 in 10 students complain (Qian, Google Form).
We hope to improve both of these numbers so that there will not be as much instructor time spent
responding to complaints and they can instead focus on content.
As far as instructor recommendations, we received comments from both Qian and Dr. Lenn on
equipment that needed to be replaced soon. For BE 1200 our attention was directed to the age of
the main bricks used in the robots. While this is not necessarily a problem, the fact that there are
two newer models on the market and that our model is becoming harder to purchase parts for
means that soon we will not have sufficient parts to properly supply all students with. Also, the
fact that there is only one brick for each team of 3 and that these bricks can only interact with a
computer running Windows XP impacts the ability of students to continue learning outside of
class. This degrades the quality of learning by removing the opportunity for students to take
their learning farther than instructors have time for in the classroom (Lenn, Google Form).
For BE 1310 the main complaint is over the age of equipment. Students are using equipment
that is old and worn down from repetitive use by students. During our research we were at to
narrow the insufficient equipment down to the Tensile testers, microscopes and hardness testers.
These have been used by students and no longer function effectively to accomplish the goals of
the lab. While the most important thing in these courses is making sure the students understand
the method, being able to accomplish the lab within a limited deviation is also important for
these classes (Qian, Google Form).
Decision Maker Surveys and Interviews
Student and Instructor surveys allowed us to get the opinions of those most closely interacting
with the equipment in question. This is important as they are the most aware of the shortcomings
and most pertinent changes needed. However, to determine the feasibility of implementation and
awareness of decision makers we reached out to the faculty in the department of engineering.
The questions asked and complete responses to these questions can be found in Appendix C.
Through this communication we discovered that there is a regular investment into the equipment
in these courses. We were informed by both Dr. Ellis and Dr. Potoff that each year new parts for
the BE 1200 Lego Mindstorms kits are purchased as well as purchasing new Arduino boards for
the non-Lego sections. Also, for BE 1310 there have been several new experiments purchased
recently (Lenn, Google Form). In 2013 a new semiconducting experiment was added and this
year a new laser diffraction experiment has also been added (Lenn, Google Form). However, we
also discovered that there was room for further changes.
There are equipment improvements being discussed for the near future for both BE 1200 and BE
1310. For BE 1200 the most significant change is an upgrade to the Lego Mindstorms sets.
They are looking to upgrade to the newest model in the near future. This would replace our
fifteen year old models with the new two year old model. They are also looking at upgrading BE
1310 equipment. Dr. Potoff says that “By 2015, we expect to have completed a $500,000 lab
renovation for the BE 1310 lab” (Dr. Potoff, Google Form). This is promising because it
suggests that there are plans of improving both classes which increases the likelihood that they
would be able to fund a project like the one we are proposing.
DONATION OPPORTUNITY
If we decided that donation would be the best way to dispose of the existing Legos Mindstorm
kits, we would need an organization to donate the used equipment to. Our team contacted Beer
Middle School and was directed to the Science Club’s faculty advisor, Mr. James McNeil. In a
brief conversation about the status of the Mindstorm kits, Mr. McNeil agreed that the Science
club would accept the kits if they were donated.
Improving Laboratory Equipment 5
EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
We also conducted a short equipment inventory. This consisted of a team member visiting the
classrooms outside of class time when the equipment was not in use. This allowed us to look at
the equipment in the classrooms to get a better understanding of what is currently being worked
with. We were also able to take pictures of the equipment being used. During this equipment
inventory we were able to see the BE 1200 kits and the BE 1310 equipment (See Figure 2a).
Figure 2a: Equipment for BE 1200 and BE 1310 (left to right) Current Lego Mindstorms Kit, Cold Roller,
Tensile Tester, Laser Diffraction Apparatus
When looking at the BE 1200 equipment (Figure 2a) we saw that there was discrepancy from kit
to kit of the parts included. Each kit had a different assortment of pieces and some kits were
missing important sensors while other kits had broken components and/or lacked wheels. When
looking at the BE 1310 equipment there were several pieces that were in good condition due to
recent purchase. However, there were also several items, such as the roller and tensile tester that
were in bad shape due to age and use. The tensile tester is running on Windows 98 and has
issues loading and running and performing adequately. These were the two worst pieces,
however, the hardness tester and creep machine both had room for improvement. Based on this
inventory, it was concluded that 25 sets of the Legos Mindstorm Kit were needed.
