International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

IMPLEMENTING AN OUTCOMES-BASED EDUCATION FRAMEWORK IN THE TEACHING OF ENGINEERING MECHANICS (STATICS)
Andres Winston C. Oreta and Cheryl Lyne C. Roxas De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
ABSTRACT: To address the growing demand by accrediting and higher education institutions to adopt Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) as a platform for accreditation and improvement of engineering programs, the Department of Civil Engineering, De La Salle University, Manila introduced the principles of outcomes-based education in the undergraduate program. OBE is a “student-centered learning philosophy that focuses on empirically measuring student performance.” This paper presents the implementation of the OBE framework in a basic undergraduate engineering course – Engineering Mechanics (Statics of Rigid Bodies) from syllabus design to course assessment in order to illustrate OBE’s principles and continuous improvement process (CIP). A description and preliminary results of an on-going research on STATICS course are also discussed. KEYWORDS: Mechanics Outcomes-Based Education, Outcomes-Based Assessment, Engineering

1. INTRODUCTION: AN OBE FRAMEWORK Outcomes-Based Education (OBE) is a new paradigm in engineering education that is being pursued in the United States and other countries, including the Philippines. OBE is a “studentcentered learning philosophy that focuses on empirically measuring student performance called outcomes” (Felder & Brent 2003). Motivations for implementing OBE can be “to improve learning” (Biggs 2003) or “to meet accreditation needs” (Felder & Brent 2003).
INSTITUTION

OUTCOMES
Mission/Vision EGA

industry and professional orgs INPUTS & FEEDBACK

ASSESSMENT EVALUATION

PROGRAM

PEO

IMPROVEMENTS

Institutional Assessment

Student Outcomes

Program Assessment

Courses Learning Outcomes

Course Planning & Delivery • Syllabus •Teaching Methods • Learning Activities • Assessment Tools

COURSE

Course Assessment

Figure 1. An OBE Framework

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

OBE is not an end but a process of continuously improving education as shown in Figure 1. In OBE, the outcomes are first defined and then the design of the curriculum including the teaching and learning activities (TLAs) and assessment tasks (ATs) follows. In defining the outcomes, a hierarchy must be followed, with the university vision-mission at the top. Based on the university’s vision-mission, the expected graduate attributes (EGAs) can be identified. The EGAs are characteristics or qualities of students of a university upon graduation. To achieve these attributes, each program in a university must define a set of program or student outcomes (SOs) which address specific EGAs. The program or student outcomes can be defined by each university or may follow standards required by national institutions like the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) or accrediting organizations like the Philippine Technological Council (PTC) in the Philippines. Program or student outcomes are narrow statements that describe outcomes (knowledge, skills, abilities, values) of what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. Related to the SOs are the Program Educational Objectives (PEOs). PEOs are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years (usually five years) after graduation. Assessment of PEOs is done after a few years of graduation while achievement of SOs should be done immediately after graduation. A program (e.g. Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering) follows a curriculum with a set of courses which a student must complete or “pass” in order to earn a specific degree. In OBE, the course learning outcomes of each course is at the bottom level in the hierarchy of outcomes. To assure the achievement of EGAs and SOs, the course learning outcomes (LOs) must be aligned with specific EGAs and SOs. Since outcomes cascade from top to bottom (Figure 1), the curriculum design also follows the same direction from program to course level. Delivery of instruction and assessment, on the other hand, is carried out from bottom to top. The course is the basic element which comprises a program. Thus, assessment of achievement of outcomes in the course level must be carried out first to evaluate how effective are the TLAs and ATs in achieving the LOs. Program assessment will then follow to measure the achievement of EGAs and SOs. To close the loop of the continuous improvement process of OBE, changes or adjustments in the curriculum at the program and/or course level must be implemented. The Department of Civil Engineering, De La Salle University is at its infancy stage of adopting OBE. The principles of OBE, specifically the definition of learning outcomes and the design of the syllabi for civil engineering courses, have started to be implemented by the faculty. Full implementation of OBE may be required in the engineering programs since engineering accrediting bodies and higher education institutions and technical organizations in the Philippines (e.g. PTC, CHED and PATE) have started to embrace OBE as a platform for accreditation and improvement of the engineering education. This paper presents the implementation of the OBE framework in a basic undergraduate engineering course – Engineering Mechanics (Statics of Rigid Bodies) from syllabus design to course assessment. Lessons on how to effectively implement OBE in other civil engineering courses may be derived from this paper.

