AC 2011-177: IMPLEMENTING PROBLEM BASED LEARNING IN MA-

TERIALS SCIENCE
David H Jonassen, University of Missouri, Columbia

Dr. David Jonassen is Curators’ Professor at the University of Missouri where he teaches in the areas of
Learning Technologies and Educational Psychology.

Sanjeev K Khanna, University of Missouri

Dr. Khanna is a La Pierre Professor in mechanical and aerospace engineering department at the University
of Missouri. His pedagogical research interests include integrated teaching of mechanics, materials and
design, introducing problem based learning in undergraduate level engineering courses, and promoting
the engineering discipline among high school teachers and students. He is the coauthor of a book titled
”Mechanics of Materials: a modern integration of mechanics and materials in structural design”, published
by Elsevier Science publishers.

Page 22.821.1

c American Society for Engineering Education, 2011

 Implementing Problem Based Learning in Materials Science

Problem solving is the primary intellectual activity of mechanical engineers.

Practicing engineers are hired, retained, and rewarded for solving problems Jonassen,
Strobel, & Lee, 2006). Therefore, enhancing problem-solving skills is essential for
preparing mechanical engineering students for the workplace. Workplace engineering
problems are substantively different from the kinds of problems that engineering students
most often solve in the classroom. They are ill structured and complex, because they
possess conflicting goals, multiple solution methods, non-engineering success standards,
non-engineering constraints, unanticipated problems, distributed knowledge, collaborative
activity systems, required experience, and multiple forms of problem representation.
Therefore, learning to solve classroom problems does not adequately prepare engineering
students to solve workplace problems.

Based on those assumptions, we have designed, implemented, and are now testing a
problem-based learning version of a materials science course in the mechanical engineering
curriculum. Materials science was chosen because it is the first course in the mechanical
engineering sequence, and because virtually every mechanical engineering problem
involves materials selection or materials troubleshooting elements. Before describing the
course and the results of an initial trial implementation, we describe principles of problem-
based learning (PBL).

Practices and principles of problem-based learning

Preparing for professional practice in any discipline requires that students learn to think
like successful practitioners in that field. PBL is an instructional strategy in which a unit,
course, or curriculum is organized around problems authentic to practice rather than subject
mater content. Rather than studying concepts, principles and theories and later applying
them to problems, learning is organized and oriented by the problems, so the problems
come first. Students work in groups on a given problem and are given the responsibility to
determine and carry out what they need to learn and do in order to solve that problem with
the assistance of faculty. PBL programs generally exhibit the following characteristics:
• Student-centered learning
• Collaborative learning
• Instructors as facilitators
• Self-directed learning.
In order to succeed in a PBL setting, learners must acquire skills in the problem-solving
process as well as the content of the course in which the problem is situated. Unfortunately,
first-time PBL students often struggle with how to identify and learn what they need to
know to solve a problem without the familiar context of instructor lectures preceding the
assignment of the problem (Vardi & Ciccarelli, 2008).

PBL implementations in engineering disciplines

In addition to the challenges faced by novice problem-based learners, there may be specific
Page 22.821.2

challenges for engineering students when adapting to a PBL approach. For example, Nasr
and Ramadan (2008) list a variety of challenges they faced when implementing PBL in an
Engineering Thermodynamics course. “The majority of students are formulae-driven.
Effective methods need to be employed to discourage students from reaching out for quick
equations to plug and chug in” (p. 22). Similarly, Johnson (1999) reported that students in a
PBL version of a hydraulic engineering course sought “homework problems to improve
their understanding of fundamental calculations and help them prepare for exams” (p. 10),
despite also expressing concerns that the workload of the PBL course was already
burdensome. The students in Johnson’s study also complained that the projects were “too
vague and needed additional clarification” (p. 11), suggesting a discomfort with ill-
structured problems.

