@article {32785, title = {Curricular Hackathons for Engineering Design Learning: The Case of Engineering Design Days}, journal = {IEEE Transactions on Education}, year = {2023}, url = {10.1109/TE.2023.3295754}, author = {Rennick, C and Litster, G and Hulls, CCW and Hurst, A} } @article {32784, title = {Characterizing Engineering Design Activities: A Reflective Tool for Design Instructors}, journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education}, volume = {38}, year = {2022}, pages = {56-66}, author = {Rennick, C and Litster, G and Hurst, A and Hulls, CCW and Bedi, S} } @conference {32795, title = {Co-Designing Design Activities with Undergraduate Students}, booktitle = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition}, year = {2022}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/41047}, author = {Rennick, C and Lenover, M and Li, E and Bedi, S} } @article {32783, title = {Development and Implementation of an Integrative and Experiential Design Project: Design, Build, and Test a Scanning Tunneling Microscope}, journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education}, volume = {38}, year = {2022}, pages = {25-35}, author = {Coggan, J and Rennick, C} } @conference {32794, title = {Industry Hubs: Integrating Industry Perspectives in Design Education}, booktitle = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition}, year = {2022}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/41430}, author = {Rennick, C and Li, E and Lenover, M and Blankespoor, W and Bedi, S} } @proceedings {32792, title = {Assessing Student Problem-Solving Skills}, journal = {University of Waterloo Teaching and Learning Conference}, year = {2021}, author = {Rennick, C and Litster, G and Hurst, A} } @conference {32790, title = {Assessing the Impact of Transitioning Introductory Design Instruction to an Online Environment}, booktitle = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition}, year = {2021}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/36719}, author = {Rennick, C and Hulls, CCW and Gryguc, A} } @conference {32791, title = {Evaluating and Extending the Reach of the Canadian Design Workshop}, booktitle = {Clive L. Dym Mudd Design Workshops XII: Designing through making}, year = {2021}, author = {Flus, M and Hurst, A and Rennick, C and Lambert, S} } @presentation {32793, title = {Pebblepad: Promoting learner engagement with the assessment process}, journal = {Panel presented at University of Waterloo Teaching and Learning Conference}, year = {2021}, author = {Lithgow, K and Cook, K and Karanassiou, J and Poletto-Borges, V and Rennick, C and Schmidt Hanbidge, A and Feth, V} } @conference {32787, title = {Improving Engineering Students\’ Need Finding Abilities; a work in progress}, booktitle = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition}, year = {2020}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/35649}, author = {Flus, M and Rennick, C and Hurst, A} } @conference {32789, title = {An Investigation Into How Students Spend Their Time During Study Breaks}, booktitle = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition}, year = {2020}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/34138}, author = {Rennick, C and Robinson, M and Hulls, CCW} } @conference {32788, title = {Operationalizing Jonassen\’s Design Theory of Problem Solving: An instrument to characterize design-centred educational activities}, booktitle = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition}, year = {2020}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/35011}, author = {Litster, G and Hurst, A and Rennick, C} } @conference {32786, title = {Two Student Workshops on Identifying and Resolving Team Conflict}, booktitle = {ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition}, year = {2020}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/35406}, author = {Al-Hammoud, R and Barichello, M and Rennick, C and Jobidon, E and Li, R} } @article {23580, title = {Use of a Cornerstone Project to Teach Ill-Structured Software Design in First Year}, journal = {IEEE Transactions on Education}, volume = {63}, year = {2020}, pages = {98-107}, abstract = {Contribution: A first-year programming course was redesigned with a large, open-ended robotics project. The course design aligns with best practices for promoting development of students{\textquoteright} self-efficacy in solving ill-structured software design problems. Background: From Jonassen{\textquoteright}s theory, problem-solving outcomes are dependent on the problem structure, complexity, and representation; and the characteristics of the solver. These characteristics are diverse, including knowledge, familiarity, and psychometric qualities of the solver (e.g., self-efficacy and motivation). Thus, better problem-solving outcomes are dependent on the development of these traits, and on the problem characteristics. Intended Outcomes: Pre-2010, course learning activities and assessments overly focused on syntax. The course was redesigned with a focus on ill-structured problem solving and design in high-fidelity problem domains. Application Design: Complex and ill-structured lecture examples, assignments, and exams were redesigned to reinforce the importance of software design and problem solving. An open-ended cornerstone project using robotics was added as a structured means of providing students practice with solving ill-structured and open-ended problems. The assignment and exam questions, with the course cornerstone project, achieve instructional alignment in the course. Findings: The results show that students{\textquoteright} self-efficacy improved from start to end of term. The course design achieves several objectives: 1) students learned the requisite programming skills; 2) students developed their self-efficacy in programming and design; and 3) students demonstrated strong problem-solving outcomes.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2019.2959591}, author = {Carol C. W. Hulls and Christopher Rennick} } @proceedings {23834, title = {ENGCON: A PRE-CAPSTONE ENGINEERING DESIGN CONVENTION}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2019}, pages = {1-4}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Ottawa}, abstract = {