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

2. HIGHER LEVEL OUTCOMES 2.1 Expected Graduate Attributes De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines created a “vision of their ideal graduate” and implemented the Expected Lasallian Graduate Attributes (ELGA) in 2009 (The Lasallian 2012). ELGA emphasizes on four qualities Lasallians should embody upon graduating from the University. The four ELGA states that Lasallian graduates must be: (a) a critical and creative thinker, (b) an effective communicator, (c) a reflective lifelong learner, and (d) a service-driven Citizen. The ELGA has become “the framework for curriculum mapping, creation of course contents, methods of assessment, and modes of classroom instruction.” To concretize the ELGA in the curriculum, DLSU conducted Faculty Development Seminars on the revision of the course syllabi. The syllabus writing seminars introduced a template wherein the syllabi must clearly define the course learning outcomes in relation to the four elements of ELGA. 2.2 Outcomes at the Program Level At the program level, Program Educational Objectives (PEOs) and the Program or Student Outcomes (SOs) which should be aligned with the expected graduate attributes must be clearly defined. Presently, PEOs have not yet been defined in each program. However, program outcomes have already been incorporated in the Policies and Standards of CHED for various engineering programs. Program outcomes are the same as student outcomes (SOs) and are used synonymously. Each program has to address these SOs for minimum compliance and the university may add more SOs if necessary. Since the Gokongwei College of Engineering (GCOE) has not yet clearly stated the PEOs of the various programs in the college, the vision-mission of the college and each department can serve as a framework at the program level in the design and planning of the curriculum. The visionmission can be the basis in formulating the PEOs. 2.2.1. College Vision-Mission The vision-mission of the GCOE which states that (DLSU-GCOE, 2012):
“As an integral part of a university that envisions to become a leading research institution with significant international impact and strong local commitment, the College of Engineering is positioned to make major contributions by providing leadership and innovation in engineering and related fields to assist in the economic and social development of the Philippines. • To educate and nurture technically competent men and women for careers of leadership and innovation in engineering and other related fields.

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

• •

To become a leading research institution in South East Asia for enhancing the base of engineering knowledge and by developing materials and technology that will help improve the quality of life. To engage in meaningful and relevant community service activities with government, industry, and the civil society.”

2.2.2. Department Vision-Mission The vision-mission of the Department of Civil of Engineering states that (DLSU-GCOE-CE, 2012) states that:
“The Department of Civil Engineering aims to mold and nurture competent practicing civil engineers equipped with technical know-how and imbued with Lasallian values of Religio, Mores and Cultura. The Department of Civil Engineering envisions its graduates to excel in professional development and advancement along the following dimensions: • Working competence which enables them to apply themselves effectively in entry level positions in structural engineering, construction technology and management, hydraulics and water resources engineering, transportation engineering and geotechnical engineering. • Christian awareness of national development needs and a commitment to the socially responsible practice of their profession.”

2.2.3. CHED BSCE Program Outcomes Under the CHED, the Policies and Standards (PS) for the Degree of Bachelor in Civil Engineering (BSCE) are specified (CHED CMO 29 s2007). Article III, Section 4.2 states that:
“A graduate of the Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering (BSCE) program must attain: A. An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences, engineering sciences to the practice of civil engineering. B. An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data C. An ability to design, build, improve, and install systems or processes which meet desired needs within realistic constraints. D. An ability to work effectively in multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural teams. E. An ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems. F. An understanding of the effects and impact of civil engineering projects on nature and society, and of the civil engineers’ social and ethical responsibilities. G. Specialized engineering knowledge in each applicable field, and the ability to apply such knowledge to provide solutions to actual problems. H. An ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing using the English language. I. An ability to engage in life-long learning and an acceptance of the need to keep current of the development in the specific field of specialization. J. An ability to use the appropriate techniques, skills and modern engineering tools necessary for the practice of civil engineering. K. A knowledge of contemporary issues.”