Although PBL normally prescribes learning content in the context of new problems, many
problems also require the application of prior knowledge. Mitchell and Smith (2008) noted
that engineering students had difficulty relating prior knowledge from earlier coursework to
the problems provided in a third year PBL course in communications systems. Students
spent more time than instructors anticipated trying “to find new information to find a
solution to a problem, as if it were just one discrete task, and much less in contemplating
how what they were being asked built on previous knowledge and experience” (p. 136).
Students also experienced difficulty in the practical nature of the assignments as compared
with the more academic assignments they had done in the past. Their written reports
showed a tendency toward “replicating rather than applying theory” (p. 138). Students were
highly concerned with the grading structure of the course, in particular because they felt
that how the various scores were weighted did not appropriately reflect what they had spent
the most time on. There were also concerns over group grades versus individual
contributions.

Implementation of PBL in the Course MAE 3200 Engineering Materials

Supported by a NSF grant (DUE-0836914), we have designed, developed, and initially

implemented a PBL version of MAE 3200, Engineering Materials. The initial
implementation of the course for purposes of research was a traditional lecture course
enrolling 62 students in the fall of 2009. That version of the course introduced concepts
with instructor lectures following the textbook (Callister, 2007). Topics covered are shown
in Table 1. The course is taught by two instructors. The course has seven laboratory
sessions that reinforce concepts covered in lecture. This version of the course has been
taught many times by the professors.

The PBL version of the course, enrolling 58 students, was implemented in the spring, 2010.
Students were randomly assigned to ten groups initially consisting of six students each.
Students remained in their assigned groups throughout the course. Students then worked in
their teams to solve a series of seven problem modules and collaboratively produce a
written technical report detailing their group’s solution to each. Those problems are briefly
described next. Each problem was introduced with a two-page narrative and a set of
supports. In order to ensure that important content elements are not missed, the subjects
listed in Table 1 that each problem addresses are listed.
Page 22.821.3
Problem 1. Improved Design of Cassette Plates – You have been asked to redesign x-ray
film cassettes so that they are lighter but retain the same stiffness to bending loads.
Compare various materials that are compatible with the application to produce an improved
cassette. Addresses: (d, j, k, l).
Problem 2. Silicon Wafer Orientation – Write a letter to a confused customer explaining
the difference between 100, 111, and 110 silicon wafers and the orientation of the flats on
the sides of the wafers. Provide a drawing illustrating the orientation of the crystal in the
wafer. Addresses: (a).

(a) Crystal structures, naming planes and directions

(b) Imperfections in solids
(c) Diffusion
(d) Mechanical properties
(d1) Tensile Testing
(d2) Hardness
(e) Dislocations and strengthening
(e1) Grain size and strength
(e2) Solid solution hardening
(e3) Cold work and annealing
(f) Failure
(f1) Fracture
(f2) Fatigue
(f3) Creep
(g) Phase Diagrams
(h) Phase Transformations
(i) Heat treatment of alloys
(i1) Precipitation hardening
(i2) Quenching and tempering of steels
(i3) Hardenability of steels
(j) Ceramics
(k) Polymers
(l) Composites
Table 1. Materials related topics to be covered in MAE3200 Engineering Materials
course. Topics are listed in the order that they are currently covered in the existing
course.
Problem 3. Variation of Single Crystal Strength – A bulk single crystal of aluminum is
provided to students. Each student cuts a prescribed rectangular cross section sample from
any portion of the bulk material, for tensile testing up to failure. However, on testing they
find that each student obtains a different value for the elastic modulus and the yield stress.
Explain the possible reasons for the apparent discrepancy. Addresses: (d, e).
Problem 4. Failing Brackets – In an attempt to improve the strength of mounting brackets,
2024-T3 aluminum is replaced with 7075-T6 aluminum, which is stronger. It is then found
that the brackets fail at a higher rate. Determine the reason for this and find another
suitable metal alloy that will fix the problem. Addresses: (d1, f1, g, i1).
Page 22.821.4
Problem 5. Design Improved Automotive Springs – A hypoeutectoid alloy steel wire
containing Cr and V is used for manufacturing coil springs for automobiles suspension
systems. These steel springs can be heat treated to obtain excellent toughness and also have
high UTS and hardness. This spring wire, purchased from a wire manufacturer, is coiled
into springs and heat treated by appropriate quenching and tempering before installation.
However, the springs begin to fail prematurely by fatigue failure. What could be the causes
for such failures and how could it be remedied? Addresses: (c, d, d1, d2, f, f1, f2, i2).
Problem 6. Creating Copper Contacts – Select a beryllium-copper alloy for cell phone
battery contacts. They need good conductivity and high strength. If applicable, design a
heat treatment for the contacts. Discuss any safety aspects of beryllium. Addresses: (d2,
g, i1).
Problem 7. Design Dies for Forging Ti-6Al-4V Alloy Connecting Rods – You want to
make forged automotive connecting rods from Ti-6Al-4V titanium alloy. Select a tool steel
from which to construct the dies and design the proper heat treatment for the dies.
Addresses: (d, d2, e, g, i2, i3).