The capstone design project is ubiquitous in engineering programs worldwide, and is seen by students as the single most important activity in their undergraduate careers. Staff and faculty at the University of Waterloo identified three issues with the current capstone process: students are unaware of industrial suppliers, they lack multi-disciplinary exposure, and they often struggle to identify "good" needs for their projects.

The Engineering IDEAs Clinic, with support from instructors and staff from across Engineering, developed a conference for students to address these issues. EngCon {\textendash} aimed at students in third/fourth year {\textendash} brought students together with their peers from other programs, instructors from across the Faculty, and representatives from suppliers (both external industry, and internal support units) with the goal of improving their capstone projects.

This paper presents the design and implementation of EngCon in both 2017 and 2018 with lessons learned from offering a large coordinated set of workshops aimed at students as they enter their capstone design projects.

}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/13714}, author = {Chris Rennick and Eugene Li} } @proceedings {23832, title = {AN INTEGRATIVE PROJECT IN MICROPROCESSOR INTERFACES}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2019}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Ottawa}, abstract = {In the third-year microprocessors course given to Mechatronics Engineering students at the University of Waterloo, the lab studies have been redesigned as a scaffolded project. The project aims to provide a more authentic learning opportunity that integrates concepts from the concurrent courses, as well as prior courses. The project was carefully designed to provide some student autonomy while ensuring competence can be achieved by students with a broad range of initial skill levels through the completion of authentic tasks. The impacts of the revised project on student learning were measured using pre- and postproject surveys, course grades and course critiques.\  Despite significant challenges that were encountered during the first two offerings, the results show that students perceived an increased competence in several key skills, and an increase was seen in overall course satisfaction.}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/13721}, author = {Allyson Giannikouris and Chris Rennick} } @article {23581, title = {Introductory Engineering Decision-Making: Guiding First-Year Students to Relativism in Software Design}, journal = {IEEE Transactions on Education}, volume = {62}, year = {2019}, pages = {199-208}, abstract = {Contribution: A semester-long, open-ended design project was implemented to promote intellectual development of first-year students while reinforcing event-driven/procedural programming principles. This paper describes this approach, and an evaluation strategy using Perry{\textquoteright}s model for intellectual development. The results show that students can reach the relativism stage of Perry{\textquoteright}s model in their first year of studies. Background: Students must move beyond a dualistic worldview to be engineers. Felder and Brent provided a list of recommendations to promote this type of intellectual development in students; active learning strategies strongly align with these recommendations. While active learning is common in programming courses (sometimes taking the form of project-based learning), they are typically tightly controlled by the instructor, and limited in scope (both in time and complexity), potentially reducing their impact on students. Intended Outcomes: This course and term-long project provided students a supportive environment in which to develop their decision-making skills, and promoted their intellectual development through Perry{\textquoteright}s stages related to software design. Application Design: Aligned with Felder and Brent{\textquoteright}s recommendations and Kuh{\textquoteright}s High Impact Practices, a course was built to: 1) teach students procedural programming, with 2) a focus on software design and open-ended problem solving, while maintaining 3) a supportive environment for skill acquisition. Findings: A mixed methods study showed the majority of students align themselves with the relativism stage of intellectual development at the end of the course. This study also illuminated the decision-making processes of teams of students in a first-year software design course.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2019.2921273}, author = {Christopher Rennick and Carol C. W. Hulls and Kenneth N. McKay} } @proceedings {23589, title = {A \“Lattice\” Approach to Design Education: Bringing Real and Integrated Design Experience to the Classroom through Engineering Design Days}, journal = {International Conference on Engineering Design}, year = {2019}, abstract = {While design is fundamental to engineering practice, modern training in engineering design has almost exclusively moved to the classroom, providing students little exposure to holistic, real-world design experiences that are well-integrated with the rest of the academic curriculum. In this paper, we perform a short review of how the model of engineering education in Canada has evolved over the last two centuries, identify the current deficiencies in teaching design in engineering curricula, and review how Chairs in Design Engineering at various Canadian engineering schools have tackled this identified need. We then describe in detail how this problem is being addressed at the University of Waterloo through Engineering Design Days. This approach is presented as a design {\textquotedblleft}lattice{\textquotedblright} around which other curriculum threads (math, natural sciences, engineering science, design etc.) can grow in an integrated way. Different Design Days examples from various engineering programs are described to illustrate the general structure. We conclude by assessing the program{\textquoteright}s impact and identifying opportunities for future development and assessment of the program{\textquoteright}s effectiveness.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.46}, author = {Ada Hurst and Chris Rennick and Sanjeev Bedi} } @conference {23841, title = {A New Model for Formative Design Process Instruction - Engineering Design Days}, booktitle = {Clive L. Dym Mudd Design Workshop XI}, year = {2019}, author = {Chris Rennick and Carol Hulls and Ada Hurst and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {23839, title = {ONE-A-DAY PROBLEMS FOR IMPROVING STUDENT LEARNING AND STUDY HABITS}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2019}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Ottawa}, abstract = {