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

3. COURSE DESIGN FOR STATICS Course design starts with writing of a syllabus that will serve as a guide or map on how to achieve the student outcomes. Course design involves the identification of the course learning LOs, TLAs and ATs. Learning outcomes play a central role in course design since all activities must be aligned with the outcomes (Figure 2). The design is followed by the implementation or instruction, assessment, and then improvement, to close the loop. 3.1 Learning Outcomes Learning outcomes or objectives are “statements of what students should be able to do if they have acquired the knowledge and skills the course is supposed to teach them” (Felder and Brent 2004). The principles of identifying and writing learning outcomes are discussed in the literature (Felder and Brent 2004, Powers 2008). Among the important principles are: • Course learning outcomes must be manageable in number and must describe all the significant and meaningful Figure 2. Role of Learning Outcomes in Course Design learning in a course. • Learning outcomes must address both the lower and higher level thinking skills of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives (Felder and Brent 2004) - remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing. • The key to preparing useful outcome statements is choosing an appropriate action verb to express the desired learning outcome (Powers 2008). Appropriate action verbs are associated to various levels of cognitive levels. Use verbs that are measurable and observable. • Course learning outcomes must be aligned with the program or student outcomes and the expected graduate attributes. Taking in mind the OBE principles, the learning outcomes for STATICS were formulated. STATICS is a branch of Engineering Mechanics that deals with the study of forces and interaction of forces that occur in rigid bodies that are in static equilibrium. It is a three unit course required for all engineering programs and a prerequisite and essential to structural or machine design courses. Table 1 is the summary of the course learning outcomes with the corresponding alignment to ELGA and applicable SOs.

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

Table 1. Learning Outcomes for STATICS
On completion of the course, the student is expected to be able to: ELGA Student Outcome (SO) Learning Outcome (LO)
• Creative and Critical Thinker SO-A: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering sciences to the practice of civil engineering. SO-E: An ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems. LO1. Analyze the properties (components, resultants and moments) of a force and force systems in 2D & 3D. LO2. Solve equilibrium problems of various types of structures including friction problems using analytical models, rigid bodies, FBDs and equations of equilibrium. LO3. Solve the properties (centroid, center of gravity and moment of inertia) of areas, lines and volumes and apply these properties in equilibrium problems. LO4. Apply and demonstrate the principles and tools of STATICS in the analysis and solution of equilibrium problems based on a real-world scenario.

Reflective Lifelong Learner

SO-I. An ability to engage in life-long learning and an acceptance of the need to keep current of the development in the specific field of specialization.

3.2 Teaching and Learning Activities To realize the attainment of the outcomes, the Constructive Alignment Principle (Biggs 2003) which is an OBE principle emphasizes the need “to set up an environment that maximises the likelihood that students will engage in the activities designed to achieve the intended outcomes.” In the learning plan in the STATICS Syllabus, the alignment of LOs with the lesson and TLAs must be assured. Hence, the LOs being addressed by each lesson or class meeting is indicated and the various TLAs are listed for the instructor’s guidance. Classrooms at DLSU are now equipped with multimedia equipment. Hence instructors can used both blackboard and multimedia in their lectures. Aside from traditional lectures, the instructor can design activities that will engage the students to “construct” learning. TLAs appropriate with the topics of the STATICS course are indicated in the syllabus to guide in the delivery of the course during the term. Among the suggested TLAs are: (a) Traditional lecture using blackboard and multimedia (b) Slide shows (e.g. photos of trusses, frames

Figure 3. MecMovies has interactive games
http://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/

Figure 4. YouTube video on Angle of Friction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V6EhZY_dKo&NR=1

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

(c) (d) (e) (f) (g)

of shapes of cross-sections) Video showing (e.g. Youtube videos on bridge failure) Classroom games (e.g. MecMovies) Problem Solving (seatwork and homework) Demonstration (e.g. actual demo or video on angle of friction) Online lectures

3.3 Assessment Methods Outcomes-based assessment focuses on providing evidence that students can demonstrate knowledge or skill directly linked to specific program outcomes. Hence, assessment methods used during the term should be matched with the course learning outcomes and must be designed to help students achieve the learning outcomes. Aside from the traditional quizzes and exams wherein students present their knowledge and other thinking skills, assessment tasks that can demonstrate meaningful and real-world tasks must also be considered. Moreover, each assessment task must be aligned with a specific learning outcome. In the present STATICS syllabus, the traditional assessment methods employed are summarized in Table 2. Table 2. Assessment Methods in STATICS
Learning Outcome
LO 1 – LO2 LO 1 – LO2 LO 1 – LO3 LO4 LO 1 – LO4

