in the middle of updating

ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.tex

@@ -55,16 +55,16 @@ redesigned the course in Fall 2018 to prepare students to make engineering
 decisions and accomplish design goals.  My short-term objectives were to prepare
 the students to start their capstone projects senior year and improve technical
 writing.  The laboratory course includes a number of novel features:
-specifications grading, interactive Jupyter lab handouts, and a problem- and
+specifications grading, interactive Jupyter lab handouts, and problem- and
 project-based learning. Problem-solving skills were evaluated with six
 problem-based learning (PBL) laboratories and a Project-based learning (PjBL)
 contest that had a cash prize. The technical writing skills were improved using
 specifications grading in all seven laboratories. Students were given a detailed
 rubric with a pass-fail threshold. Reports that did not meet the specification
 for pass, were revised and resubmitted. The specifications grading provided a
-method for students to learn from failure and over 50\% of students increased
+method for students to learn from failure. Over 50\% of students increased
 technical writing quality. The Jupyter notebooks helped to close the gap between
-rational, thinking design and empirical, hands-on design. In the project-based
+rational and empirical design. In project-based
 learning, the students designed their own set of experiments including finite
 element analysis and experimental procedures. The students were graded upon
 their approach to the problem and quantification of uncertainties in measured
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ taking the lab course with PjBL. I discuss the impacts of specifications
 grading, project-based learning competition, and detail the measured
 improvements in technical writing throughout the semesters in Fall 2018 and Fall
 2019. The impacts were measured based upon a standardized rubric and qualitative
-interviews. 
+assessments. 
 
 %In conclusion, this course included a number of novel features: Problem- and
 %Project-based learning (PBL and PjBL), interactive lab handouts via JupyterHub,
@@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ the divide between rationalism and empiricism as the same division between
 engineering professor and engineering student. Despite skepticism between
 rational and empirical approaches, engineers are expected to build innovative
 designs with both rational models \emph{and}  empirical
-measurements and insights.  We relate quantitative, rational models to
+measurements.  We relate quantitative, rational models to
 quantitative, empirical measurements through statistical quantities e.g.
 confidence intervals and safety factors.  Engineers have to communicate rational
 and empirical ideas to accomplish goals. 
@@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ department of Mechanical Engineering department, we had 215 students in
 Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 enroll in this course, ME3263-Introduction to Sensors
 and Data. In the course, Labs \#0-4 and 6 are PBL activities
 where students are given basic steps and asked to write technical documents.
-Lab \#5 is a PjBL activity; I specified that the class needed to measure the
+Lab \#5 is a PjBL activity; I specify that the class needed to measure the
 mass of an object using a vibrating beam. Lab \#0 is used to introduce
 statistical significance in measurements. We relate discussions of rational
 models and empirical measurements with statistical analysis. All students work
@@ -183,11 +183,11 @@ methods between band saw and computer numerical control (CNC) parts.  Labs \#2-4
 ask students to quantify differences between rational predictions using
 analytical and numerical models and empirical measurements for static and
 dynamic cantilever beams. In the PjBL activity, the Lab \#5 competition, the
-students are give the task to create a design of experiments, create a predictive
-model, and use engineering judgment to measure the mass of an object on a
-vibrating beam. The final Lab \#6 included a combination of rational predictions
-using lumped-mass assumptions, finite element analysis, and empirical
-measurements. 
+students are given the task to create a design of experiments, create a
+predictive model, and use engineering judgment to measure the mass of an object
+on a vibrating beam. The final Lab \#6 included a combination of rational
+predictions and empirical measurements using lumped-mass assumptions, finite
+element analysis, and thermocouples. 
 
 \begin{figure}
   \centering
@@ -206,21 +206,21 @@ The laboratory course includes a number of novel features: specifications
 grading, interactive lab handouts, and a PjBL competition with \$150-prize.
 I use specifications grading for lab reports \cite{nilson2015}. Each lab report
 is graded based upon a pass-fail criteria and a standardized grading rubric. Lab
-groups of two students were given the opportunity to revise failed lab reports
+groups of two students are given the opportunity to revise failed lab reports
 with tokens. Initially, each lab group has two tokens with the opportunity to
 earn more during in-class discussions or extra credit assignments. Specification
 grading is geared towards meeting a minimum set of standards, but allowing the
-teaching assistants and myself to offer more criticism. The goal is to help the
-class improve technical writing skills or at least maintain a reasonable quality
-for professional engineers. 
+teaching assistants and myself to offer technical writing criticism. The goal is
+to help the class improve technical writing skills or at least maintain a
+reasonable quality for professional engineers. 
 
