computer-based instructional media for mechanics of materials*

Computer-Based Instructional Media forMechanics of Materials*

TIMOTHY A. PHILPOT, NANCY HUBING, RALPH E. FLORI, RICHARD H. HALL,DAVID B. OGLESBY and VIKAS YELLAMRAJUBasic Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla MO 65409, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Computer-based instructional materials offer great potential for engineering education. Usingreadily available development software, sophisticated graphics and animations can be created topresent engineering topics in ways that are not possible within the confines of the traditionaltextbook and lecture format. This paper presents examples of instructional media developed for theMechanics of Materials course. These examples include lecture supplements, animated exampleproblems, interactive example problems, interactive instructional learning tools, and games. Usinganimations, graphics, and interactivity, the instructional media is designed to engage and stimulatestudents, to effectively explain and illustrate course topics, and to build student problem-solvingskills.

AUTHOR'S QUESTIONNAIRE

1. The paper describes software/hardware/simula-tion tools suitable for students of the followingcourses: mechanics of materials, statics,machine design.

2. Level of students involved in the use of thematerials: 2nd, 3rd, or 4th year universitystudents in associates or baccalaureate degreeprograms.

3. What aspects of your contribution are new?(a) 3D rendering software is combined with

animation to explain course concepts bothvisually and verbally as they apply to phy-sical objects that are often difficult to ade-quately communicate to students throughtextbook or blackboard illustrations.

(b) Combination of animation with repetitionto visually explain calculation procedures.

(c) Development of comprehensive learningtools that not only provide an answer tostudent-supplied input values but alsoprovide specific and animated explanations.This type of tool provides detailed `how-to'instructions, both in a visual and a verbalmanner, to assist the student for the specificproblem that they are interested in solving.

(d) Application of the game format as a teach-ing mode for fundamental but repetitivecalculation procedures.

4. How is the material incorporated in engineeringteaching?(a) 3D rendering and animation objects have

been incorporated as supplements in lecturesto explain concepts visually.

(b) A large number of animated example pro-blems are now available to students for useboth inside and outside of class.

(c) Selected homework assignments have beenreplaced by computer-based activities.

(d) The Centroids Game has been used toreplace the traditional lecture on thistopic. Instead of lecture, students havebeen taken to a computer lab to play thisgame. Starting with no prior knowledge ofthis topic, students have attained profi-ciency in the calculation procedure in 50minutes. The game has been so successfulthat two additional games have been devel-oped: a second Centroids Game that dealswith shapes other than rectangles, and aMoment of Inertia game. These threegames have greatly improved studentperformance in this area.

5. Which texts or other documentation accompanythe presented materials? All materials have beendeveloped with any necessary instructionsincluded in the software. Students and professorswho have used the materials have found it veryeasy to use and self-explanatory.

6. Have the concepts presented been tested in theclassroom? What conclusions have been drawnfrom the experience? The concepts presented inthe paper are being used in the classroom. (Seethe response to question 4.) We have publisheddata on aspects of these materials, and we arecontinuing to conduct learning experiments tomeasure student performance improvementsassociated with these materials. In general,students appreciate the 3D representationsand the immediate feedback provided by thesematerials. We notice that students come to classwith better questions now, and professors areable to focus lecture time on the `meatier'

* Accepted 5 September 2003.This paper is available in animated format on the ijee website

www.ijee.dit.ie

862

Int. J. Engng Ed. Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 862±873, 2003 0949-149X/91 $3.00+0.00Printed in Great Britain. # 2003 TEMPUS Publications.

course topics rather than on the prerequisite orsupporting skills, for example, sign conven-tions, unit conversions, centroid and momentof inertia calculations. Note that developinginstructional animations is a time-consumingprocess. A basic animated example problemrequires 20±40 man- hours to develop. Formovies that feature interactivity and complexgraphics, much more development time isrequired. Materials presented in this paper areavailable via the Internet at: http://web.umr.edu/~bestmech/preview_mechmatl.html

INTRODUCTION

FOR MANY YEARS, engineering educators havesensed that computer-based media could offer newways to improve instruction for students. Much ofthe initial software developed for engineeringcourses could be characterized as providingadvanced analytical tools that enable students toperform calculations more sophisticated thanthose possible with pen and paper. This type ofcomputer application provides students with themeans to explore problems beyond the scope ofthe typical textbook; however, these tools inthemselves do not offer instruction.

In recent years, the computer has been used tofacilitate the distribution of course materials. Forexample, many professors now make course notesand old exams available to their students via theInternet. By eliminating barriers of time anddistance, this improved distribution mechanismmakes it easier for professors to provide referencematerials and examples to their students. Much ofthe material delivered in this manner, however, isno different from that which could be photocopiedand handed out in the classroom.

The computer offers some unique capabilitiesthat can be harnessed to provide new types ofinstructional material. With three-dimensional(3D) modeling and rendering software, it ispossible to create photo-realistic images of variouscomponents and to easily show these componentsfrom various viewpoints. Animation softwareallows objects or processes to be shown inmotion. By combining these two capabilities, afuller description of a physical object can bepresented to the student. Better images can facil-itate the mental visualization that is so necessary tounderstanding and solving engineering problems.

Animation also offers a medium for a new genera-tion of computer-based learning tools. The tradi-tional instructional deviceÐexample problemsÐcan be greatly enhanced through animation toemphasize and illustrate desired problem-solvingthought processes in a more memorable and enga-ging way. Animation can also be used to createinteractive tools and games that focus on specificskills students need to become proficient problem-solvers. These computer-based tools can providenot only the correct solution but also a detailed

visual and verbal explanation of the processneeded to arrive at the solution.

The new generation of instruction media standson the foundation of previous work. Throughanimation, analytical tools can now be developedthat not only perform calculations but also explainhow those calculations should be performed.Internet delivery makes the new instructionalmedia freely and widely available. A challengethat must be addressed in the successful use ofthis medium, however, is overcoming the students'tendency toward passively receiving the instruc-tion. To be effective, software must use thecapability of the computer to engage and stimulatestudents, both visually and through interactionand feedback.

This paper presents examples of instructionalmedia developed for the Mechanics of Materialscourse required in many engineering programs.These examples have been developed with theintent of adapting the advantages of the computerin novel ways that offer the potential for improvedinstruction.

THE MECHANICS OF MATERIALSCOURSE

The Mechanics of Materials course is one ofthe core courses for students in civil, mechanical,aerospace, metallurgical, ceramic, geotechnical,and architectural engineering programs. Thecourse is also included in architecture, engineeringmechanics, engineering physics, engineeringmanagement, and engineering technology curri-cula. The course is typically taken during thesophomore or junior years after students completetheir general mathematics and science preparation.The Mechanics of Materials course introducesstudents to the principles involved in designingtypical components found in machines and struc-tures such as drive shafts, floor beams, pressuretanks, and bolted connections. The course exploresvarious common structural components, teachingstudents how to analyze the effects of forces andloads on the internal stresses and deformations inthe components.

Classroom lecture supplementsWhile many of the structures, components, and

machines studied in the Mechanics of Materialscourse are three-dimensional objects, students aregenerally taught about these objects through static,two-dimensional illustrations in textbooks and onthe classroom board. One of the initial challengesfaced in this course is conveying a visual under-standing of various physical objects to ourstudents. Only when this foundation is in placecan we proceed to establish an understanding ofthe relevant theory and to develop the problem-solving skills needed to become proficient inspecific topic areas.

One of the first topics in the Mechanics of

Computer-Based Instructional Media for Mechanics of Materials 863

Materials course is the concept of shear stress. Acommon illustration of shear stress is a boltedconnection. To understand this connection, thestudent must visualize the surfaces upon whichshear stress acts. Figure 1 shows a sequence ofillustrations for a double shear bolted connection.The first frame shows the basic configuration, as itmight be shown on the chalkboard or in thetextbook. In the classroom, the professor mighttypically draw a side view and a top view of theconnection after the bolts break. With 3D anima-tion, however, the action of breaking the connec-tion can be set in motion to illustrate the boltfailure surfaces on the front side and then rotatedto reveal the additional bolt failure surfaces on thebackside of the connection, as illustrated in theframes of Fig. 1. Seeing the object as a three-dimensional solid in motion makes it very clearto the student exactly where the stress acts in theconnection.