Assessment Method
Long Quiz No. 1 Long Quiz No. 2 Long Quiz No. 3 Application Case Study Final Exams

5th week 8th week 13th week 13th Week 14th week

Due Date

One unique feature of the present syllabus is the introduction of an “Application Case Study” as an assessment task. An Application Case Study is an analysis and solution of a real-world scenario problem where the basic principles of STATICS are demonstrated. The student describes the problem with sketches or photos of simple or complicated objects which can be seen in everyday life, determines the properties of the object, defines the problem and various parameters involved, makes some assumptions, and applies the principles and tools of STATICS specifically force Figure 5. An Application Case Study systems, equilibrium equations, FBDs and section properties. Real data or hypothetical data may be used in numerical examples of the case study. The final output is a write-up documenting the case study. A sample application case study (Figure 5) on the “Equilibrium of a Fish Mobile” is presented in a blog (Digital Structures 2011) of the author. A rubric for the assessment of the case study is also included in the syllabus to guide the students in assessing their own learning and performance and the instructors in assigning a rating based on the students performance of various criteria which are related to the learning outcomes. An assessment on how effective the case study is in helping students achieve the learning outcomes has still to be done.

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

The other purpose of assessment is to produce a final grade. The syllabus must be clear on the manner in which the assessment methods are used to produce the final grade, indicating the percentages that each assessed piece of work will contribute toward determining the final grade. In the grading system in STATICS is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Grading System
1. General Average The general average of each student’s grade will be computed as follows:
• • • Average of the 3 Long Quizzes Final Exam Application Case Study = 60% = 25% = 15%

2. Final Grade: The final grade will be determined based on the general average: • 4.0: 94.0 - 100.0 • 2.0 : 70.0 - 75.9 • 3.5 : 88.0 - 93.9 • 1.5 : 65.0 - 69.9 • 3.0: 82.0 - 87.9 • 1.0 :60.0 - 64.9 • 0.0 : 59.9 below • 2.5 : 76.0 - 81.9

4. OUTCOMES-BASED ASSESSMENT It must be noted that grades are not directly used in assessing the achievement of learning outcomes in the course and program level “because there are many factors that contribute to the assigned grade and grades do not disaggregate the various intended learning outcomes of a course” (Rogers 2003). Hence a research on “Outcomes-Based assessment of Engineering Mechanics (STATICS) using Direct and Indirect Methods’ was conducted by the authors. There are two ways of assessing the attainment of outcomes: direct and indirect methods. Direct assessment is based on an analysis of student behaviours or products in which they demonstrate how well they have mastered learning outcomes. Direct assessment methods use quizzes, exams and reports to measure students’ performance. Indirect assessment, on the other hand, is based on an analysis of reported perceptions about student mastery of learning outcomes. Examples of indirect assessment methods are surveys, interviews, evaluations, questionnaire and focus group. The on-going research used both direct and indirect methods to assess the attainment of the course learning outcomes. The methods presented in the literature by various researchers (Menhart 2011, Gurocak 2008) were employed in the study. Direct assessment used student ratings for long quizzes. For each long quiz, the questions or problems that address specific course learning outcomes are identified. Table 4 is a sample spreadsheet of the scores of a sample Long Quiz No. 1 (Appendix B) in STATICS following Gurocak (2008). In the sample Long Quiz No. 1, problem nos. 1 and 2 address LO1, while problem nos. 3 and 4 assess LO2. For each student, the total score for each outcome is obtained and when divided by the maximum score and multiplied by 5 will yield the LO score. For this example, student S1’s learning outcome scores are 4 for LO1 and 5 for LO2. The average learning outcome scores of the class for Long Quiz No. 1 are 2.8 for LO1 and 4 for LO2. Throughout the term, the instructor keeps track of the performance of each student on each LO and the performance for each LO for the class is assessed. Gurocak (2008) suggested that if a course learning outcome scores less than or equal to 3.0, the instructor indicates that outcome