INTERNET INQUIRES
There were four main criteria taken into consideration when it came to the secondary research,
Cost and ease of implementation were the main factors but we also considered Stakeholder
impact and Classroom experience.
By exploring different vendor websites we were able to recognize whether or not our objective
could be done. In other words, if a vendor offers lab equipment repair services to most of the BE
1310 equipment and provides us with the option to purchase new and used equipment, then we
know our objective is feasible. The cost is also a major focal point in secondary research because
it allows for a very easy point of comparison between two proposed solutions. A solution that is
far less inexpensive than another could be the best choice for WSU depending on other criteria.
Additionally the secondary research will be used to determine what improvements can be made
to the equipment. This data will be collected to determine whether Wayne State University is
using the most updated and effective equipment to assist their engineering students in beginning
their training.
LabEquip
LabEquip is a vendor site that we have contacted about repair services and purchasing new and
used laboratory equipment. A list of every single material and piece of equipment used in BE
1310 lab manuals was sent to Tracy Presement - Senior Technical Sales Specialist. She was able
to respond with a list of equipment LabEquip could service, depending on what is wrong with
them. LabEquip is capable of servicing the hardness testers, microscopes and tensile testers. She
also noted that the majority of equipment on the list would more than likely just need calibration
or is not worth fixing if it is broken. Some of this equipment includes: calipers, stop watches,
marker pens, hot plates, multimeters, and thermocouples.
When considering LabEquip as a possible source of repair it should be noted that the cost to
repair broken lab equipment is only known after an evaluation of the equipment is made.
Depending on what is exactly wrong with equipment, a quote for the expected labor and
replacement parts is given. Lab Equip also has the capabilities of scraping equipment if it is
desired. This procedure is simple, the equipment is recycled for its metal and a refund is
rewarded based on the weight of the equipment.
Figure 3shows estimates of the costs to purchase new and used lab equipment from LabEquip as
well as estimated repair costs. Only equipment that LabEquip can service was considered.
Equipment
Cost (Used)
Cost (New
upgraded)
Repair Cost (Est.)
Hardness tester
$2,000.00
$4,000.00
$1,850.00
Microscopes
$5,450.00
$7,950.00
$5,000.00
Tensile testers
$749.00
$1,057.50
$725.00
Figure 3: LabEquip lab equipment price quotes
AL-TAR
AL-TAR is the vendor site that we have contacted about repair services and purchasing new and
used laboratory equipment. A list of every single material and piece of equipment used in BE
1310 lab manuals was sent to a senior sales representative at AL-TAR. From the supplied list
AL-TAR is capable of repairing any microscopes and tensile testers depending on the issue.
They currently do not have the technical support to repair any other equipment on our list.
When considering AL-TAR as a possible source of repair it should be noted that the cost to
repair broken lab equipment is only known after an evaluation of the equipment is made. The
process is very similar to that of LabEquip’s, with the only exception that AL-TAR has the
capabilities of calibrating equipment that is out of specifications.
Improving Laboratory Equipment 7
Figure 4 shows estimates of the costs to purchase new and used lab equipment from AL-TAR.
Equipment
Cost (Used)
Cost (New
upgraded)
Repair Cost (Est.)
Hardness tester
$2,500.00
$4,450.00
$2,250.00
Microscopes
$5,500.00
$8,000.00
$5,000.00
Tensile testers
$950.00
$1,400.00
$895.00
Figure 4: AL-TAR lab equipment price quotes
Lego Mindstorms Kits
The Lego Mindstorms kits contain software and hardware to create customizable, programmable
robots. These robots are used extensively in BE1200 courses at Wayne State University.
Secondary research was required to further understand the feasibility and cost criteria of our
objective, more specifically, the current equipment WSU uses versus the more up to date
equipment available on the market and whether or not the equipment can be upgraded.
From our research we found that WSU is currently using the first generation of Lego
Mindstorms, the RCX model. First released in 1998 the RCX is more user friendly for first time
builders but only works with the older Windows Vista or Windows XP operating systems which
offer limited support to users. In addition to the older operating systems and them having limited
support, Lego education no longer offers support for their RCX models. There are also no
options for repair for the RCX model and this model can no longer be purchased brand new.
