Course Assessment Report College of Engineering, The University of Iowa (Revised Spring Semester 2012) Course # and Name: 059:007 Statics Semester and Instructor: Fall 2011, Madhavan Raghavan, Serban Constantinescu, Colby Swan Coordinator: Wilfrid Nixon, CEE Department Student Head Count: 254 Teaching Assistants Head Count and FTE: 8 Catalog Description: Vector algebra, forces, couples, moments, resultants of force couple systems; friction, equilibrium analysis of particles and finite bodies, centroids; applications. Prerequisite: 22M:031. Corequisites: 22M:032 and 029:081. I. Course Goals and Program Outcomes Indicate the Program Outcomes associated with each Course Learning Goal along with the extent (moderate or substantial) of these associations Course Learning Goal Program Outcome 1. Representation of forces and moments as vectors in two and three dimensions. A(•1), E(•), K(•) 2. Use of equilibrium equations to determine the forces acting on a point or a body in two and A(•), E(•), K(•) three dimensions. 3. Use of the concepts of equilibrium to determine forces acting on trusses and in frames and A(•), E(•), K(•) machines. 4. Use of the concepts of equilibrium to analyze simple friction problems. A(•), E(•), K(•) 5. Determination of the centroids of simple and composite shapes. A(•), E(•), K(•) 6. Determination of the moments of inertia of simple and composite cross sections. A(•), E(•), K(•) 7. Composition of a written description of the principles of statics observable in a structure. G(w)(•) Notes: ○ denotes moderate contribution to the outcome ● denotes substantial contribution to the outcome II. Program Outcomes (provided for reference). New graduates from the College of Engineering Undergraduate Programs will have: (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data (c) an ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs within realistic constraints such as economic, environmental, social, political, ethical, health and safety, manufacturability, and sustainability (d) an ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams (e) an ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems (f) an understanding of professional and ethical responsibility (g) an ability to communicate effectively (h) the broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context (i) a recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning (j) a knowledge of contemporary issues (k) an ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. III. Assessment Part A. Log of Recent Improvements, Recommendations and Comments. Append a brief, dated, summary of improvements and recommendations made during the current offering along with motivations and significant comments. If the course is meeting its objectives and no comments are needed, say this. Six year and older entries may be deleted. Spring 2004 Re-organization of the material: It appears to me that the course moves very slow in the beginning because of the need to review 3D vectors and their applications. The actual statics principles get lost in the details of vector algebra. I propose to skip material related to 3D problems in the beginning and cover it towards the end of the course. This will have three benefits. First, the students will have opportunity to thoroughly understand equilibrium concepts and their applications to planar problems. Almost all actual truss, frame, machine, and friction problems assigned in the course (incidentally also those that appear in the Fundamentals of Engineering exam) involve two-dimensional analysis. Second, the material on centroids and moments of inertia will be covered earlier in the semester when students are not burdened by the end of the semester activities in every course. Third, the students will be in better position to separate basic concepts from the vector algebra details when the 3D problems are actually covered. Fall 2004 In the Spring 2004 it was recommended to skip material related to 3D problems in the beginning and cover it towards the end of the course. This change was implemented in Fall 2004. From the comments, and performance of students in the exams, it appears that the change was received well. There were no negative comments related to this topic. Students were also more positive about the course as reflected in the higher mean scores on all EASY questions. They generally did better in the exams as well. Fall 2005 Writing project: The writing process continued the use of the refined grading process described above. This should be continued next semester. We switched to ICON. All lectures and solutions to HW and exams were posted on the ICON site for the class. The use of ICON should be continued. Fall 2006 Teaching aids: Two hands-on laboratory experiments were added during the discussion sections. Student comments about these labs were generally positive. Class activities (Group problem solving) were incorporated into the lectures. This helped in breaking the monotony of the lectures and provided students an opportunity to discuss the material with their classmates. Most students liked these class activities. Fall 2007 Text book: The textbook for the course was changed to: Engineering Mechanics: Statics by J. L. Meriam and L. G. Kraige, Wiley and Sons, NY, Sixth Edition. The textbook adequately covered all the topics towards meeting the course goals. Fall 2008 We changed the writing assignment to make room in the course for some (limited) hands on experiments. In the assignment, the students were asked to write a Letter of Intent (to submit a proposal), Proposal (to conduct several experiments) and Report describing and documenting the results of these experiments. These tasks were distributed over the course of the semester. In the next year we need to end and grade them sooner to provide more feedback to the students. We also complemented the lectures and the discussion sessions with several extra evening sessions during which students worked on problems while the lecturers and the TAs walked around and consulted the students. This allows for “customized” help as the mathematics and physics background among the students varies considerably. Spring 2009 To allow for a comparison between the writing assignment given in Fall 2008 and the assignment more traditionally given, the writing assignment this semester was the more traditional assignment. It is hoped that a fairly formal comparison between the two types of assignment can be conducted. Additionally, the need for students to conduct experiments may create some issues if TA resources are significantly reduced as appears to be likely. No other changes to the course were made. Part A. Improvements and Recommendations this Semester. Provide a description of course improvements that have occurred this semester relative to those of previous semester (including the motivation for these changes), and recommended changes for upcoming semesters as needed. Fall 2007 The class average for Exam 1 was around 40 and the students perceived the exam to be difficult. An extra help session was held on Friday afternoons on a voluntary basis by one of the instructors (open to students from both sections) and an average of ten students took advantage of this help. The comments from the students participated indicated that the help session was useful in their preparation for the exams. Fall 2008 The class average for Exam 1 was below 40 again this year. It is our impression that the students are not well prepared for the difficulty of the exam and lose point unnecessarily. Extra help sessions were well attended; an average of twenty students took advantage of this help. The comments from the students who participated indicated that the help sessions were useful in their preparation for the exams. We also ran into significant issues with students having the solutions manual. As a result, they were getting high scores on their homework, but this was not translating into preparedness for the exams. We may consider decreasing or eliminating the homework portion of the grade, and instead opting for quizzes in class, based on “suggested” homework that we expect them to do and understand. This way, the first exam will not be such a huge surprise. Spring 2009 The exam 1 average was 46.9/60, exam 2 average was 38.9/60 and the final exam average was 75.6/100. The issue of students getting the solutions manual is a major concern and is likely not avoidable. One small step toward minimizing this is to assign a problem but change some of the values (e.g. do problem 2.37 but replace the 100 lb weight with a 200 lb weight). While in most cases this simply requires students to do a straight substitution it appears that those who rely heavily on the solutions manual are not willing or able to do this. Regardless, the first exam was not a major concern for students. The second exam was tougher, but this likely reflects a tougher selection of questions than normal. The homework portion of the grade may have to be reduced depending on the availability of TA support. Fall 2009 Tried not using homeworks but instead had a major innovation with having a significant use of tutoring. Seemed to help somewhat. Spring 2010 The class was disrupted because the instructor had to take family medical leave in February, and the TA took over teaching the class at this point. Exam 1 average was 74.7%, exam 2 was 62.4% and final exam average was 68.3%. Given the disruption there was little opportunity to develop novel approaches during the semester. Fall 2010 The experiment with not grading homeworks continued. The process is as follows. Homeworks are assigned but are not collected. Instead, each week there is a quiz in the discussion section, which is very closely based on the assigned homework problems. This minimizes the issue of students who have access to solution manuals simply copying homework solutions. One issue that could be improved is to help the TAs with their time management. On occasions, there was not sufficient time at the end of a discussion section to allow students the full allotted time for the quiz. While there was a lot of tutoring made available to students in this semester, the instructors have some reservations about this process. There did not seem to be a