In the Mechanical and Industrial Engineering department at Northeastern University, Capstone Design is a two semester course offered in one of two sequences. In one sequence, the two semesters follow each other directly, with students taking the first semester in late summer, followed immediately by the second semester in the Fall. In the other sequence, the students take the first semester in early summer, and then spend 6 months on coop before returning in the Spring to complete the second semester of Capstone. Although these two sequences were developed simply to accommodate student schedules, this fact provides an opportunity to determine whether the lag between semesters hinders, aids, or has no effect on whether students generate quality designs and use good project management techniques. Students who take the consecutive sequence have the advantage of working continually on their design problem for 2 terms, allowing them to keep momentum going. However, it is possible that the students who interrupt their sequence with coop are able to use that time to continue independent learning, even if they are not actively working on the problem. Both cohorts spend the same total amount of time on coop. However, the group with the interrupted sequence can apply the valuable skills in project management and other real-world work skills that they learn in Capstone I to their coop, reinforcing their skills in a timely manner. This could provide the groups in the interrupted sequence with an organizational advantage upon their return. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is a distinct difference between the two cohorts in the quality of the final projects produced.. Several measures of project quality will be used to study the two groups. Final course grades for each group will be an initial indicator of any distinction. Another measure is whether or not the groups have reached the prototyping stage at a point two weeks from the end of the course. This can be determined from the executive summaries the groups submit at that point. The number of patent disclosures and provisional patents awarded per term will indicate both the quality of the project and the performance of the groups, as groups that file patents typically are further along in their project. Finally, the two cohorts will be compared based on feedback from the alumni jury members who judge the final projects. Results indicate that the nonconsecutive groups have slightly better grades, more projects which reach the prototyping stage 2 weeks prior to the end of term, and more projects rated successful by the alumni jury. Patent applications did not prove to be conclusively indicative of any difference between cohorts.

Joining together is a beginning, keeping together is progress, working together is success. ~Henry Ford on teamwork AbstractEffective team functioning is one of the key ABET criteria and is also essential for successful capstone design work. Existing teamwork enhancement practices focus on key factors such as contributions of team members, balancing skills and personality types, fostering a constructive team climate, and response to conflict; however, the best method for forming successful teams is still the subject of debate. In the Senior Capstone Design course at Northeastern University, no explicit instruction in team functioning is provided at present. Teams are typically studentformed when possible; however, the course coordinator needs to ensure that team formation outcomes align with the course constraints -such as of number of projects, number of faculty advisors, and team size of 4-5 students-and must form teams when students are unable to. In terms of project assignments, students rank possible projects, and although an attempt is made to give them one of their top choices, this is not always possible. In this work, the two types of teams, student-formed and instructor-formed, are examined to see if there are any differences in terms of design quality, project completeness/implementation, and final prototype grade. Assessment tools include the validated prototype scoring system previously developed by one of the authors. Teams were categorized based on how the teams were formed -instructor versus student, topic preference -students initial ranking of their assigned project, what percentage of the team members were actively chosen by other team members, and whether they were chosen based on skill or work style, and/or because of friendship, and the degree to which their assigned advisor was among their top choice. The team's passion and commitment to their project was also assessed, using an operational definition of this engagement factor. Results show that teams who select team members themselves with an eye to the skills and work style of their team members have high final scores and also a high level of commitment to and passion for the project. Additionally, it seems that neither the actual topic of the project nor the team advisor necessarily affects the outcomes of the project. Findings will inform guidelines for capstone team formation and future coaching of the students in general and in capstone teams once formed. Results will help determine what type of team-formation protocol is recommended and the coaching intervention may improve the performance of potentially low-functioning teams.

No abstract

NU) teaching Simulation Modeling and Analysis, Human-Machine Systems, and Facilities Planning. She is the Director of the Galante Engineering Business Program as well as Coordinator of Senior Capstone Design in Industrial Engineering at NU. Dr. Jaeger-Helton has also been an active member of Northeastern's Gateway Team, a select group of teaching faculty expressly devoted to the first-year Engineering Program at NU. In addition, she serves as a Faculty Advisor for Senior Capstone Design and graduate-level Challenge Projects in Northeastern's Gordon Engineering Leadership Program. Dr. Jaeger-Helton has been the recipient of over 15 awards in engineering education for both teaching and mentoring and has been involved in several engineering educational research initiatives through ASEE and beyond.

The educational benefits of laboratory courses are well established, but their high infrastructure and equipment needs can be a barrier to innovation, causing the courses to stagnate over time. Standard course evaluation feedback is not detailed enough to gauge the effects of lab experiment improvements on student learning. This study presents a methodology for continuous improvement of a lab course. Students were initially asked to provide their own edits to existing lab handouts, which were compiled to determine common points of confusion from the student perspective. This input, as well as voice of the customer data from focus groups, was used during the development of new labs. The response to the new labs was monitored via surveys each subsequent term. Surveys were designed to elicit experiment-specific responses such as whether students felt they learned from the experiment, whether the experiment was frustrating or engaging, and if they could use the information from the lab in future work. Six years of survey data was used to determine correlations between lab aspects and student outcomes. There were strong correlations (R 2 = 0.79) between lab activities that students felt helped them learn and activities they felt might be applicable to problems outside lab. There were also moderately strong correlations (R 2 = 0.47) between grades on an open-ended experimental design project and lab activities that were perceived as applicable to outside problems. Additionally, the survey data demonstrated that the benefits of new lab experiments developed with student feedback and input are sustainable over time. Finally, this methodology allowed for rapid identification of problems in the course and a timely assessment of course improvements. This methodology is easily adaptable to any lab course and can indicate where limited time and resources should be directed for maximum impact.