Since the first release of the RCX model there have been two newer models released, the NXT
and the EV3. The most up to date EV3 model includes motors, sensors and can be controlled my
smart-devices. The EV3 also would be supported by the Lego Corporation.
Figure 5 shows MSRP costs to purchase new Lego Mindstorm kits based on the model.
Model
Price (NEW)
RCX
$412.00
NXT
$420.00
EV3
$525.00
Figure 5: MSRP of Lego Mindstorm Kits
Figure 6: Three Generations of Lego Bricks (from left to right): RCX, NXT, and EV3 models
Arduino Starter Kits
Arduino starter kits are also an alternative for Wayne States Engineering program. These kits
contain an electronics board that has an assortment of electrical components that are
interchangeable so that the user can create different circuits for different projects. In short this
kit is to familiarize the students with the basic use of electronics and to also familiarize students
with programming. These kits would prove to be good alternative to the Lego Mindstorms. To
obtain full benefit from this kit, it is recommended from the manufacturer that you also purchase
the robotic package, this would allow students to further investigate design. Ease of
implementation would be more difficult with these kits as the programming language is different
than the current Lego Mindstorm kits that the University currently uses. Figure 7 below shows
the basic Arduino starter kit and the cost for the starter kit plus robotic extension.
Improving Laboratory Equipment 9
Arduino starter kit + Robot
$475.00
Figure 7: Arduino Starter Kit and cost table
POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS
We have identified 3 solutions for BE 1200 and 2 solutions for BE 1310. Each of these solutions
is based on our primary and secondary research.
BE 1200
Solution 1 (BE1200): Replacement of existing equipment with EV3 and donation of existing
equipment
The first solution involves the College of Engineering donating the existing Lego Mindstorm
Kits to Beer Middle School’s Science Club. The existing kits would be replaced with the Ev3
model set.
Solution 2 (BE1200): Replacement of existing equipment with the NXT and donation of existing
equipment
The second solution involves the College of Engineering donating the existing Lego Mindstorm
Kits to Beer Middle School’s Science Club. The existing kits would be replaced with the NXT
which is the 2 newest model.
Solution 3 (BE1200): Replacement of existing equipment with Arduino circuit boards and
donation of existing equipment
The third solution involves the College of Engineering donating the existing Lego Mindstorm
Kits to Beer Middle School’s Science Club. The kits would be replaced with Arduino Starter
Kits.
BE 1310
Solution 1(BE 1310): Scrapping broken equipment and replacement with certified used
equipment from labequip or AL-TAR
The first solution for BE 1310 involves disposing the existing equipment including:
Microscopes, Tensile Testers, and Hardness Testers. This equipment would bet processed for
scrap metal. All of this equipment would then be replaced with certified used equipment from a
supply vendor, either LabEquip or AL-TAR.
Solution 2 (BE 1310): Scrapping broken equipment and replacement with new equipment
from labequip or AL-TAR
The second solution for BE 1310 involves disposing the existing equipment including:
Microscopes, Tensile Testers, and Hardness Testers. This equipment would bet processed for
scrap metal. All of this equipment would then be replaced with new equipment from a supply
vendor, either LabEquip or AL-TAR.
Solution 3 (BE 1310): Repairing broken Equipment utilizing Labequip or AL-TAR
The third solution for BE 1310 involves sending the broken equipment into a supply vendor,
either LabEquip or AL-TAR, for assessment, repair, and calibration.
CRITERIA
COST
As many of our considered options have similar aspects, cost became the most highly considered
criteria for our solutions. As the College of Engineering is operating within a set budget to
improve their Beginning Engineering sections, the most cost effective solution would most likely
be the most feasible.
STAKEHOLDER IMPACT
Freshman engineering students and the basic engineering faculty at WSU are the stakeholders in
our solution. The objective of our project is to get equipment in basic engineering labs operating
properly so students have the best chance to learn. The stance that each student and faculty
member has on this topic is very important for us to decide whether or not this project will
achieve its objective. Student and faculty surveys were conducted to gather information on
stakeholder impact.
CLASSROOM EXPERIENCE
The current classroom experience is an important criterion for our solution. The way students
interact and feel about the equipment currently used in BE courses affect our solution directly.
The classroom observation and Teacher Assistant interview helped us collect data on the
classroom experience before a final solution was reached.