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

and suggests either minor or major changes (actions) to be taken by the program. “The major changes are things that would result in modifications of the master syllabus of the course such as adding, rewording or deleting a course outcome, or changes in the list of topics covered. Minor changes are things that can be implemented next Table 4: Direct Assessment using Long Quizzes time when the course is Student LO1 (Resultants) LO2 (Equilibrium) offered without altering Prob#1 Prob#2 LO1 Prob#3 Prob#4 LO2 (25%) (25%) Score (30%) (20%) Score its master syllabus. S1 25 15 30 20 4 5 These could include S2 10 5 20 15 1.5 3.5 additional lecture to be S3 5 25 30 15 3 4.5 spent to cover a S4 20 15 25 25 3.5 5 particular topic, a S5 10 10 5 15 2 2 Average change in software, use 14 14 2.8 22 18 4 25 25 30 20 Maximum 5 5 of supplemental textbooks, etc.” Indirect assessment, in the form of an “end-of-course-evaluation” is conducted. The indirect assessment task is a questionnaire where in the students answer questions related to the course, instructor and learning outcomes using a letter scale of “1” through “5”, where “5” means “strongly agree”, “4” means “agree”, “3” means “neutral”, “2” means “disagree”, and “1” means “strongly disagree.” An “end-of-course-evaluation” almost similar in content with the students’ form was also prepared for the instructors to fill-up. Aside from complementing direct assessment, indirect assessment serves also the purpose of “triangulation” – using more than one assessment method to measure attainment of learning outcomes. 5. CONCLUSION Using an OBE framework, the design and planning of the undergraduate course on Engineering Mechanics (STATICS) was presented. Specifically, the STATICS syllabus was analyzed in relation to the OBE principles. The important elements of the syllabus – learning outcomes, teaching and learning activities and assessment tasks – were discussed. The paper may serve as a model for design and planning of other courses using a framework based on outcomes-based teaching and learning principles. REFERENCES
Biggs, John (2003). “Aligning Teaching and Assessing to Course Objectives,” Teaching and Learning in Higher Education: New Trends and Innovations, University of Aveiro, 13-17 April 2003 CHED CMO 29 s2007: http://www.ched.gov.ph/chedwww/index.php/eng/Information/CHEDMemorandum-Orders/2007-CHED-Memorandum-Orders Digital Structures (2011). “Simply Mechanics: Equilibrium of a Fish Mobile,” http://digitalstructures.blogspot.com/search/label/Simply%20Mechanics

DLSU-GCOE, http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/academics/colleges/coe/ DLSU-GCOE-CE, http://www.dlsu.edu.ph/academics/colleges/coe/civil_eng/default.asp

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

Felder, Richard and Brent, Rebecca (2003). “Designing and Teaching Courses to Satisfy the ABET Engineering Criteria ,” Journal of Engineering Education, 92 (1), 7-25 (2003) Felder, Richard and Brent, Rebecca (2004). “ The ABC’s of Engineering Education: ABET, Bloom’s Taxonomy, Cooperative Learning, and so on”, Proc. 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Gurocak, Hakan (2009). “Direct Measures For Course Outcomes Assessment For Abet Accreditation, “ Proc. ASEE 2008. Washington State University-Vancouver MecMovies: Mechanics of Materials by Timothy A. Philpot, http://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/ Menhart, Steve (2011). “Direct Versus Indirect Assessment Methodologies,” Proc, 2011 Midwest Section Conference, ASEE, http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/papers/sectionproceedings/midwest/2011 Powers, Jack (2008), “Converting Class Syllabi to the Outcomes Based Teaching and Learning Format”, Communication Studies Department, HKBU, February 20, 2008 Rogers, Gloria (2003). “Do Grades Make the Grade for Program Assessment?,” Assessment Tips, Communication Link, www.abet.org The Lasallian (2012). http://thelasallian.com/2012/02/28/forming-ideal-lasallian-graduates/ YouTube: Angle of Friction Experiment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V6EhZY_dKo&NR=1

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Andres Winston C. Oreta, D.Eng. is a professor in civil engineering at the De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. His technical papers can be downloaded at Website: http://mysite.dlsu.edu.ph/faculty/oretaa. He also maintains a blogsite: http://digitalstructures.blogspot.com. Email: andyoreta@yahoo.com. Cheryl Lyne Capiz Roxas is an assistant professor in civil engineering at the De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines. Email: cheryl.capiz@dlsu.edu.ph