At the University of Waterloo, Mechatronics Engineering students take their first programming course in their first academic term. In 2016, Waterloo introduced a two-day long fall break immediately following the Thanksgiving weekend. The fall break back-to-back with their midterm week means students have as many as 18 days between programming lectures. The breaks also interrupt the schedule of weekly assignments that provide students{\textquoteright} primary means of practicing programming.

In an attempt to mitigate any negative effects of the break on those students who are not experienced programmers and may not know how to use their time effectively, "One-a-Day Problems" were tried. Students were expected to work on that one problem for the day, which was expected to take roughly 30-minutes to complete, and were encouraged to contact the instructor or other members of the teaching team with any questions or concerns. The problems remained available on the LMS throughout the term and no solutions to these problems were posted on the LMS.

Students enjoyed receiving extra practice problems using this format, and engaging with these questions resulted in higher performance on both the midterm and final exam. Engagement with the problems was lower than desired, however, especially with students with no prior programming experience.

}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/13805}, author = {Mary Robinson and Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick} } @proceedings {23838, title = {SOFTWARE ENGINEERING DAYS: USING A VIDEO GAME PLATFORM TO TEACH COLLABORATIVE SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2019}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Ottawa}, abstract = {

This paper describes the implementation and assessment of a multi-day engineering design activity for Software Engineering students. This activity required students to work in teams of 16 to develop and implement four sub-systems of a digital spaceship. The Unity video game engine with a custom "spaceship sandbox" were used to drive student intrinsic motivation for the task, and to limit the complexity of the spaceship implementation.

Student feedback of the activity was captured through a survey given immediately following the second day of the activity, and through a focus group conducted with four students later in the term. The feedback on the activity was largely positive, with teamwork, collaboration, and the software to accomplish it (Git) as major learning outcomes identified by students. Several improvements are planned for the fall 2019 version of the activity based on both instructor observation and student feedback.