EASE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Whether or not our solution can be implemented is one of the most significant criterion for our
solution. The main method of collecting data on the ease of implementation for our solutions
took the form of surveys and interviews conducted with the faculty and decision makers with the
College of Engineering. These surveys and interviews allow us to determine if there are any
potential barriers to implementation, some of which would include: faculty changes and
increased faculty training.
Improving Laboratory Equipment 11
EVALUATION
Our team analyzed each potential solution with the criteria explained above. This evaluation
helped us determine the best possible solution to bring to Dean Ellis, Dr. Potoff, and the
Technology Advisory Council. The criteria considered include: Cost, Stakeholder Impact,
Classroom Experience, and Ease of Implementation.
BE 1200
Solution 1 (BE1200): Replacement of existing equipment with EV3 and donation of existing
equipment
By replacing the existing RCX kits with the most current EV3 model, the students will benefit
from having access to the most recent technology for this laboratory section. This solution would
be relatively easy to implement compared to the other solutions as the instructors would not need
any extra training. As the EV3 model runs off of the same programming language as previous
models, no new software would need to be implemented. The classroom dynamic would improve
greatly as the equipment would be new, which would minimize the need for instructor
troubleshooting. Instructor satisfaction would improve as there would be less focus on
troubleshooting and more focus on instruction. Student satisfaction would also improve as less
time would be spent overcoming broken equipment and more time would be spent learning the
material. In the event that any parts break, replacement parts would be easy to obtain as the EV3
model is currently in circulation and support is scheduled to continue until 2020. Finally, the cost
for this model is only slightly higher than the other potential solutions, however this is offset by
the length of support for this model. Overall, while the cost of this solution is slightly higher than
the others, the improvement of classroom dynamic as well as instructor and student satisfaction
makes this the most feasible solution.
Solution 2 (BE1200): Replacement of existing equipment with the NXT and donation of
existing equipment
Another potential solution we examined was replacing the existing RCX kits with a more current
NXT model. This solution would also be relatively easy to implement as the instructors would
not require any extra training as well as no new software would need to be purchased. The
classroom dynamic would improve greatly as the equipment would be new, which would
minimize the need for instructor troubleshooting. Instructor satisfaction would improve as there
would be less focus on troubleshooting and more focus on instruction. Student satisfaction would
also improve as less time would be spent overcoming broken equipment and more time would be
spent learning the material. The NXT model is currently supported by Lego, however as this
model is 8 years outdated and is scheduled to be put out of circulation in one year. Moving
forward, the instructors would find it difficult to find any replacement parts, this may negatively
impact both instructor satisfaction as well as student satisfaction. Finally, while this solution
would be slightly less expensive option the EV3 model, the fact that this model will no longer
have support from Lego within a year makes this a slightly less optimized solution.
Solution 3 (BE1200): Replacement of existing equipment with Arduino circuit boards and
donation of existing equipment
The last possible solution we considered for BE 1200 was replacing the Lego kits with Arduino
kits. This solution has the largest barrier for implementation as the College of Engineering would
have to train the instructors to teach students how to use the Arduino kits. The training of
instructors would extend to a different programming language as the Arduino kits use a different
language from the Lego kits. The classroom dynamic would improve as students would have
new equipment to work with. This would also contribute to improved student and instructor
satisfaction. However, in an interview with decision makers at the College of Engineering, it was
mentioned that the sections which utilize the Lego kits were vital because they teach design to
students in a different way than the Arduino kits. The administration feels that it is important
have a variety of options when it comes to teaching design to incoming engineering students.
Finally, the cost of this solution is the cheapest of all options, if only by a slight margin, however
the barriers to implementation as well as the views of the administration make this option the
least feasible.
BE 1310
Solution 1(BE 1310): Scrapping broken equipment and replacement with certified used
equipment from labequip or AL-TAR
The first possible solution we considered was replacing the broken equipment with certified used
equipment from a laboratory equipment vendor. The vendors we considered were LabEquip and
AL-TAR, both of which had similar policies regarding used equipment. This solution would be
relatively easy to implement as the equipment would be shipped to Wayne State University upon
order. The student and instructor satisfaction would improve as the improved equipment would
minimize the focus on instructor troubleshooting. The classroom dynamic would also improve
for this reason. As the used equipment is certified for up to 5 years, even if there are
malfunctions, the impact to the classroom, students, and instructors would be minimal.