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

APPENXDIX A: OBE Course Syllabus in STATICS
Department Of Civil Engineering De Salle University - Manila OBE COURSE SYLLABUS - STATICS COLLEGE: GCOE DEPARTMENT: Civil Engineering COURSE CODE: STATICS COURSE: TITLE: Statics of Rigid Bodies UNITS: Three (3) PREREQUISITES: PHYENG1/INTECAL CLASS DAYS AND CLASS TIME: ____________________________ ROOM: _________________________ Name of Instructor: ____________________________________________________________________________ Consultation Hours: ___________________________________________________________________________ COURSE DESCRIPTION: STATICS or Statics of Rigid Bodies is a branch of Engineering Mechanics that deals with the study of forces and interaction of forces that occur in rigid bodies that are in static equilibrium. In this course two and three-dimensional structures are analyzed to determine both external and internal effects due to external forces. Properties of areas and lines (centroids and moment of inertia) which are important parameters in design of structures will also be discussed. An understanding of the fundamental concepts and tools for analyzing forces and moments is essential in mechanics of deformable bodies, structural analysis and design courses. LEARNING OUTCOMES: On completion of the course, the student is expected to be able to do the following:
• ELGA Creative and Critical Thinker Student Outcome (SO) SO-A: An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, physical sciences, and engineering sciences to the practice of civil engineering. SO-E: An ability to recognize, formulate, and solve civil engineering problems. SO-I. An ability to engage in lifelong learning and an acceptance of the need to keep current of the development in the specific field of specialization. Learning Outcome (LO) LO1. Analyze the properties (components, resultants and moments) of a force and force systems in 2D & 3D. LO2. Solve equilibrium problems of various types of structures including friction problems using analytical models, rigid bodies, FBDs and equations of equilibrium. LO3. Solve the properties (centroid, center of gravity and moment of inertia) of areas, lines and volumes and apply these properties in equilibrium problems. LO4. Apply and demonstrate the principles and tools of STATICS in the analysis and solution of equilibrium problems based on a real-world scenario.

Reflective Lifelong Learner

STUDENT COURSE OUTPUTS: As evidence of attaining the above learning outcomes, the student is required to do and submit the following during the indicated date of the term. LEARNING OUTCOME
LO4

REQUIRED OUTPUT
Application Case Study

DUE DATE
13th Week

An Application Case Study is an analysis and solution of a real-world scenario problem where the basic principles of STATICS are demonstrated. The student describes the problem with sketches or photos of simple or complicated objects which can be seen in everyday life, determines the properties of the object, defines the problem and various parameters involved, makes some assumptions, and applies the principles and tools of STATICS specifically force systems, equilibrium equations, FBDs and section properties . Real data or hypothetical data may be used in numerical examples of the case study. The final output is a write-up documenting the case study.

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

RUBRIC FOR ASSESSMENT OF THE APPLICATION CASE STUDY: Note: A Satisfactory rating with a score of 3.0 is given if the minimum requirements are satisfied. Add 0.5 if there is a manifestation of the properties for the higher score(e.g., 3.5 means that there are exemplary features in the corresponding criterion). The rating is computed as follows: R =Percentage Value x ( Score/4)
CRITERIA Application of principles and tools of STATICS (40%) Content & Problem Definition (20%) EXEMPLARY 4 Many principles and tools of STATICS are applied correctly and extensively. The real world scenario problem which is novel and unique is presented in detail. Many related issues or scenarios are discussed. Actual data and hypothetical data are analyzed and applied correctly and extensively. . The assumptions are given. Various cases are presented. Technically sound, well organized, logical & clearly written. There are no errors in spelling or grammar. Actual photos and original sketches are used effectively in the essential part of the report. All photos, sketches & references are necessary & informative. SATISFACTORY 3 The principles and tools of STATICS are applied correctly. The real world scenario problem is presented in detail. Basic information and issues are discussed. Actual data and hypothetical data are analyzed and applied correctly. The assumptions are given. A sample computation for a case study is given. Organized, logical & clearly written. There are no errors in spelling and grammar. Actual photos and original sketches are used in the essential part of the report. References are given when necessary. DEVELOPING 2 The principles and tools of STATICS are applied with some errors. The real world scenario problem which is too simple is presented but some information are not provided. Few issues are covered. Actual data and hypothetical data are analyzed and applied but with some errors. Some assumptions are not given or incorrect. BEGINNING 1 The principles and tools of STATICS are applied with major errors. The real world scenario problem which is too simple is not presented in detail. Lacking in information. Unrealistic data used. Incorrect use of data. Incomplete or incorrect assumptions. RATING R

Data Analysis (15%)

Writing Style and Grammar (15%)

Evidence and Documentation (10%)

Organized, logical & clearly written. There are some errors in spelling and/or grammar. Some of the photos and sketches are not original and are not informative & necessary. Some sketches are incorrect. Necessary references not given.

