Melting-Pot Design at Oakland University Michael A. Latcha, Ph.D. Debatosh Debnath, Ph.D. Imad...

Melting-Pot Design at Oakland University

Michael A. Latcha, Ph.D.

Debatosh Debnath, Ph.D.

Imad Elhajj, Ph.D.

Edward Y.L. Gu, Ph.D.

Richard E. Haskell, Ph.D.

Reasons for change

Assessments of senior design showed significant problems Most problems traced to lack of

multidisciplinary expertise Problems had to be limited to expertise of

single field, not real-world in scope or complexity

Great duplication of effort across School, stretching limited resources

The “Melting Pot” ApproachOverview

Combine all engineering and computer science senior design courses

Combined course supervised by team of professors from Electrical, Computer and Mechanical engineering

Design groups are assigned based on field, skills and experience

Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors

Questions are almost always answered only with “I don’t know, let’s find out”

Always culminates in a public competition/expo

Combine 5 courses into one

Combine all engineering (computer, electrical, mechanical and systems), and computer science senior design courses

Combined course supervised by 3 professors from Electrical, Computer and Mechanical engineering Design groups meet 20 min/week with

faculty, other times as needed

Assigning design teams

Design groups are assigned based on major field, skills and experience

70-100 students/semester Roughly 40% electrical, 40% mechanical, 15%

computer/computer science, 5% systems Assignments based on field, life experiences

and skills, interests

Don’t answer questions

Questions are (almost) always answered only with “I don’t know, let’s find out”

Forces students to rely on research skills rather than faculty expertise

Allows students to watch faculty learn Generates more freedom in choice of projects

The importance of competition

Always culminates in a public competition/expo

Self-motivation is the only effective kind Simple competition is sufficient Rules of competition provide reasons and

justification for engineering decisions Expositions are great for public relations

Choice of design projects

Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors W’04: line-following autonomous cars,

additional payload of 15 lb, 100-m closed circuit track with obstacles

Choice of design projects

Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors F’04: Rope-climbing robots, to top of 100’

tower, in any weather

Choice of design projects

Projects assigned have not been solved, or even examined in depth, by the instructors W’05: Ball-throwing robots,

autonomously targeted and fired

Choice of design projects

F’05-W’07: “develop a multidisciplinary product that could be competitive on the global market” do-it-yourself zone-controlled HVAC system remote trailer-hitching assistant infant simulator with respiration and pulse diagnostic muscular rigidity test

Choice of design projects

Planned for F’07: Each group to develop a small autonomous

robot All of the robots must collectively cooperate

to perform a task (marching band?) Communication between robots to be

decided by communications committee, with representatives from each design group

Fund the cost of prototypes

Pre-W’06 Project costs funded by students, usually

limited by project description

Since W’06 Projects funded by Provost’s

Undergraduate Research initiative, $1000 per design group

Assessment and Improvement

Initial assessments showed marked improvement over separate design projects

Concept extended to new multidisciplinary sophomore design course Projects involve microprocessor control of

dynamic systems