 The lab handouts are hosted as interactive Jupyter\cite{kluyver2016} notebooks.
 Students access a server to process example test data, enter their experimental
-data, and plot results of analytical predictions.  The background information is
-rendered as html with links to resources such as Student's 1908 ``The Probable
-Error of a Mean''\cite{student1908}, animations, or Wikipedia articles.  The
-goal is to combine rational and empirical design. Thus, providing resources
-for capstone engineering projects and ultimately for
+data, and plot results of rational predictions and empirical analysis.  The
+background information is rendered as html with links to resources such as
+Student's 1908 ``The Probable Error of a Mean''\cite{student1908}, animations,
+or Wikipedia articles.  The goal is to combine rational and empirical design.
+Thus, providing resources for capstone engineering projects and ultimately for
 professional engineering projects.
 
 The project-based competition asks lab groups to measure the mass of an object
@@ -231,7 +231,7 @@ rational predictions and engineering judgments.  The
 competition ends with the submission of their best estimate of object mass with
 a propagation of error and the Methods section. The lab group with the most
 accurate measurement is awarded a \$150-prize. After the prize is awarded, the
-actual object masses were announced. The lab groups use week 12 to revise
+actual object masses are announced. The lab groups use week 12 to revise
 their approach and submit the lab report. The goal is to encourage students to
 create, design, and evaluate. Then, the teaching assistants and myself give
 clear feedback on the final error in the predicted results. 
@@ -263,7 +263,7 @@ The remaining 1\% and 4\% of the class did not improve or meet specifications
 for lab reports, in Fall 2018 and 2019, respectively. The grades from Labs~\#5-6
 are shown in Fig.~\ref{quality}(b).  Lab~\#5 was the PjBL contest and marked a
 significant increase in expectations.  The results of this study, suggest that
-students were able to incorporate feedback from teaching assistants and myself
+students are able to incorporate feedback from teaching assistants and myself
 and show improvements in technical writing. The Labs increased in difficulty, so
 even the groups of students that maintained their grade at the specified level
 show marked improvement in communicating difficult concepts. 

reviewer_comments.md

@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+Reviews
+The chair commented on the abstract:
+
+The reviewer has shared critical feedback with you, and as Program Chair fro DELOS, I am willing to discuss their comments with you as you prepare your paper. - Dr. Sally Pardue, spardue@tntech.edu
+
+The chair commented on the draft:
+
+Please submit a revised paper incorporating the review comments. If you have questions or concerns, please contact me. -Sally Pardue, DELOS Program Chair, 2020. spardue@tntech.edu
+
+A reviewer commented on the draft
+There are several typographical errors in the submission which should be corrected. One example - on pg. 2, paragraph 1, sentence 3 there is '??' instead of a citation number. The document must be proofread more thoroughly and resubmitted.
+
+It would seem that there is a possibility of a repeated measures analysis on the laboratory report scores themselves. Why was this not done?
+
+Also, presumably, students are scored on their senior design work. Yet, only student opinion about their own level of preparedness was analyzed. Why not measure and analyze the actual work and not just student opinion?
+
+Although not specifically identified, it would seem that this involves human subject research (surveys from students analyzed and the results being published) which might fall under an Institutional Review Board. I did not notice that IRB approval was sought or that the institution's IRB was notified and rendered a conclusion that such approval was not needed.
+
+A reviewer commented on the draft
+In the abstract section, it would be good to include some of the preliminary findings. The author provided an excellent overview and description of the research study with ample quantitative data to support his/her conclusions and recommendations.
+
+A reviewer commented on the abstract
+This type of work is "routine" and conveys nothing new. We all have been doing this as a part of our responsibilities. This is not considered research or scholarship. ………. Routine Projects, Report Writing, Senior Design Capstone Courses, Project Management Techniques ……… These are all part of 4 year engineering education establishment. You say: "Students spent the first 9 weeks of the course following experimental procedures and writing lab reports." Our students do this as a routine in most of their engineering courses for all the 15 weeks. Senior Design is a course ….. Full Year … Two semester long. You have not accomplished anything of significance. Hopefully you will provide some data collection, graphs, analysis, inference, conclusions, ideas for improvement ……… Benchmark Institutions that have accomplished similar activities ….. etc. The abstract needs to be re-written to conform to ASEE guidelines. I am not at all impressed. Poor Show.

track_progress

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+/home/ryan/Documents/UConn/ME3263/track_progress