Depending on their stock, both LabEquip and AL-TAR offer the most advanced models
available for purchase. This would alleviate any concerns regarding the equipment being
obsolete. This solution is significantly less expensive than purchasing new equipment and
comparable to repairing broken equipment. Finally, as LabEquip offered us the best prices on
used equipment, we would purchase the equipment through them. Overall, this solution fulfills
the most criteria and is our final recommendation for BE 1310.
Solution 2 (BE 1310): Scrapping broken equipment and replacement with new equipment
from labequip or AL-TAR
The next possible solution we considered was purchasing completely new equipment from a
laboratory equipment vendor. The vendors we considered were LabEquip and AL-TAR, both of
which had similar policies regarding new equipment. This solution would be relatively easy to
implement as the equipment would be shipped to Wayne State University upon order. The
student and instructor satisfaction would improve as the improved equipment would minimize
the focus on instructor troubleshooting. The classroom dynamic would also improve for this
reason. As the equipment would be brand new, the likelihood of it needing repair is minimal.
Improving Laboratory Equipment 13
However, in the event that repair is needed, all new equipment comes with a 3 year warranty,
this policy is the same across both vendors. This is the most expensive option, costing nearly
twice as much as the other options. Finally, as LabEquip offered us the best prices on new
equipment, we would purchase the equipment through them. Overall, while this solution meets
most of our criteria, the extreme cost would not make this the best possible solution.
Solution 3 (BE 1310): Repairing broken Equipment utilizing Labequip or AL-TAR
The final possible solution we considered was sending the broken equipment to a laboratory
equipment vendor for repair. This solution poses a few concerns. The broken equipment would
first need to be sent to the vendor of choice, where it would be analyzed. Once the equipment is
analyzed, we would receive a quote for repair. Repairs come with a 1 year warranty. If the
equipment is deemed unsalvageable, then repairs cannot be made, which would leave the issue
unresolved. As this option has the shortest warranty, the risk of continued malfunctions would be
greater with no support. This would negatively affect both students and instructors as well as cost
more to fix in the long run. If the equipment is sent off and repaired, given no further
malfunction, the benefits to both students and instructors would be similar to the other solutions
mentioned previously. Finally, this solution would be comparable in cost to replacing the
equipment with certified used equipment. As LabEquip offered the best estimates on repair, we
would be inclined to use their repair services. Overall, as there are some serious concerns
regarding the implementation of this solution, we would not consider this the as our final
recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
From our research and criteria we recommend that for BE 1200 to replace the existing equipment
with the EV3 model and for BE 1310 to replace the equipment with certified used equipment
from Lab Equip. These are the best implemented solutions in order to improve the quality of
education in the BE 1200 and BE 1310 courses respectively. Both options maximize the meeting
our criteria by way of the following:
BE 1200
● Students and instructors will be set up to work with the current market issue which will
be more engaging and free of running errors
● Replacements for missing parts are easily accessible as the EV3 is the at market model
● No additional training is required to get instructors used to the EV3 in comparison to the
RCX so no time will be lost in transition
BE 1310
● Most affordable and backed by warranty for 5 years
● Students and teachers are not held up by mechanical failures and can focus strictly on the
courses content
● Requires only moving old equipment out and new equipment in which can be done
quickly and does not lose time in transition or hold up the course.
Improving Laboratory Equipment 15
REFERENCES
AL-TAR. (2014, June). Retrieved from https://www.al-tar.com/
ARDUINO. (2014 June). Retrieved from http://arduino.cc/en/main/boards
(D. Ellis, personal communication, June 23, 2014).
Dean Survey - Basic Engineering Course Experience (2014):
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1reUi7s16hz33fZ0AlgSPEkVYaheFYIeu81rAJBJvvo/viewform?usp=send_form
Equipment Inventory 1200
Equipment Inventory 1310
Faculty/Instructor/TA Survey - Basic Engineering Course Experience (2014):
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1330EZhP7e0pr2RDy_GL946fqknxTU9RgP5YOa5JZ
mtQ/viewform?usp=send_form
(J. McNeil, personal communication, July 12, 2014).