Poorly written and not organized. There are many errors in spelling and/or grammar.. Most of the photos and sketches were copied and are incorrect and not necessary. Necessary references not given.

TOTAL:

OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS: The student will be assessed at other times during the term by the following: LEARNING OUTCOME LO 1 – LO2 LO 1 – LO2 LO 1 – LO3 LO 1 – LO4 ASSESSMENT Long Quiz No. 1 Long Quiz No. 2 Long Quiz No. 3 Final Exams DUE DATE 5th week 8th week 13th week 14th week

In the Long Quizzes and Final Exam, the students must be able to: • Identify and explain terms and principles • Use correctly the appropriate equations with proper units • Analyze problems critically and use the necessary tools and principles to solve the problems accurately Problem sets and seatwork will be given to serve as exercises on application of tools and theory in STATICS. Problem sets and seatwork will not be graded but serve as feedback to the teacher and student on whether the learning outcomes are being achieved during the instruction-learning phase. Solution to problem sets must be discussed in class or posted.

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

GRADING SYSTEM: 1. General Average The general average of each student’s grade will be computed as follows: • Average of the 3 Long Quizzes = 60% • Final Exam = 25% • Application Case Study = 15% 2. Final Grade: The final grade will be determined based on the general average: • 2.0 : 70.0 - 75.9 • 4.0: 94.0 - 100.0 • 3.5 : 88.0 - 93.9 • 1.5 : 65.0 - 69.9 • 3.0: 82.0 - 87.9 • 1.0 :60.0 - 64.9 • 2.5 : 76.0 - 81.9 • 0.0 : 59.9 below LEARNING PLAN:
LO LO1 Wk 1 Mtg 1 Topic Course Syllabus Introduction of the course: The Relevance of Mechanics to Engineering; Definitions – Statics, Rigid Bodies, Force; External and Internal Effects, Types & Characteristics of Forces Components of a force (planar and spatial); Moment of a Force, Types of Force Systems Ref 1.1 – 1.5 • • • • • 2 3 4 3 5 Resultants of Coplanar Force Systems; Concurrent Force System Resultant of Parallel Force System Resultant of Non-concurrent Non-parallel Force System, Problem Set on Resultants Equilibrium; Free Body Diagrams; Equations of Equilibrium; Equilibrium of Coplanar Concurrent and Parallel Force Systems Equilibrium of Coplanar Non-concurrent Non-parallel Force Systems, Problem Set on Equilibrium Problems Review / Overview of Application Case Study LONG QUIZ No. 1 Analysis of Structures; Types of Structures; Types of Supports; Stability and Static Determinacy Definition of a Truss; Analysis of a Plane Truss; Method of Joints 2.1-2.2 2.2 2.2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1.8 2.3 3.7-3.9 5.1-5.3 • • • • • • • • • Learning Activities Lecture Video on Effects of Forces: Tacoma Bridge & Building Collapse Lecture Video/Demo about moment of a force Slides on types of force systems (real and models) Lecture Slides Lecture Slides Lectures Problem Solving Lecture Video/Demo on equilibrium Lecture Slides Reaction Game Lecture Video about structures Lecture Video\Slides about roof & bridge trusses Lecture Problem solving Lecture Slides about frames (real & models) Problem solving Lecture Lecture Slides Lecture Video/Slide on Space structures Lecture Video or demo on Angle of Friction Lecture Lecture / Slides

2 LO1

1.6 – 1.7

6 LO2 4 7 8 9 10 11

3.1 – 3.5 3.6

5 LO2 6

4.1-4.4 4.5

12 7 13

Analysis of a Plane Truss; Method of Sections, Problem Set on Truss Analysis Definition of a Frame; Analysis of Pin-jointed Frames, Problem Set on Plane Frames Review LONG QUIZ No. 2 Forces as vectors; Vector algebra Resultants of Spatial Force Systems Equilibrium of Spatial Force Systems, Problem Set on 3D Systems Friction; Dry Friction and Coefficient of Friction; Angle of Friction Problems and Application of Friction Belt Friction, Problem Set on Friction