For each problem module, students were provided with a contextualized case scenario
introducing them to the details of the problem and their role in solving it; a guide to the
module listing the learning objectives; related reading material; and, for the early problems,
suggested strategies for approaching the problem. Because students had no prior exposure
to PBL, the module guides were used as a form of scaffolding to help them understand both
what was expected of them and how to meet those expectations. In the guide to Problem 1
(see Appendix A), instructors provided a detailed task list that modeled how they would
approach solving the problem along with conceptual diagrams illustrating the relationships
of various material properties to the expected performance of the materials in the
implementation. Flowcharts were also provided illustrating the decision-making processes
for materials selection and processing. Further, early on in the semester the students were
instructed on teamwork and collaboration. In subsequent problems, these supports were
gradually reduced so that, by the end of the course, problem scenarios stopped short of
describing team problem-solving approaches and problem guides listed only the objectives
and requirements for their respective modules.

MAE 3200 is designated as a writing-intensive course in the Mechanical Engineering

program, which requires that student assignments take the form of written artifacts similar
to the types of writing they might be expected to produce as practicing engineers. Thus,
each team was required to produce a written report for each problem module detailing the
group’s solution to the problem and providing justification for that solution as well as
explicating their understanding of the engineering materials concepts related to that
problem module. A rubric was used to assess the written reports (see Assessing Your
Reports in Appendix A).

Results

The initial implementation of the PBL version of MAE 3200 was exploratory, intended to
Page 22.821.5

provide formative evaluation of the methods selected. The primary data source was an in-
depth interview with 15 of the students following the conclusion of the initial
implementation.

Challenges for students. We expected that learners experiencing PBL for the first time
would find it challenging, not only because it represents a shift from their prior classroom
experiences, but also because much of the benefit from learning how to solve problems
within a discipline comes from mistakes made along the path toward mastery. Participants
in this study expressed difficulty with the overall structure of the course, and, to a lesser
degree, with working in teams.

Participants expressed considerable confusion about the way the course was structured
around problems rather than topics. Students perceived the course as effectively lacking
structure, describing it as “jumping around on different subjects,” “going backwards,” and
“having the test first [before learning the material].” Participants also had difficulty relating
their work on the problem modules to the types of questions asked on the course exams.

Student preferences. Students most commonly suggested that more lectures would best
address those challenges. Organizing the course around problems rather than topics,
however, is a central characteristic of PBL. However, providing supplemental information
to help frame particularly challenging topics for students, such as brief, single-topic
recorded lectures or other multimedia materials, that students may access on a just-in-time,
as-needed basis may help them better appreciate the structure of the course content as it
applies to the problem and to the exams.

Working in teams. Most of the students interviewed described their interpersonal

experiences with team members as positive and their team roles and structure as
informative. Only two of the groups reported particular problems with group dynamics, and
the instructors reported that only one student came to them with a request to address
interpersonal issues within his group. Given that most participants had little experience
working in teams before the course and minimal guidance was provided to students about
teamwork strategies, there may be a need for facilitators to be more attentive to group
dynamics early in the semester and to provide more direct mentoring to underperforming
teams proactively.

Collaboration. Instructors were generally dissatisfied with the quality of the group
collaboration as demonstrated by the submitted reports. Instructors perceived that very little
collaborative writing. Instead, they observed that students would tend to divide the report
into sections and write those sections individually at the last moment, then simply combine
those sections with little or no attention to how well the sections fit together. While this
improved to some degree over the course of the semester based on feedback from the
instructors, students interviewed at the end of the semester expressed that they rarely read
their respective teams’ full reports prior to turning them in, though a few mentioned that
they used the reports to help them study for exams.