}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/13809}, author = {Chris Rennick and Derek Rayside and John Harris and Patrick Lam} } @proceedings {23587, title = {Building Engineering Professional and Teamwork Skills: A Workshop on Giving and Receiving Feedback}, journal = {2018 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition}, year = {2018}, pages = {1-15}, abstract = {

Proficiency in teamwork is one of the most essential skills employers seek in their new hires. As such, academic institutions are continually increasing their focus on teamwork education and assessment. This paper describes one module out of a series of six teamwork modules targeted at undergraduate engineering students. The series of modules have been designed to provide teamwork theory and skills in the context of an existing team project within a course, allowing the new knowledge and skills to be applied authentically and at the time of learning. Additionally, a number of assessment strategies have been developed in order to assess student learning and the overall success of the modules. The fourth module developed as part of this series on teamwork focuses on giving and receiving feedback. At the end of this module, students should be able to: 1. Understand the value of seeking, giving, and receiving feedback for themselves, their team, and as a professional; 2. Apply communication skills that keep feedback from becoming personal, both as a giver and as a receiver of feedback; and, 3. Give feedback that integrates various types of functions, including to understand, assess, and provide recommendations.

Taking the format of a workshop, the module was piloted in five courses across different engineering disciplines, undergraduate levels, and courses. In an implementation in a first-year civil, environmental and geological engineering course, student teams exchanged feedback on preliminary designs completed prior to the start of the workshop. In addition, two classes of fourth-year management engineering students completed the module in their capstone design course, practicing giving and receiving feedback to their peers on conceptual designs as well as on design verification and validation plans. Finally, the workshop was also run in a second-year systems design engineering class as a standalone unit (not connected to a course project). In that offering, students developed different design concepts to address a design need suggested by the instructor and subsequently exchanged feedback on the designs with their peers. In all cases, students were able to reflect on their learning experience by answering survey questions and/or reflecting on the value of this module in their design reports. In general, students responded very positively to this learning experience, with each round of student feedback providing greater insight into how the workshop could be modified to ensure that students recognize the value of the feedback process as a professional skill and that they become comfortable giving and receiving feedback to each other. We describe the contents of the workshop in detail and summarize student feedback on each implementation. Further, we reflect on how the workshop can be further developed to better meet its intended learning outcomes and suggest ways in which instructors can alter it to suit different student disciplines, academic levels and course objectives.

}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/30163}, author = {Erin Jobidon and Maria Barichello and Rania Al-Hammoud and Mehrnaz Mostafapour and Christopher Rennick and Ada Hurst and Jason Grove} } @proceedings {23830, title = {Componential Theories of Creativity: A Case Study of Teaching Creative Problem Solving}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2018}, pages = {1-10}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Vancouver}, abstract = {Engineering is the discipline of applying scientific and mathematical tools to solve practical problems for society. At the core of a person{\textquoteright}s problem-solving abilities is their creativity. This is a preliminary and exploratory theory-based paper summarizing the two most prevalent componential theories of creativity as applied to a case study. These theories outline a set of processes which contribute to a person{\textquoteright}s ability to be creative in a domain. The components differ slightly between models, but include: motivation; domain-specific knowledge, skills, and abilities; and cognitive process of creativity including problem finding, ideation, and evaluation.
To demonstrate the practical application of these theories to engineering pedagogy, they will be applied to a case study of a 2-day academic hackathon called {\textquotedblleft}Tron Days{\textquotedblright}. Tron Days guides students through a multi-step modelling and verification process and concludes with teams of students designing and constructing a robotic arm. At the end of the second day, students demonstrated their functioning robotic prototypes. This event has now been run twice for first semester Mechatronics Engineering students, and similar implementations with different problems have been run in seven other engineering programs at the same institution. Each section of this paper will demonstrate the application of componential theories of creativity by drawing connections to the Tron Days event.}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/12991}, author = {Chris Rennick and Kenneth N McKay} } @proceedings {23828, title = {Effects of a Fall Reading Break on First Year Students\&$\#$39; Course Performance in Programming}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2018}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Vancouver}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/13006}, author = {Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick and Mary Robinson and Samar Mohamed} } @proceedings {23582, title = {Engineering Design Days: Engaging Students with Authentic Problem-Solving in an Academic Hackathon}, journal = {2018 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition Proceedings}, year = {2018}, abstract = {This paper describes an evidence-based practice of using a hackathon model to address student learning outcomes in first year Engineering programs. There is a growing body of work around the use of hackathons to promote engagement, innovation, teamwork, and problem-solving in engineers before, during, and after their undergraduate studies. Existing hackathons tend to be open, extra-curricular events with a focus on software design and UX/UI design. While some hackathons have a theme to steer students towards a problem space defined by the organizers, there is an absence of literature regarding the use of hackathons in-class to support course-level learning objectives.
This paper describes one model for an in-class, curricular hackathon which has (of this writing) been deployed in four different undergraduate programs (Computer, Electrical, Mechanical, and Mechatronics Engineering) on five separate occasions, with another two upcoming offerings. This model, which we have named Engineering Design Days, has been implemented in slightly different ways to engage the various cohorts of students and investigate best practices for student engagement.
In general, each instance is two days with no traditional classes, labs, or tutorials, where the students work in teams to design and build solutions to open-ended problems. These problems are designed to integrate knowledge from across multiple courses in which the students are enrolled. The implementations described in this paper had students solve design problems by building physical systems using off-the-shelf components. The solutions were presented and tested in front of their peers at the end of the second day.
Students and course instructors from each implementation described in this paper provided feedback through surveys, focus groups, and interviews. The results so far have been overwhelmingly positive from both students and instructors, with the adoption of this concept expanding across the Faculty of Engineering. Within this paper, lessons-learned will be discussed (including from an early iteration of this idea), as will strategies for ensuring the sustainability of Engineering Design Days moving forward.}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/30407}, author = {Christopher Rennick and Carol C.W. Hulls and Derek Wright and Andrew J.B. Milne and Eugene Li and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {23835, title = {DESIGN OF AN INTRODUCTORY ENGINEERING DESIGN AND COMMUNICATION COURSE WHICH INTEGRATES FIRST SEMESTER COURSES}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2017}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Toronto}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/9477}, author = {Sanjeev Bedi and Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick and Mary Robinson and William Melek} } @proceedings {23833, title = {HOW DO FIRST YEAR STUDENTS FORM THEIR PROJECT TEAMS?}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2017}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Toronto}, abstract = {Common wisdom of how students, form their teams for projects is "who they know", not necessarily who would make a good teammate, nor someone they can actually work with.\ \ \ In their first semester on campus, Mechatronics students have multiple opportunities to work with their classmates, any of which could have contributed to how they formed their course project team. The activities range in scope from straightforward assignments to challenging projects, and vary in length from one, to several weeks.\  This research was conducted as a sequential explanatory, mixed-methods study. First semester team formation data was cross-checked with survey responses, and student self-reporting on satisfaction with their choice of team members. Focus groups were then conducted to investigate external forces on team formation.\  Conclusions from the initial work show that students are much more strategic with who they work with than initially hypothesized and the motivations behind the choice of teammates are diverse, and complex. Further work needs to be completed to see how widespread these motivations are across Engineering at UWaterloo.}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/9480}, author = {Elizabeth Maggs and Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick and Mary Robinson} } @proceedings {23583, title = {Practicing What we Preach: A Multi-Disciplinary Team Teaching Multi-Disciplinary Teamwork}, journal = {2017 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition Proceedings}, year = {2017}, pages = {1-16}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/28748}, author = {Ada Hurst and Mehrnaz Mostafapour and Rania Al-Hammoud and Andrea Prier and Erin Jobidon and Carol Hulls and Christopher Rennick and Jason Grove and Eugene Li and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {23836, title = {TEAMWORK FOR ENGINEERING STUDENTS: IMPROVING SKILLS THROUGH EXPERIENTIAL TEACHING MODULES}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2017}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Toronto}, abstract = {

Motivated by a perceived deficiency in teamwork skills of graduating engineering students, a series of six teamwork training modules are being designed for each of the students{\textquoteright} first six academic terms. A careful pilot-revise-implement design cycle has resulted in the development of a number of variations of each module, catering to different disciplines{\textquoteright} needs for integration with the curriculum.