Lego. (2014, June). Retrieved from http://www.lego.com/enus/mindstorms/?domainredir=mindstorms.lego.com
Presement, T. (2014, June). LabEquip NEW & USED LABORATORY EQUIPMENT.
Retrieved from http://www.labequip.com/
Student Survey - Basic Engineering Course Experience (2014):
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1jCc2CAZSu5a9AXBY32yLl_RKtQJdgnRH0V3PwA3eLw/viewform?usp=send_form
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: STUDENT SURVEY QUESTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ANSWERS
Student Survey Questions:
● Which of the following courses have you completed at Wayne State?
● How was your experience with the BE 1200 Lego Mindstorm kits?
● What issues did you have with the Lego Mindstorm kits?
● How was your experience with the lab equipment in BE 1310?
● What issues did you have with the equipment in the BE 1310 Lab course?
Student Survey Responses; Issues with Lego Mindstorm:
“It seemed like we kept running out of pieces that we needed to creatively build our bot.”
“Frequent technical errors with the hardware, such as the bricks or towers not working.”
“A lot of parts were missing and didn’t function as properly as they should.”
“Too old, outdated, and missing/broken pieces. The laptops given to groups were slow,
preventing students to finish assignments when they were due.”
“They were old and outdated. The Legos would sometimes break, even the motors/sensors
wouldn't work properly. I was always asking for new pieces.”
“They are old and outdated. I believe there are newer kits available which would enhance the
learning experience and make the class more engaging for the students.”
“The sensors were very cheap and did not respond fast enough for the tasks at hand. Had to
design really slow projects and even then the accuracy was off. Better sensors and actuators.
Need to do all track (black line) projects somewhere where the lighting is equal from all
directions. The PACE lab has horrible lighting for these tasks.”
Student Survey Responses; Issues with BE 1310 equipment:
“The cold work machine is aged, so the machine does not work well. Lab not suitable for wet
labs.”
“A lot of the equipment was outdated, and not easy to use.”
“The TAs did not know how to perform the lab experiments or work the equipment. How are
freshmen supposed to figure out how to perform laboratory exercises on the equipment, which is
broken half the time, when the instructors do not even understand?”
“The equipment is out of date and a lot of the experiments you cannot start without the instructor
explaining it first, or the tensile test, where you cannot do any of the experiment.”
“Very unorganized, felt like you had someone holding your hand when you didn't need it, and
had nobody to help when needed.”
“Every single lab we had in 1310 was awful. The lab equipment was so inaccurate that our
percent error was always over 15%, when we should have always been under 10%. So it required
us to run experiments multiple times to try to get errors under 10%, eventually the lab TA just
said forget and always told us to make notes in our lab reports talking about how off the
equipment was.”
“The equipment in the BE 1310 Laboratory course was extremely outdated, most of the
machines were running off of Windows 98 or Windows ME and ran very slowly, at that.”
“It was difficult to learn how to use the equipment. Because some of the equipment only required
one person to operate, there were some labs where I was not able to use the equipment at all.”
Improving Laboratory Equipment 17
APPENDIX B: FACULTY SURVEY QUESTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ANSWERS
Faculty Survey Questions:
● Which of the following courses have you instructed?
● How many student complaints are voiced regarding equipment issues?
● What is the most common student complaint?
● What is your personal opinion of equipment quality in these classes?
● In your personal opinion, what equipment is necessary for this class to be properly
taught? Which pieces of our current equipment need to be replaced? Which need to be
repaired? And which can be removed?
BE 1310; Qian Zhong:
“The most important for undergraduate level would be to bridge the theory and experimentation.
Therefore, the method to determine a quantity should matter more than the result from
experiment. On the other hand, equipment should be maintained and calibrated regularly so that
experimental result is controlled in limited deviation.”
“Different instructor always replace or add one or two experiment to each semester according to
their research area and recent advance in material science. I think the roller for cold work
experiment should be replaced ASAP because the roller was abused by students who shaped
dumbbell copper sample into paper-thin sheet. This already is beyond our lab requirement. On
the other hand, the equipment is also a little bit old”
BE 1200; Dr. James Lenn:
“I see no problem with the quality. The issues are: 1) lack of availability for students to use
outside of class since most do not have access to computers running windows XP; 2) It is
becoming increasingly more difficult to obtain replacement parts, because of obsolescence”
“Up to this point, the existing equipment is adequate for teaching the class. As time goes on, it
will eventually become impossible to provide a sufficient number of kits to the students because
of obsolescence issues. The lack of availability for outside usage impacts those students who are
motivated to learn beyond what is offered directly through classroom instruction.”