Instructors were also concerned that students were often not making productive use of class
Page 22.821.6

time allocated to working together in teams on the problem modules. The PBL model
intends for team members to bring their individual research together for discussion so as to
teach each other and construct a shared understanding of the meaning of the concepts they
are learning (Hmelo-Silver, 2004). While it may not be desirable for the instructors-as-
facilitators to police the students during class time, the initial introductory lecture could be
enhanced to recommend how to make effective use of class time and facilitators could
reinforce these ideas by guiding students back on task when off-task behaviors are
observed.

Expectations. Perhaps the most significant difficulty among the students related to the
expectations of the course. While the students understood the relevance of the problems,
they remained committed most to the exams. The exams were content-based while the
problems involved problem-solving activities. In addition to uncertainty over the content
on the exams, there was a significant disconnect between the methods that students used to
study for the problems and those used to study for the exams. The students studied their
textbook for exams and the Internet for information needed for solving the problems. In
subsequent implementations, the professors have decided to eliminate traditional exams.

As a result of the uncertainty, the course instructors perceived exam performance to be

lower for the PBL students than students who had participated in prior traditional, lecture-
based versions of the course. Given that participants themselves identified a lack of
understanding how the exams related to their work on the problem modules, however,
refinement of the exams is warranted as noted above. Most students had little idea of how
much they learned from problems: Their conception of learning is so dominated by
traditional expectation guided by traditional examinations.

Instructor challenges. Students face many challenges when making the transition from
lecture-based courses to PBL, but the transition is also challenging for instructors. There
were two main areas of difficulty for instructors transforming their traditional lecture-based
courses to PBL: the transition to the role of facilitator and assessment workload.

In the first implementation, the two instructors alone served as facilitators for all ten
groups. They were not provided with significant training in how to facilitate PBL groups
prior to the implementation, though as primary members of the research and design teams,
they were introduced to the concept of facilitation in this context. Instructors were, as
previously mentioned, not readily able to identify issues in group dynamics, primarily
because they were spread too thin trying to facilitate all ten groups.

The two instructors performed all of the grading work associated with the course. In the
traditional version of the course, students were responsible for individually submitting
three written reports as well as taking the two exams. While there were fewer reports at
each submission for the PBL students because they were submitted by team rather than
individually. The increased workload made it difficult to return student reports in a timely
fashion, which in turn affected students’ ability to adjust their strategies and improve their
performance on subsequent problems.
Page 22.821.7
Since timely feedback is important to promote continued improvement in student
performance, some way to alleviate the workload is perhaps the most critical concern for
subsequent implementations. It is possible that the additional facilitators could be trained to
give general feedback on report structure and cohesiveness, but they will not be qualified to
fully assess the student reports.

Conclusion

Implementing PBL in engineering classes represents a challenging transition for both

instructors and students. Implementation of any curricular change is a diffusion and
adoption of change problem. In this initial implementation, students were challenged to
develop new approaches to learning that had different expectations that defied their well-
developed study strategies. PBL can be implemented in a variety of ways, from individual
course modules to entire curricula. The most successful implementations have been
curricular, where all learning in the program of study is problem-based. In those studies,
especially those in post-graduate medical programs, content learning between PBL and
traditional groups is statistically equivalent, while problem solving skills are significantly
enhanced. Course-based implementations are likely to be less successful because the
learning and study requirements of PBL courses are so different from traditional courses.
We may conclude at the end of the grant cycle that this impediment may be
insurmountable.

Next Steps

During the 2010-2011 academic year, we have been collecting research data to assess the
effectiveness of PBL vs. traditional, content-based versions of 3200. We are collecting
multiple data sources to assess content comprehension, problem-solving skills, and self-
regulation skills among the students enrolled in each section of the course. Based on the
experiences in the first PBL implementation, we have added scaffolds to help learners
comprehend and solve the problem. Each group is responsible for populating a wiki for
each problem. Their responses are guided by a series of questions. For the first problem
which focused on corrosion, some of the questions included:
• Why  would  corrosion  a  problem  for  outdoor  metal  structures?  
• What  evidence  (statistics  or  other  proofs)  can  you  cite  that  supports  
your  answer?  
• Can  you  find  another  example  of  a  sculpture  where  corrosions  was  a  
problem?  What  is  the  source  of  your  information?  
• How  do  you  measure  and  report  corrosion?  
• Why  is  it  different  for  metals,  ceramics,  and  polymers?  
• Can  you  predict  when  corrosion  will  be  a  problem?  
• What  evidence  from  the  case  would  lead  you  to  conclude  corrosion  is  or  
is  not  a  potential  problem?  
• How  will  aluminum  affect  the  underlying  steel  structure?  
• What  is  the  equation  for  describing  that  relationship?  
Page 22.821.8

Student response has been positive, and students’ efforts have been much more concerted.
We will convey initial results of this research at the conference in Vancouver.
 References

ABET, Inc. (2008, December 1). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Retrieved
May 1, 2010, from http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-
UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%2009-10%20EAC%20Criteria%2012-01-
08.pdf
Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-Based Learning: What and How Do Students Learn?
Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
Johnson, P. A. (1999). Problem-Based, Cooperative Learning in the Engineering
Classroom. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education & Practice,
125(1), 8.
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C.B. (2006) Everyday Problem Solving in Engineering:
Lessons for Engineering Educators, Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 2, 139-150.
Mitchell, J. E., & Smith, J. (2008). Case study of the introduction of problem-based
learning in electronic engineering. International Journal of Electrical Engineering
Education, 45(2), 131-273.
Nasr, K. J., & Ramadan, B. H. (2008). Impact Assessment of Problem-Based Learning in
an Engineering Science Course. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research,
9(3/4), 16-24.
Vardi, I., & Ciccarelli, M. (2008). Overcoming problems in problem-based learning: A trial
of strategies in an undergraduate unit. Innovations in Education and Teaching
International, 45(4), 345-354.

Page 22.821.9
 APPENDIX A

1. The Problem to Solve

Directions: Read the Problem. Note the important information in the problem
statement.

Groby Industries designs and manufactures x-ray equipment for hospitals and laboratories.
Lately, management has become dissatisfied with its market share for the x-ray cassettes
used by its hospital customers. Groby has recently been undercut in the market because its
closest rival has found a way to produce the cassettes more cheaply. Rather than simply
cutting production costs to compete on price, management prefers to improve Groby's
existing x-ray cassette design. X-ray cassette
The VP of the design department at Groby has tapped senior design engineer Alex Sparks
to manage the project. Alex is meeting with four other engineers in the design department
to discuss how to approach the problem.
"Okay, guys," Alex begins, "the marketing department did a customer survey and found
out that their biggest complaint about our x-ray cassettes is that they are too heavy. The x-
ray technicians at the hospitals handle a lot of cassettes during their shifts. They said that,
in addition to positioning patients, transporting the x-ray cassettes is the most physically
demanding part of the job. Our VP says that the best way to increase our sales would be to
make the cassettes lighter."
Jocelyn replies, "Okay, since I'm new to Groby, I just want to check my understanding
here. The cassettes hold the film while the x-ray is being taken, right?"
"That's right, Jocelyn," Alex replies. "It's very important that any solution we propose will
still hold the film rigidly in place during patient exposure. It also can't allow any light to
get to the film."
"If the cassette is light-tight, how does the film get exposed?" Jocelyn wonders aloud.
"On the inside of each cassette, there is a scintillating material that produces light when
exposed to x-rays," Alex explains. "This is how the film gets properly exposed by the x-
ray machine."
Charlie, another member of the team, has worked extensively on the design of Groby's
biggest selling x-ray machine, though he was not directly involved with designing the
current cassettes used in it. "Let's not forget," he interjects, "the re-designed cassettes still
have to work with the machine itself. They must have the same width of 500 mm and
height of 400 mm or they won't fit right in the machine."
"Well, if we just want to make the cassettes lighter," suggests Zac, "couldn't we just make
the face plates thinner? They're pretty dense, right?"
"The plates are currently 0.5 mm thick," replies Sunil, who was the lead designer for the
current cassettes.
Charlie adds, "As long as the width and height of the cassette remains the same, there
should be no problem with making them thicker or thinner within reason, at least in terms
of how they will fit in the machine."
"Sure, Charlie," Sunil continues, "but we won't be able to move in a direction that requires
Page 22.821.10