The project is at its midpoint, having designed, delivered, and revised the first three modules: an introduction to teamwork, communication in teams, and team conflict. The fourth module - giving and receiving feedback in teams - was piloted in early 2017. The last two remaining modules are envisioned to cover teamwork topics at a more advanced level.

So far, all modules have been delivered in host courses with instructors receptive to the need for teamwork training. It is observed that the modules{\textquoteright} success and long term sustainability depend on their ability to easily integrate with or wrap around existing course activities.

}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/9414}, author = {Rania Al-Hammoud and Ada Hurst and Andrea Prier and Mehrnaz Mostafapour and Chris Rennick and Carol Hulls and Erin Jobidon and Eugene Li and Jason Grove and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {23837, title = {Tron Days: Horizontal Integration and Authentic Learning}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2017}, pages = {1-7}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Toronto}, abstract = {First year Mechatronics students at the University of\ Waterloo consistently do not see the connection between their fundamental\ math and science courses with the practise of engineering.\ To address this issue, the first year instructors came together to\ launch a two day Hackathon style project for the students called\ Tron Days. Tron Days featured small warm up problems dealing\ with advanced concepts in each of the courses, and big problems\ that drew from all of the first year courses. The challenges only\ had communication marks associated with them and provided an\ opportunity for sustained engagement with the concepts. The metrics\ used to measure the event showed that it was successful at addressing\ the desired outcomes, but could be further enhanced to address more\ material.}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/7347}, author = {Eugene Li and Chris Rennick and Carol Hulls and Mary Robinson and Michael Cooper-Stachowsky and Eline Boghaert and William Melek and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {23584, title = {Towards a Multidisciplinary Teamwork Training Series for Undergraduate Engineering Students: Development and Assessment of Two First-year Workshops}, journal = {2016 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition Proceedings}, year = {2016}, pages = {1-18}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/27065}, author = {Ada Hurst and Erin Jobidon and Andrea Prier and Taghi Khaniyev and Christopher Rennick and Rania Al-Hammoud and Carol Hulls and Jason Grove and Samar Mohamed and Stephanie Johnson and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {23829, title = {THE USE OF A SERIES OF ONLINE MINI-LECTURES TO DELIVER FACTS IN FIRST YEAR PROGRAMMING}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2016}, pages = {1-8}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Halifax}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/6491}, author = {Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick} } @proceedings {23831, title = {The Use of an Open-Ended Project to Improve the Student Experience in First Year Programming}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2015}, pages = {1-7}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Hamilton}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/5737}, author = {Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick and Sanjeev Bedi and Mary Robinson and William Melek} } @proceedings {23840, title = {Integrative Activities for First Year Engineering Students-Fuel Cell Cars as a Linking Project Between Chemistry, Mechatronics Concepts and Programing}, journal = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference}, year = {2014}, pages = {1-9}, address = {CEEA-ACEG Annual Conference, Canmore}, abstract = {

In Mechatronics Engineering at the University of Waterloo, a joint project involving small, inexpensive fuel cells cars was introduced to show how courses in the first term relate to one another. Additionally, the project was designed to provide the students with hands on learning, to give the students a taste of what to expect in later years, and to start incorporating many of the CEAB{\textquoteright}s graduate attributes at an introductory level. The fuel cell car consists of two low-voltage cells, a low power microcontroller and several sensors mounted on a motorised platform. Students employed concepts from chemistry, programming and mechatronics systems throughout the project, submitting reports at key milestones. during the projet, students needed to make decision in a team environment on which strageties to implement to meet the goals of the project. The project culminated in a final competition and report. Students were surveyed at the start, and end, and the term to measure any changes in attitude with regards to the courses as well as their satisfaction with the project. The project was well recieved by students but significant challenges remain to be solved.

}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/5957}, author = {Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick and Mary Robinson and William Melek and Sanjeev Bedi} }