4.5 4.6

8 LO1 9 LO2 10

14 15 16 17 18 19

11

20 21

5.4 5.5

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines
22 LO1 LO2 LO3 12 23 Centroids and Center of Gravity; Flat Plate; Areas; Lines; Integration Centroids of Composite Areas Equilibrium problems with distributed loads, Problem Set on Centroids Review LONG QUIZ No. 3 Submission of Application Case Study Moment of Inertia; Integration Polar Moment of Inertia; Moment of Inertia of Composite Sections FINAL EXAM 6.1-6.4 6.5 • • • • • • 7.1-7.3 • • • • Problem solving Lecture Slides Lecture Demo/Expt. on center of gravity of composite area Centroids Game (MecMovies) Lecture Slide.Video of various structural shapes Lecture Moment of Inertia Game (MecMovies)

13 LO3 14

24 25 26

27

7.4-7.7

28

REFERENCES: • Textbook • Engineering Mechanics I (Statics), 1st Ed. Romeo Estanero (Ed), DLSU-Manila, 2002 • Reference books • Engineering Mechanics (10th Edition): Statics, R.C. Hibbeler, 2009, Prentice Hall • Engineering Mechanics: Statics, J. L. Meriam and L.G. Kraige, 2006, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. • Engineering Mechanics: Statics and Dynamics, F. Singer, Harper Collins Publisher ONLINE RESOURCES • Engineering Mechanics-Self Assessment Tutorials: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/faculty/eng/engtlsc/Eng_Mech/tutorials/tut_index.htm • Effects of Forces: The Tacoma Bridge. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mclp9QmCGs • Effects of Forces: Building Collapse. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKeENdyIluI • Roof Trusses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Q-suFmOZ8&feature=related • Howe Truss Bridge Animation. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKYVEEGjX4E&feature=related • MecMovies: Mechanics of Materials by Timothy A. Philpot, http://web.mst.edu/~mecmovie/ • Angle of Friction 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V6EhZY_dKo&NR=1 • Angle of Friction 2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2q_Wymu0W4&feature=related CLASS POLICIES: 1. Attendance will be checked at all times. 2. A student who missed taking a Long Quiz or Final Exam will be given a grade of zero for the missed quiz or exam. A make-up quiz or exam will be given under exceptional cases only and upon the discretion of the department. 3. Academic dishonesty of any form will NOT be tolerated. Academic dishonesty includes, but it is not limited to: • Cheating in a Lonq Quiz or Final Exam (Copying somebody’s work or letting somebody copy your work) • The unauthorized used of intellectual property (plagiarism) • Lying to an instructor or any university employee. Such actions will be penalized with a failing grade in the Lonq Quiz or Final Exam and a with the strong possibility of course failure and referral to the Office of the Vice Dean and/or Discipline Office for disciplinary action.

International Conference on Civil Engineering Education (ICCEE2012), ISSN 2244-3738 November 9-10, 2012 De La Salle University, Manila, Philippines

Appendix B. EXAMPLE: STATICS Long Quiz No. 1 LO1: Problem No. 1. (25 pts) The coplanar force system has a resultant of 400 N acting in the direction towards a point with coordinates (5,6). Determine the characteristics (magnitude and direction) of the unknown force P.
100 N 5 12 P y 200 N 60o 60o 500 N

x

LO1: Problem No. 2. (25 pts) Determine the magnitude and direction of the resultant of the forces shown that act on the truss. What is the distance of the line of action of the resultant with respect to point A? 50 kN 100 kN 50 kN D E F

40 kN

2.0 m

A
2.0 m

B
2.0 m

C

LO2: Problem No. 3. (30 pts) A cylindrical drum with a diameter of 1.20 m and weighing 8 kN is 150 mm pushed up a 30-deg incline but must overcome an obstacle which is 150 mm high as shown. What is the minimum force P that is required to lift the drum off the incline? P is parallel to the incline. Neglect friction.

P 30o

LO2: Problem No.4. (20 pts) . For the truss shown in No. 2, solve for the reactions at the hinge support A and the roller support C. What is the magnitude and direction of the reaction at A?

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times