increasing a patient's exposure to get the same exposure on the film. We also have to keep
the rigidity of the current plates."
"How would a patient get a higher exposure, Sunil?" asked Charlie.
"If the new plates absorb x-rays more than the current design, the patient will have to
receive a higher exposure to get the same amount of exposure on the film."
"Does that mean we can reduce the patient exposure if we select a material that absorbs
less than the current design?"asked Jocelyn.
"Yes, it does," replied Sunil, "but the current design is transparent enough to x-rays that it
probably won't make much difference. The lawyers would never let us move in the other
direction though."
"@!#$%$^@^ laywers!" they all mumbled under their breath in unison.
Jocelyn asks, "What material are we using to make the plates now?"
Sunil replies, "an aluminum alloy."
"Sunil and Charlie raise some good points," Alex says. "Let's also remember that our new
plate design is required to have similar or lower deflections and a reasonable amount of
toughness and strength."
"So how do we get started, Alex?" Zac inquires.
"I think we need to look at different materials as well as the possibility of just making the
current plates thinner," Alex replies.
"I can use our database to find alternative materials that might work," says Jocelyn, "but
that's not going to tell me what impact they might have on patient exposure to x-rays."
"Since I worked on the original cassette design, I have some reference materials about x-
ray dose we can use," Sunil tells Jocelyn. "Alex, I can be responsible for evaluating
potential designs for dose considerations.I'll set up a spreadsheet for the calculations for
different materials and when you finalize potential thicknesses, I can calculate the
absorption."
"Great," says Alex. "What else?"
"I'll work on the numbers for the different materials, including the current aluminum alloy,
at different thicknesses so we can compare them," Zac replies.
"I can be the quality control engineer," says Charlie, "and review the designs to make sure
they will work right with the x-ray machine."
"This sounds good. I will make a project plan for our team to complete the work.
Management wants a proposal for the redesign by Monday. I need you to let me know
right away if you are going to have trouble meeting your deadlines for your tasks. Let's
meet the day after tomorrow and talk about what we've found."
"So you'll write the proposal, Alex?" asks Jocelyn.
"I'll prepare the final version," Alex responds, "but we all need to contribute to the
proposal. We will need to explain our material choice, along with other design
considerations such as the thickness we'll propose, and demonstrate that our new design
will result in a lighter cassette that works with the existing equipment and produces no
greater exposure to patients. Everyone has a piece of that information, so we'll need to
work as a team to put it all together."

2. How to Approach this Problem

Directions: Analyze the problem by completing each of these tasks.

1. A. Determine performance problem (e.g., cassettes too heavy, cause injury)
Page 22.821.11
 B. Determine performance goal (e.g., modify cassette to be lighter, non-toxic, with
same functionality)
C. Determine performance characteristics (e.g., lighter, stronger , faster, bending
stiffness, x-ray transmission) for job
D. Identify solution options (e.g., substitute material with lower density, use less
material)
2. For each performance characteristic, determine the material properties that
affect that performance
a. Repeat until done:
i. Identify primary material properties (elastic modulus, density, x-ray
attenuation) that affect/control each requirement
ii. Identify secondary material properties (e.g., fracture toughness,
compatibility with people, poison danger) that affect/control each
requirement
iii. Identify and map the factors that affect that property and the factors that
will be affected by that property and how they are affected (see Figure 1)
iv. Which properties require a limiting value for the application? (e.g.
fracture toughness must be at least 10 MPa√m)
vi. Which properties should be optimized (maximized, minimized)? (e.g.
minimizing the density can minimize the weight, all else being equal)
vii. Rank properties in terms of importance
viii. Determine interactions among requirements (e.g. density and elastic
modulus cannot be varied independently with materials. Increasing
thickness to increase stiffness increases the weight. You can find that
the maximum E1/3/r minimizes weight)
b. Determine final ranked property list
3. Explain microstructural origin of required material properties: How are
material properties achieved in the material? The paradigm illustrated in Figure
2 will help in considering the origin of the properties.
4. a. Identify class of materials that should meet those properties
b. Select 5-10 candidate materials from a database or other sources
5. Select equation(s) and calculate changes to material performance for each
alternative
6. Does material need to be processed to achieve the desired properties?
6a. If yes, develop material processing necessary to meet the
desired/required material properties.
7. Examine candidate materials in greater detail
8. Determine pros and cons for candidate materials
9. Develop argument in favor of final choice
10. Develop counter arguments against materials not chosen
11. Iterate between 9 and 10, change choice if necessary.

3. Assessing Your Reports

For each criterion, we will assign the statement and value that best describes the
quality of your report. The first submission and final submission of a report will each
Page 22.821.12

count for 50% of the final score for that assignment.

Determination of performance problem ______
3 All performance characteristics of problem (e.g., weight, speed, structural strength,
thickness, stiffness, higher or lower temperature) identified; all characteristics
relevant to problem
2 Most performance characteristics identified; all relevant to problem
1 Only a few performance characteristics identified; some not relevant to problem
0 No performance characteristics identified
Required performance characteristics ______
4 All performance characteristics stated using appropriate descriptors (e.g., lighter,
stronger, faster, bending stiffness, x-ray transmission)
3 Most performance characteristics stated, all with appropriate descriptors
2 Most performance characteristics stated, some with appropriate descriptors
Few performance descriptors stated
0 No performance descriptors stated
Range of performance characteristics ______
2 Range of performance characteristics appropriate (too many characteristics or too few
characteristics described
1 Range of performance characteristics inaccurate
Ranking of performance characteristics ______
3 Ranking of performance characteristics to be maximized or minimized by material
selection are appropriate to task.
2 All performance characteristics stated but improperly ranked
1 Performance characteristics and ranking inappropriate
Material properties (for each performance characteristic) ______
3 All primary and secondary material properties identified for each performance
characteristic
2 Most primary and secondary material properties identified for each performance
characteristic
1 Some primary and secondary material properties identified for each performance
characteristic
0 No primary and secondary material properties identified for each performance
characteristic
Physical factors and their effect on material properties _______
3 All physical factors and their effect on material properties stated
2 Most physical factors and their effect on material properties stated
1 Some physical factors and their effect on material properties stated
0 No physical factors and their effect on material properties stated
Ranking of material properties ______
2 Ranking of material properties in order of importance
1 All materials properties ranked; some out of order out of order
0 No ranking of material properties
Page 22.821.13
 Identifying Interactions among material properties on performance ______
3 All interactions among material properties on performance stated correctly (e.g. 2
increasing the thickness will increase the stiffness but may increase the weight)
2 Most interactions among material properties on performance stated correctly
1 Some interactions among material properties on performance stated correctly
0 No interactions among material properties on performance stated correctly
Quantifying interactions ______
3 All interactions among material properties and performance correctly quantified using
appropriate equations
2 All interactions among material properties stated but equations are not all accurate
1 Some interactions among material properties and performance correctly quantified
using appropriate equations
0 No interactions among material properties correctly quantified using appropriate
equations
Calculation of changes ______
3 Correct calculation of changes from a baseline
2 Partially correct calculation of changes from a baseline
1 Inaccurate calculation of changes from a baseline
0 No calculation of changes from a baseline
Advantages of chosen material _______
2 All important advantages of material stated to justify selection
1 Some important advantages of material stated to justify selection
0 No important advantages of material stated to justify selection
Rebuttal arguments ______
3 Rebuttals to alternative materials provided listing appropriate material properties and
interactions
2 Rebuttals to alternative materials provided but missing some material properties and
interactions
1 Rebuttals to alternative materials provided with inappropriate justification
0 No rebuttals provided
Science Section ______
4 Relevant materials science principles identified and correctly explained
3 Most material science principles identified and correctly explained
2 Significant materials science principles omitted or inaccurately explained
1 Science section completely misses relevant issues in the problem
0 Science section omitted
Report Writing ______
4 Completely and consistently follow MAE 3200 Report Writing Requirements
3 Usually follows MAE 3200 Report Writing Requirements with some exceptions
2 Inconsistently follows MAE 3200 Report Writing Requirements
1 Very rarely follows MAE 3200 Report Writing Requirements
Page 22.821.14