APPENDIX C: DECISION MAKER SURVEY QUESTIONS AND SIGNIFICANT ANSWERS
Decision Maker Survey Questions:
● Has the issue of insufficient equipment for these two courses ever been brought to your
attention before?
● If it has, has there been any investigation or research into the topic previously as to
whether improving the equipment quality would improve the class experience?
● Who would be the people making the decisions regarding whether these changes should
be made? Who would need to be persuaded that they are necessary?
● What is the likelihood that any changes would be made? What is the likelihood that
Wayne State and the College of Engineering would support this both in making it happen
and/or in funding matters?
Dr. Darin Ellis; Answers to above questions, respectively:
“Every year we invest in new parts, etc. for the Legos Mindstorm kits. We also look for new
Arduino boards for the non-lego sections of BE 1200. We hopefully going to get new base kits
soon, moving to the newest Mindstorm platform.
For BE 1310, we have invested in several new experiments, such as the gold nanoparticle
experiment, as well as a diffraction experiment. We have also conducted major maintenance on
one of the destructive testing machines.”
“We are well aware that BE 1310 in particular needs some updating. We are waiting until the
space issue becomes clear and we know where the lab will be relocated. One major constraint is
the availability of teaching labs with exhaust hoods and other utilities.
For BE 1200 we are having a committee of faculty look at options for updating the hands-on
component to better match existing Engineering 101 courses at major research universities.”
“BE Director Jeff Potoff
Associate Dean Ellis
Dean Fotouhi
with input from the faculty that teach the course, and the College Technology Advisory
Committee”
“100%. The extent of the change is limited by the availability of funds.
The new engineering student fee is earmarked for this purpose though, so we should have at least
some resources to work with.
BE labs aren't the only ones that need updates though.”
Dr. Jeff Potoff; Answers to above questions, respectively:
“Yes. I'm in regular contact with all course instructors. At multiple times during the semester I
discuss equipment needs with them.
Over the last two years, we have made substantial investments in equipment for both BE 1200
and BE 1300/1310. In the BE 1310 lab, we have spent over $10,000 on lab upgrades. In 2013 we
added a new semiconducting experiment, and in 2014 we are adding an experiment on laser
diffraction.
By 2015, we expect to have completed a $500,000 lab renovation for the BE 1310 lab.
For BE 1200, we have invested approximately $5000 in new Arduino kits, and various parts,
including data acquisition boards to enhance the functionality of the kits. For 2014, we are
currently working on a major upgrade to the Lego robotics sections.”
Improving Laboratory Equipment 19
“We haven't done a formal study, but I think it is obvious that the better the equipment, and the
better the quality of the laboratory, the better the experience students will have. Students deserve
to work with high quality, modern equipment.”
“Darin Ellis: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Farshad Fotouhi: Dean of the College of Engineering
Jeff Potoff: Director of Early Engineering Programs. All of the day to day decisions go through
me. Big items, like lab renovations are made through discussions with the Dean's office.”
“100% likelihood that changes will be made! Changes are being made right now. We are
constantly working with donors to provide funds to improve the quality of the undergraduate
laboratories. We are committed to providing students with an outstanding experience. However,
sometimes the changes take time to implement, and some students don't get the opportunity to
benefit from the improvements while students at WSU. For example, our BE 1310 lab renovation
has taken two years to go from getting funding, to design, and then the actual construction.”
APPENDIX D: BE 1200 AND BE 1310 LAB EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Lego Mindstorms RCX kits
Rolling mill
Hardness tester
Calipers
Annealed copper sheet
Creep Machine
Stopwatch
Lead Specimens
Metallurgical microscope with TV camera (A in Figure 2)
TV monitor (B in Figure 2)
Stage micrometer
Metal specimens
Transparent plastic sheets
Marker pens
Metric ruler (mm divisions)
Germanium based semiconductor (Figure 3) mounted on a L-shaped aluminum
plate
Hot plates
Steel block
Multimeter – For resistance measurements
Thermocouple – For temperature measurements
Calipers;
Tensile tester equipment;
Aluminum samples