ENMA
6050 and ENMA 6060 Project Presentations – Fall 2009
This web
site contains links to industry-sponsored student team projects for the fall
offering of the ENMA 6050 and ENMA 6060 courses. Also included are a description and results
of a peer review process used to assess these presentations.
The
names of project sponsors have been removed to insure confidentiality of the
sponsors. FERPA permission forms are on
file for all students.
Note: Faculte interactive video presentation
software (www.faculte.com) is used for
viewing presentations except as noted.
No special software is required to view Faculte presentations.
Project
Presentations
ENMA 6050: Reliability, Failure
Analysis, and Risk Assessment
·
Pneumatic
tube delivery system
·
Outpatient
prescription fulfillment - .ZIP
·
Powder
metal molding line
·
Plating
and finishing cell - .PPT
-
Slide show
ENMA 6060: Innovation and Technology
·
Machining
of engine cylinders
·
Machining
of engine pistons
·
Performance
of heat treatment process - .ZIP
·
Titanic
disaster
·
Material
properties of foundry castings - .PPT
·
Gas
porosity in foundry castings
Peer Reviews
Students
in these courses assessed all of the projects listed above using the scheme
described below. The review process produced
composite assessment scores using the approach also outlined below. Results of the assessment are as follows:
Assessment
was performed by having students complete the survey form template linked here, and then transferring their
assessment to Surveymonkey surveys:
- ENMA 6050: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/NF5JL92
- ENMA 6060: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N3DDQK9
The peer
review questions were taken directly from the MS-ENMA program
outcomes and indicators:
Project
scores were calculated as follows:
1. Students rated each project on
each of the 10 questions above using a High/Medium/Low scale, with scores
calculated as High = 2, Medium = 1, and Low = 0 scale.
2. For each project, the sum of the
scores for all questions and all responses was calculated, and then divided by
the number of responses.
3. Each project score for each of
the two courses was then divided by the average score for each class, thereby
producing a normalized score for each project.
4. The normalized scores were then
ranked to provide the list shown above.
Raw data
for both courses is provided here: