Date: Feb 18, 2010                                       

 Time:  11:30 a.m. - 1:00 pm

Participants:

MSU: Jon, Mark, Daina, Neeraj, Abdol, Claudia

SAMPI: Mary Anne

CSW: Cindee, Kysha

LCC: Louise 

Agenda:

1) Update on the meeting with Cascade Eng  (on Feb Wed 17)
2) AB status

• New potential members and status of communication with them
• First AB meeting

3) Next steps for EGR 102 including a decision about the time-line

• Authentic problem
• Development of instructional materials

4) CPACE II IRB

Minutes: The items from the agenda appear in the order they were covered during the meeting.

2) AB status:

• Kysha invited Cascade; still no response she will follow up.
• Neeraj needs to follow up with his contact
• Jon follow up with Garth
• Daina talked with former student  (ADM) he is interested. Daina will follow with Dow Corning.

 1) Update on the meeting with Cascade Eng  (on Feb Wed 17)

• 40' meeting. Participants: J. Totten Chief eng. Center for Innovation; Bo Wang Director of Eng. Mate. Eng. group
• Focused meeting, we showed materials from EGR 102 and talked through slides briefly w/o projecting them (procedure note: no need to have a very formal presentation). The materials helped get them into the content and understand what was the question.
• They tuned very well to the examples of authentic problems we had (one from EGR and other from Chem E).
• Talked about options and ideas and design of experiments process oriented (What would save energy and time). Talked about characterization and statistics. They worry about the quality of the parts they mold so they do statistics in stress/strain (load deformation)
• This type of data if they are willing to share can be used to tell students about stress and strain and graphics. They could also use MATLAB and excel.
• We could distilled out pieces for instruction. The set up is important. It is an Eng problem and we could tailor parts for different levels (freshmen etc.).
• Would they (Cascade) share data? Give us a bigger picture, pictures of parts or broken parts. (show/engage students).
• They are sensitive about proprietary stuff they will clean the data. they were worried about tailoring to what we wanted. But we want what they have and then we tailor it.
• They will do some brainstorming and give us 4-5 ideas, the time frame about a month. The point person if they have questions is Daina.
• Kysha will send a thank you note

4) CPACE II IRB

• Need IRB for student data
• We talked about interviewing capstone students.
• If we are exempt is easier.
• Do we go with the MSU IRB ar SAMPI IRB? Mary Anne will keeps us posted (it keeps changing).

3) Next steps for EGR 102

• To address changes at the project level is good from the perspective of instructional design. How do the assessments prepare them for the final project?
• We need to look at the CT components that are needed in the course. Need to look at the course materials.
• How will the problem lead into the disciplinary courses?
• We need to meet regularly with the EGR people to maintain discussion about the process. they are the instructors they need to be involved in the process.