An animation that portrays a biaxial stress stateis shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2a, a cube of material issubjected to a normal stress � in the x direction.The strains in the longitudinal and transversedirections due to �x are then animated (Fig. 2b).Next, a normal stress in the y direction is thenapplied to the cube (Fig. 2c), and the additionalstrains due to �y are animated (Fig. 2d). By seeingthe cube deformation in continuous motion, the

student forms a vivid mental image of the inter-actions of the two normal stresses on a material.

Figure 3 presents an animation that explains astatically indeterminate torsion member. Using3D rendering, the torsion member and the appliedtorque are shown initially in perspective (Fig. 3a).The free-body diagram (FBD) required for analy-sis is shown in Fig. 3b. To convey the twistingaction that occurs along the member, a grid issuperimposed on the two shaft elements (Fig. 3c)and deformed as the torque is applied (Fig. 3d).The angles of twist that are produced in each shaftare then highlighted (Figs 3e and 3f ). This type ofstructure is particularly difficult to draw clearlyin the classroom since it involves a cylindricalthree-dimensional object. Through animation, thebehavior of this torsion structure becomes muchmore understandable for the student.

MECHANICS OF MATERIALS EXAMPLEPROBLEMS

Figures 4 and 5 are from an example problemillustrating shear flow in a built-up beam shapeconsisting of a wide-flange steel beam and twochannel shapes. The overall cross-section geometryis shown in Fig. 4. The camera then flies in to focuson the bolts required to attach the channel shapesto the wide-flange shape (Fig. 5), and specifically,on the bolt spacing dimension that is to becalculated. Many students are unfamiliar withthis type of beam construction, and consequently,they often have difficulty understanding exactlywhich spacing is to be determined. For this type ofproblem, 3D rendering is especially useful indescribing and defining the problem to be solved.Once the configuration of the built-up beam isclearly understood, the student can better under-stand the purpose of the calculations.

Interactive example problemsA portion of an interactive example problem

involving the transverse shear stress developed in atee-shaped beam is shown in Fig. 6. The animatedmovie defines the problem and describes the calcu-lation of the section properties needed to computethe shear stress in the beam. The student is thenpresented with a cross-sectional view and a sideview of the tee beam including nine pre-identifiedvertical locations (labeled a through i in the figure).When the student clicks on a location:

Fig. 1. Using 3D rendering and animation to illustrate a double shear connection.

Fig. 2. Illustrating deformations caused by biaxial stress.

T. Philpot et al.864

. the proper area needed for the calculation of thefirst moment of area Q is highlighted in ananimated fashion;

. the corresponding equation needed to calculateQ is presented;

. the transverse shear stress formula with valuesfor the specific location is presented;

. the shear stress magnitude is plotted.

After clicking on each location, the plotted points

are connected to reveal the complete shear stressdistribution over the depth of the tee shape. Thismovie is particularly helpful in demonstrating thecalculation procedure for Q, a topic that is quiteoften difficult for students to master.

Portions of a movie on beam deflections by theintegration method are shown in Fig. 7. After theproblem to be solved is defined, the movie presentsthe student with four possible free-body diagramsthat could be used to develop the moment equation

Fig. 3. Animation explaining a statically indeterminate torsion member.


for the beam (Fig. 7a). Two of the free-bodydiagrams are incorrect. If the student selects anincorrect FBD, the movie explains why that FBDis incorrect. The solution process is slightly differ-ent for the two correct free-body diagrams, andthus, depending upon which choice the studentmakes, the movie branches to the appropriateprocess. As the movie proceeds, the studentmust select the boundary conditions needed tocomplete the solution. Given four possibilities,the student is told to select the two correct bound-ary conditions. If an incorrect boundary conditionis selected, the movie explains the reason why that

boundary condition will not work for the givenbeam configuration (Fig. 7b). The movie will notproceed until the student has clicked on the twocorrect boundary conditions (Fig. 7c). The movieconcludes by revealing the correct solution andanimating the beam deflection (Fig. 7d).

A feature called Concept Checkpoints is illus-trated in Fig. 8. An example problem illustratingthe concept of shear flow is shown in Fig. 8a. Theanimated movie goes on to explain the calculationprocedure for this type of problem. After theexample problem has been fully presented, themovie proceeds to the Concept Checkpoints

Fig. 4. Scene from an example problem that utilizes 3D rendering and animation.