great deal of coordination between the tutoring process and the instructors. Further, the instructors feel that the tutoring should focus on topics that are foundational to statics. Thus if a student has a problem with some of the trigonometry that is foundational for the class, the tutoring service is ideal for such a case. Likewise, if a student has missed two or three classes because of illness, tutoring should help them catch up. It would help if communication were significantly improved between the tutoring program and the instructors. The instructors used a pre-test, administered on the first day, to determine the level of basic math skills needed for the course that students actually had. The test comprised ten simple questions and one minute was allotted for each question. It was expected that students would get either nine or ten of the questions correct, but unfortunately they only managed to get about six correct. The test was administered again about mid-way through the semester, and students got about 8 of 10 correct. The implication is that students either do not know the material that they need to know prior to the class, or do not realize how critical this will be to their success in the class and have thus not brought it to mind. This would be a good area for tutoring to focus. The fall offering of statics started using clickers in fall of 2009 and continued this in 2010. Uses vary from lecture to lecture, but it allows recording of attendance, testing of reading and concept understanding, and also serves as a way to keep students engaged and on task during the class time. Spring 2011 There were two innovations this semester. First, students were restricted in the calculators they could use in the exams to those models approved for the FE exam (as is done in EPS I). There were very few complaints about this and it seemed to work well. Simply as a matter of fairness, it is suggested that this approach be continued. Second, a new method of tracking student success in attaining the course goals was tried. This method uses exam questions to determine the degree to which students have achieved mastery, competence, or exposure in a given course goal. First, each exam question is assigned to course goals that it addresses. Then, if students achieve 80% on that question (or more) they are considered to have demonstrated mastery. Above 50% but less than 80% indicates competence, while below 50% indicates exposure. Obviously, this is not a perfect system, but it does provide a rational basis for determining which topics students have achieved what level within. Also, the results from the two mid-term exams were used to identify topics where the class as a whole had not achieved mastery. These topics were then tested again on the final exam (along with the last two topics of the semester - centroids and moments of inertia. Using the results of this analysis of student achievement, it is clear that in most categories (writing being the exception) at least 20% of the students are not achieving competence or mastery. This is a concern. It may well be related to the results found in the fall semester when a pre-test of basic concepts was given at the start of the semester. If students do not have the basic mathematical tools they need at the start of the semester, then they will spend the whole semester struggling and at best playing catch-up, instead of actually grasping the significantly new concepts they must tackle in the course. Part of this problem may indicate that a common faculty perception of students is correct - namely that they do not carry over knowledge well from one semester to the next, because each new semester brings new classes. In part this may be because they do not understand how much the knowledge they learn today is foundational to what they will learn tomorrow. How this might be addressed is an issue. One possibility would be to create a web page for each core course indicating what knowledge students must have (by way of example questions) in order to be successful in the class. The web site would in some ways be equivalent to a pre-test. Whether students would make use of such a site is unclear, but over time it may well be that such sites are used because they assist student success. The issue of tutoring was not of much concern this semester as it was last, but it would still be very beneficial for the tutoring system to work with faculty explicitly to ensure that correct approaches are needed. Having lots of students go to tutoring because they get given the answer to problems will not help their learning - they need to be learning the concepts whether in class, in discussion sections, or in the tutoring sessions. Fall 2011 Again we saw that in each of the outcomes (except writing) between 15 and 25% of the students are not attaining competency. The weakest areas appeared to be after the second mid-term, but that may not be a statistically significant result. There has been an improvement over the previous fall, and that may be related to the use of four sections rather than three (thus creating somewhat smaller class sizes). However, the results remain a challenge. Some questions were raised by students about the writing exercise, which is currently worth 15% of the final grade. Students felt this was too much both in terms of the work required (especially for a two hour class) and in terms of the points given for it. The writing exercise was introduced as part of the major curriculum change more than a decade ago, and was intended to be the major writing exercise for students in their third semester. It is probably worth discussing whether they still need this, if so whether statics is the place for it to be, and if not to either of these, then what (if anything) should take its place. Part B. Quantitative Assessment Results. Enter in the table below an assessment of the percentage of passing students achieving mastery (B+ to A+ level achievement), competency (C- to B level achievement) or exposure (D- to D+ level achievement) for each course learning goal. To make room for the rightmost “new” entry, delete the leftmost “old” entry. Course Learning Goal And Assessment Basis 1. Representation of forces and moments as vectors in two and three dimensions. 2. Use of equilibrium equations to determine the forces acting on a point or a body in two and three dimensions. 3. Use of the concepts of equilibrium to determine forces acting on trusses and in frames and machines. 4. Use of the concepts of equilibrium to analyze simple friction problems. 5. Determination of the centroids of simple and composite shapes. 6. Determination of the moments of inertia of simple and composite cross sections. 7. Composition of a written description of the principles of statics observable in a structure. M C E M C E M C E M C E M C E M C E M C E Sp 09 41 47 12 41 47 12 41 47 12 41 47 12 41 47 12 41 47 12 86 10 4 Sp 10 47 33 20 45 42 13 45 42 13 45 32 13 45 32 13 45 32 13 85 13 2 Fa 10 49 21 30 32 38 29 39 30 31 11 70 18 36 25 39 16 39 45 62 30 8 Sp 11 48 30 22 40 24 36 40 30 30 48 32 20 50 21 29 55 18 27 93 7 0 Fa 11 48 34 19 48 34 19 43 41 16 43 41 16 34 41 25 34 41 25 92 8 0 Part C. Please attach a current syllabus. 59:007: Engineering Fundamentals I – Statics (Section AAA) Fall Semester 2011 Time and Place: Lectures (for section AAA) 10:30 – 11:20 TTh 1505 SC Discussion Section A31 9:30 – 10:20 M 3505 SC Discussion Section A32 11:30 – 12:20 M 2217 SC Discussion Section A33 9:30 – 10:20 W 3505 SC Instructor: Prof. Wilfrid Nixon Wilfridfirstname.lastname@example.org 4113 SC 5-5166 @wilfnixon http://wilf-nixon.blogspot.com/ TAs: Anissa Gerard (email@example.com) Nikhil Sikka (Nikhilfirstname.lastname@example.org) Office Hours / Workroom: Professor Nixon: Location Time: 3501 SC TTh 9:00 – 10:15 a.m. (starting January 21) Anissa Location Time: 3258 SC TBD Nikhil Location Time: 3258 SC TBD Text: Meriam, J.L. and Kraige, L.G, Engineering Mechanics - Statics, 6th Ed., Wiley, 2006. 59:007 Engineering Fundamentals I – Statics Section AAA Spring Semester 2011 Instructor: Wilfrid A. Nixon Textbook: Meriam, J.L. and Kraige, L.G, Engineering Mechanics - Statics, 6th Ed., Wiley, 2006. COURSE SCHEDULE Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Lect 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Date Jan 18 Jan 20 Jan 25 Jan 27 Feb 1 Feb 3 Feb 8 Feb 10 Feb 15 Feb 17 Feb 22 Feb 24 Mar 1 14 15 16 --17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Mar 3 Mar 8 Mar 10 Mar 15 Mar 17 Mar 22 Mar 24 Mar 29 Mar 31 Apr 5 Apr 7 Apr 12 Apr 14 25 26 27 28 29 30 Apr 19 Apr 21 Apr 26 Apr 28 May 3 May 5 May 9 Lecture Topics General Principles Force Vectors No class Equilibrium of a Particle 3D Equilibrium Moment, CTC Presentation Force-Couple System Distributed Force System Rigid Body Equilibrium Equilibrium in Two Dimensions Equilibrium in Three Dimensions Review Exam 1: 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. 1505 SC (no regular class) Forces in Trusses: Method of Joints Forces in Trusses: Method of Sections Space Trusses Spring Break Spring Break Forces in Frames and Machines Forces in Frames and Machines Forces in Frames and Machines Frictional Forces Tipping and Impending Motion Problems Involving Friction Review Exam 2: 5:30 – 7:30 p.m. 1505 SC (no regular class) Center of Gravity Using Integration Center of Gravity of Composite Sections Moment of Inertia using Integration Moment of Inertia of Composite Sections Mass Moment of Inertia Review Final Exam, 9:45 – 11:45 a.m. TBD Sections Chap 1 2.1–2.3, 2.7 3.1 – 3.3 3.4 2.4 – 2.6 2.8 – 2.10 5.1, 5.6 3.1 3.2 – 3.3 3.4 4.1 – 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 – 4.7 4.6 – 4.7 4.6 – 4.7 6.1 – 6.3 6.1 – 6.3 6.4 – 6.5 5.1 – 5.3 5.4 A1 – A2 A3 B Prbs Due Set # 1 Set # 2 Set # 3 Set # 4 Set # 5 Set # 6 Set # 7 Set # 8 Set # 9 Set # 10 Set # 11 Set # 12 Set # 13 Set # 14 Set # 15 Set # 16 Set # 17 Set # 18 Set # 19 Set # 20 Set # 21 Set # 22 Set # 23 Set # 24 59:007 Engineering Fundamentals I - Statics Spring Semester 2011 COURSE DESCRIPTION 1: Textbook: Meriam, J.L. and Kraige, L.G, Engineering Mechanics - Statics, 6th Ed., Wiley, 2006, available at IMU Bookstore 2: Pre- and Co-requisites: 22M:31 (pre-requisite). 22M:32 and 29:17 (co-requisites) 3: Homework Policy: • • • • • • • Homework problem solutions may be developed independently or collaboratively. But homework submissions must be individual, independent work. Problems are due at the start of class on the date shown in the schedule. All homework problems submitted on time will be graded and will be returned at the next discussion session. Late homework is not accepted without a valid written and signed excuse. Problem solving will be covered in lectures and in discussion sessions. A proper solution format is required which includes a proper free-body diagram (where appropriate). Homework MUST be submitted on Engineering paper Student number (last 5 digits) and section number must be written on each homework page. 4: Exams and Quizzes • Unannounced quizzes may be given at random in discussion sections. They will be graded and returned at the next discussion session. • Missed quizzes may not be made up. • A valid written and signed excuse will be considered if a quiz is missed, otherwise that grade is recorded as “zero.” • Two closed-book midterm exams will be given during the term, with no make-up exams. • One two-hour final comprehensive closed-book exam will be given. If a student is unable to take the final examination due to some extenuating circumstance, he or she will be given a comprehensive oral examination by the instructors at the earliest mutually convenient time. • Zero credit will be assigned for a missed exam, unless the student submits a legitimate, documented, excuse in writing. 5: Grading: • Homework and Quizzes = 15% • Essay = 15% • First Midterm Examination = 15% • Second Midterm Examination = 15% • Final Examination = 40% 6: Student Misconduct: signed • • • The College of Engineering Policy on Student Misconduct will be strictly followed. Cheating on a quiz or examination is an automatic course grade of F for all students involved. Homework copying is a zero and a reprimand the first time, and a zero grade on all homework the second time for all students involved. 7: Course Description: • This course provides students with the opportunity to develop and demonstrate an understanding of the basic scientific principles involved in the Newtonian analysis of particles and finite bodies in equilibrium, and to acquire and exhibit the ability to apply these principles in the solution of typical practical engineering problems. • The lectures are normally organized as a combined lecture/discussion session. From 1/4 to 1/2 of each lecture session will involve problem solving. The single discussion session each week will include question and answer time, problem solving, and return of the most recent quiz. Thus, the lectures will be used to introduce terminology, explain and motivate theory, and describe the general application techniques in solving problems, while the discussion sessions will provide the student with time for interactive discussion of more specific problems or techniques. • Statics is basically an analysis course in which problem definition and problem solving techniques and procedures are emphasized. A thorough understanding of the terminology and underlying theory is essential in order to be able to apply that theory correctly. A clear and straightforward procedure of mechanical analysis is also needed in order to solve well-posed statics problems. • Class room illustrations and homework problems bear a close resemblance to quiz questions, and are therefore extremely important in preparing students to do well in the course. Understanding and doing homework problems properly is the key to the course. 8: Course Objectives Students who successfully complete this course will be able to: • Express forces, relative locations, and moments or couples as vector quantities in Cartesian reference frames; • Determine resultant forces and moments for general force-couple systems, and find equivalent force- couple systems; • Construct suitable mechanical models for simple engineering structures in equilibrium, and the individual component elements of each structure; • Draw a proper free-body diagram for each element of the system model, and write the corresponding equations of equilibrium; • Write appropriate kinematic auxiliary conditions, and eliminate extraneous kinematic unknowns from the equations of equilibrium; • Solve systems of simplified equilibrium equations for unknown kinematic and/or kinetic quantities; • Locate fictitious “centers” of discrete and continuous scalar distributions, such as centers of length, area, volume, charge, mass, parallel discrete forces, and parallel continuous force distributions; • Determine area moments of inertia for simple geometrical figures, and for complex figures composed of a number of simple geometric shapes, using the parallel-axis theorem; • Analyze equilibrium states of mechanical systems in the presence of dry (Coulomb) friction; • Solve typical statics problems on the Iowa Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) examination; and • Express the principles of statics in common objects in clear written English. ALL WITHOUT THE AID OF NOTES AND REFERENCES.