Fig. 5. Zooming in to clearly show the configuration to be analyzed.


feature (Fig. 8b). Concept Checkpoints are a seriesof short answer questions that test the student'sunderstanding of the concepts discussed in thepreceding example problem. In general, theConcept Checkpoints include a set of four to ten

true-false or multiple choice questions. As thestudent responds to each question, the movieindicates whether the student was correct or incor-rect. After completing the question set, the studentis presented with a summary page indicating the

Fig. 6. Interactive example problem involving transverse shear stress distribution.

Fig. 7. Interactive example problem for beam deflections by integration method.


Fig. 8. Example problem that includes the Concept Checkpoint feature.


number of questions correctly answered (Fig. 8c).The student may elect to repeat the question set toimprove his or her score. The summary page mayalso be printed, making it possible for a professorto collect the pages as verification that thestudent has actually viewed and studied theexample problem.

The Concept Checkpoint feature is included in anumber of animated example problems. The intentof this feature is to draw the student's attention tospecific concepts or skills that the student shouldglean from an example problem. Since the studentcan repeat the question set, it is hoped that thestudent will not be intimidated by the quizzingformat. Rather, it is hoped that the student willtake note of the questions that he or she answeredincorrectly and then re-view the example problem.While it is human nature to casually browsethrough a presentation, the Concept Checkpointsfeature can help to engage the student in theexample problem in a deeper way.

Comprehensive learning toolsFigure 9 shows a comprehensive learning tool

for the construction of Mohr's circle for planestress. The student enters values for normal andshear stresses in the x and y directions and a valuefor � (if desired) and clicks the enter button. Thecorrect Mohr's circle for the data is drawn to scale

along with stress elements showing the input dataand the desired results.

The unique aspect of this tool, however, is foundin the `How to' menu in the upper right handcorner. From this menu, the student can selectany aspect of Mohr's circle construction, and thesoftware tool will present up to a dozen detailedinstructions along with the corresponding anima-tion. For example, if the student doesn't under-stand how to use Mohr's circle to compute thestresses acting on the plane defined by the angle�, he or she can click on the menu item `compute�n and �nt' to receive detailed step-by-stepinstructions for this calculation (Fig. 10).

Mechanics of materials gamesSeveral games have been developed for the

Mechanics of Materials course. An example ofthis type of application is a game entitled TheCentroids GameÐLearning the Ropes (Fig. 11). Inthe Statics course, a prerequisite for the Mechanicsof Materials course, students learn how tocompute the centroid of a cross-sectional area.Many students, however, are not as proficient atthis skill as they need to be to apply it as requiredfor Mechanics of Materials problems. To helpstudents improve their proficiency in centroidcalculations, The Centroids Game was developed.This game is constructed in six levels, termed

Fig. 9. Interactive Mohr's Circle learning tool.


rounds, designed to lead the student from recogni-tion of a proper calculation to the ability tocorrectly perform the calculation.

In round 1 (Fig. 11a), the student is presentedwith a series of shapes comprised of rectangles. Atarget centroidal axis is superimposed on eachshape in an incorrect location. The student isasked to decide whether the true centroidal loca-tion is above or below this axis. The purpose ofthis round is to try to develop a student's intuitiveunderstanding of centroids. We want students todevelop a sense of where the centroid should belocated before they begin the calculation, ratherthan performing a calculation and blindly accept-ing whatever number they obtain. For each ques-tion in the round, students receive immediatefeedback whether they answer correctly or incor-rectly, and points are awarded for correct answers.After responding to all shapes in round 1, studentsare shown a scorecard that indicates the pointsscored and the possible points in the round. At thisjuncture, a student may elect to repeat round 1 toimprove their score. If they do repeat the round,the game randomly shuffles the target centroidalaxes so that the student sees a slightly differentproblem. The student may elect to repeat theround as many times as they wish before movingon to round 2.

For round 2, a centroid calculation presented ina tabular format is shown for a shape (Fig. 11b).

One of the terms in the calculation table ispurposefully made incorrect, and the student isasked to identify the incorrect term. The studentreceives full points if they identify the incorrectterm on the first attempt, but the availablepoints are successively reduced for each unsuc-cessful attempt. A student could opt torandomly guess, but the odds of gaining fullpoints for each question are not favorable.After completing round 2, the scoreboard isagain shown and the student is given thechance to repeat the round. The student mayrepeat only the most recent round; therefore, astudent could not opt to repeat round 1 at thispoint. As in round 1, the round 2 questions arerandomly shuffled if the student does elect torepeat the round so that students will generallyencounter a slightly different problem each timethey repeat the round.

For round 3, a centroid calculation is presentedin a tabular format; however, one area term andone distance term are left blank (Fig. 11c). Inround 4, all of the distance terms are omitted(Fig. 11d), and in round 5, all of the terms areleft blank (Fig. 11e). In each of these rounds, thestudent receives points for each correct term thatthey enter. The points awarded increases with eachround. The game provides feedback immediatelyafter the student submits his or her answers. At theclose of each round, the student is allowed to

Fig. 10. Typical explanation for an aspect of Mohr's Circle analysis.


repeat the round with the problems randomlyshuffled for each attempt.

In the final round, the student is presented witha single dimensioned shape but no other informa-tion. The student is asked to compute the correctcentroid for the shape (Fig. 11f ). After submittinghis or her answer, the student is shown the correctcalculation. The possible points for this last ques-tion are set very high so that the student cannot geta good score for the entire game unless theysuccessfully answer the round 6 question.

In the Mechanics of Materials course, studentswere assigned to individually play the CentroidsGame and turn in their scorecard showing thatthey had scored 90 percent or better on the game.

They were free to play the game as many times asthey wished until they obtained the minimumscore.

EARLY STUDENT REACTION ANDCOURSE PERFORMANCE

Initial student reaction to these computer-basedlearning tools has generally been strong, both proand con. Particularly in the first semester of use, anumber of students seemed opposed to using thecomputer in any fashion. It was noted that manystudents would not voluntarily use the computersupplements at first, but once they were required to

Fig. 11. Game designed to build student proficiency in centroid calculations.


use the tools in some fashion, they began to realizesome of the benefits of the software. At the otherextreme, a number of students commented that thecomputer-based instructional material commun-icated to them in ways that traditional teachingmethods had failed to accomplish. Several studentswho had failed the Mechanics of Materials courseon one or more previous attempts were stronglyfavorable. Typical student comments included:

. `Using the software outside of class with notesreally helped for understanding the material.'

. `Computer pictures sometimes give a betterunderstanding of the material.'

. `Keep improving the computer work. The com-puter helps to visualize and keep going overmaterial outside of class.'

. `Visual aids are great help.'

. `The computer learning aids are very helpful!'

. `Computer programs and Internet sites werebeneficialÐreally helped to understand thematerial.'

A number of learning experiments have beenconducted to assess the effectiveness of thesecomputer-based instructional modules. Since theMechanics of Materials course depends heavily onthe use of example problems, an in-class experi-ment was conducted comparing animated exampleproblems (such as those illustrated herein) withthose delivered by a lecturer and by a static webpage [1, 2]. Students who viewed the animatedexample problems did not perform quite as wellas those who viewed the lecturer, but theyperformed better than students who used thestatic web pages. The 50-minute limitation of theexperiment and other factors, however, suggestthat these findings should not be extrapolated topredict student performance over an entire seme-ster. A similar experiment was conducted with agroup of stress-transformation modules thatfeatured interactivity rather than examples [3].Student performance measured after workingwith these modules was very good. The mostpositive improvement in student performance,

however, was found when the lecture materialwas delivered in a game format [4]. Students whoplayed a topic-related computer-delivered gameperformed much better than those who did not.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has presented examples of instruc-tional media developed for the Mechanics of Mate-rials course. Use of the computer as a medium forinstruction provides many capabilities that cannotbe readily duplicated within the traditional lectureformat. The motion and deformation of commonengineering objects can be realistically depicted inboth space and time dimensions with animation.Sophisticated graphics including photo-realistic,rendered, three-dimensional solids can greatlyimprove visual communication. Concepts that aredifficult for the student to visualize based solely onstatic, two-dimensional images become much moreunderstandable when computer graphics arecombined with animation techniques. Desiredmental processes such as problem-solving metho-dology are demonstrated and reinforced throughanimation, repetition, and games. Altogether,computer-based materials can provide fundamen-tal instruction in ways that are not possible withinthe limitations of traditional textbook and lectureformats. The medium is relatively new, and furtherwork is needed to develop new approaches thatutilize the capabilities of the computer for instruc-tion and to effectively integrate these alternativeand supplementary instructional tools into theoverall teaching and learning effort.

AcknowledgementsÐThis work was supported in part by agrant from the United States Department of Education Fundfor the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education (FIPSE#P116B000100). The animations presented in this paper weredeveloped with Macromedia Flash 5 software. Interactivefeatures and computations are written in ActionScript,Macromedia Flash's internal coding language. Three-dimen-sional renderings were developed with Electric Rain Swift 3Dsoftware.

REFERENCES

1. T. A. Philpot, R. H. Hall, R. E. Flori, N. Hubing, D. B. Oglesby and V. Yellamraju, Is there a betterway to present an example problem? American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference& Exposition 2003, Nashville, TN, June 22±25, 2003.

2. R. H. Hall, T. A. Philpot, R. E. Flori, V. Yellamraju, and P. Subramanian, A comparison ofdifferent formats for presenting example problems in basic engineering web-based learning modules,Proc. 2003 AACE EdMedia 2003 World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia &Telecommunications, Honolulu, Hawaii, June 23±28, 2003, pp. 1011±1014.

3. T. A. Philpot, N. Hubing, R. E. Flori, R. H. Hall, D. B. Oglesby and V.Yellamraju, Animatedinstructional media for stress transformations in a mechanics of materials course, ComputerApplications in Engineering Education, 11(1), 2003, pp. 40±52.

4. T. A. Philpot, N. Hubing, R. H. Hall, R. E. Flori, D. B. Oglesby and V. Yellamraju, Games asteaching tools in engineering mechanics courses, American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference & Exposition 2003, Nashville, Tennessee, June 22±25, 2003.


Timothy A. Philpot is an Assistant Professor in the Basic Engineering Department and aResearch Associate for the Instructional Software Development Center at the University ofMissouri±Rolla. He received a Ph.D. degree from Purdue University in 1992, an M.Engr.Degree from Cornell University in 1980, and a BS from the University of Kentucky in 1979,all in Civil Engineering. Dr. Philpot teaches Mechanics of Materials and is the projectdirector of the US Department of Education grant that supported this work. He is theauthor of MDSolidsÐEducational Software for Mechanics of Materials.

Nancy Hubing is an Associate Professor in the Basic Engineering Department at theUniversity of Missouri±Rolla. Prior to joining the BE department in August 2000, she wason the faculty of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at UMR from 1989to 1999, and taught high school physics in 1999±00. She completed her Ph.D. in ECE atN.C. State University in 1989. Dr. Hubing enjoys research involving educational methodsand technology in the classroom.

Ralph E. Flori was educated as a petroleum engineer at the University of Missouri±Rolla(Ph.D. 1987). Now an Associate Professor in the Basic Engineering Department at UMR,he teaches Dynamics, Statics, Mechanics of Materials, and a freshman engineering designcourse. He has earned thirteen awards for outstanding teaching and faculty excellence. Dr.Flori is a Research Associate for the Instructional Software Development Center at UMRand is actively involved in developing educational software for teaching engineeringmechanics courses. He is the author of the educational software BEST Dynamics.

Richard H. Hall, Associate Professor of Information Science and Technology at theUniversity of Missouri±Rolla. He received his BS degree in Psychology from the Universityof North Texas, and Ph.D. degree in Experimental Psychology from Texas ChristianUniversity. He is the director of the UMR Media Design and Assessment Laboratory, andhis research focuses on Web Design and Usability Assessment.

David B. Oglesby is a Professor of Basic Engineering and a Research Associate for theInstructional Software Development Center at the University of Missouri±Rolla. Dr.Oglesby received a BS degree in Civil Engineering from the Virginia Military Institute in1963, and MS and D.Sc. degrees in Applied Mechanics from the University of Virginia in1965 and 1969, respectively. He is actively involved in developing software for teachingStatics. Dr. Oglesby is the author of the educational software BEST Statics.

Vikas Yellamraju is a Software Support Analyst at the University of Missouri±Rolla. Hereceived a MS in Industrial Engineering from the University of Oklahoma in 2001 and aB.Tech. in Mechanical Engineering from Nagarjuna University, India in 1995. His presentwork involves research on multimedia and online learning technology for engineeringapplications. He is responsible for designing, developing, supervising, and implementingonline education tools.


computer-based instructional media for mechanics of materials*

Documents