NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION Human Touch Mobility Scooter Perfect Chair Contents,Forward,Chapters1 5

User Manual: Human Touch Mobility Scooter Perfect Chair

Open the PDF directly: View PDF PDF.
Page Count: 56

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
2005
ENGINEERING SENIOR DESIGN
PROJECTS TO AID PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Edited By
John D. Enderle
Brooke Hallowell
i
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
2005
ENGINEERING SENIOR DESIGN
PROJECTS TO AID PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
Edited By
John D. Enderle
Brooke Hallowell
Creative Learning Press, Inc.
P.O. Box 320
Mansfield Center, Connecticut 06250
This publication is funded by the National Science Foundation under grant number 0302351.
All opinions are those of the authors.
ii
PUBLICATION POLICY
Enderle, John Denis
National Science Foundation 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects To Aid Persons with Disabilities /
John D. Enderle, Brooke Hallowell
Includes index
ISBN 1-931280-03-7
Copyright © 2006 by Creative Learning Press, Inc.
P.O. Box 320
Mansfield Center, Connecticut 06250
All Rights Reserved. These papers may be freely reproduced and
distributed as long as the source is credited.
Printed in the United States of America
iii
CONTENTS
PUBLICATION POLICY...........................................................................................................................................I
CONTENTS..............................................................................................................................................................III
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS...............................................................................................................................VII
FOREWORD............................................................................................................................................................ IX
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 2 BEST PRACTICES IN SENIOR DESIGN ...................................................................................7
CHAPTER 3 ”MEANINGFUL” ASSESSMENT OF DESIGN EXPERIENCES ..........................................19
CHAPTER 4 USING NSF-SPONSORED PROJECTS TO ENRICH STUDENTS’ WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION SKILLS.................................................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 5 CONNECTING STUDENTS WITH PERSONS WHO HAVE DISABILITIES.....................33
CHAPTER 6 ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY...............................................................................................41
THERAPEUTIC WRIST AND FOREARM BRACE .............................................................................................42
ADAPTOR FOR EXERCISE BICYCLE PEDAL...................................................................................................44
DEVICE FOR STRETCHING LEG MUSCLES.....................................................................................................46
MOBILITY AID PROTECTIVE DEVICE .............................................................................................................48
SENSORY BOX......................................................................................................................................................50
CLUTCH REACHING AND GRIPPING DEVICE................................................................................................52
CHAPTER 7 DUKE UNIVERSITY....................................................................................................................53
FOOT-OPERATED CAMERA SYSTEM ..............................................................................................................54
RECREATIONAL SWING AID.............................................................................................................................56
OVEN HELPER ......................................................................................................................................................58
PENCIL DISPENSER AND COUNTER ................................................................................................................60
MODIFIED ELECTRIC SCOOTER.......................................................................................................................62
ALL TERRAIN WALKER......................................................................................................................................64
ROTATIONAL WORKSTATION..........................................................................................................................66
PAPER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................68
3-D SOUND STATION...........................................................................................................................................70
READER'S ASSISTIVE DEVICE ..........................................................................................................................72
ASSISTIVE FOOT CARE DEVICE .......................................................................................................................74
ACCESSIBLE BALL MAZE..................................................................................................................................76
MODIFIED SCOOTER...........................................................................................................................................78
CHAPTER 8 MICHIGAN TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY.....................................................................81
ACCESSIBILITY SYSTEM FOR A SCHOOL STAGE.........................................................................................82
LIFT AND TRANSPORT SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................84
MILK CARTON OPENER .....................................................................................................................................86
TOOTHBRUSH ASSIST DEVICE.........................................................................................................................88
CHAPTER 9 NORTH DAKOTA STATE UNIVERSITY ................................................................................91
PORTABLE DIGITAL COMMUNICATIONS ASSISTANT................................................................................92
CONVERSATIONAL SPEECH ASSISTANT.......................................................................................................94
THERAPEUTIC HEATING ZONE SYSTEM........................................................................................................96
REMOTE DOOR ALARM .....................................................................................................................................98
iv
NURSE ALERT SYSTEM....................................................................................................................................100
PAGE-TURNING SYSTEM.................................................................................................................................102
VIBROTACTILE STIMULATION PAD .............................................................................................................104
SHOULDER TILT INDICATOR..........................................................................................................................106
AMBULATORY BRAIN COMPUTER INTERFACE.........................................................................................108
PRODUCTION REPORT ASSISTANT ...............................................................................................................110
BOCCE BALL SCORING SYSTEM II ................................................................................................................112
CHAPTER 10 SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY.....................................................................................115
CENTER PEDESTAL GRINDER WITH PIVOTING BASE FOR RACING SAILBOAT..................................116
TRACK AND TROLLEY FOR RACING SAILBOAT COCKPIT CREW SEATS .............................................118
CHAPTER 11 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT BUFFALO....................................................121
WALKER WITH A SLING/SADDLE SEAT .......................................................................................................122
ADJUSTABLE SHOE GRIPPER/HELPER .........................................................................................................124
AUTOMATIC PILL DISPENSER........................................................................................................................126
SELF-RISING SUPPORT CANE .........................................................................................................................128
LEVER-OPERATED DISHWASHER OPENER.................................................................................................130
EZ-SPLIT PILL CUTTING MACHINE................................................................................................................132
MOTORIZED WEAK GRIP BED HOIST............................................................................................................134
WHEELCHAIR-MOUNTED SUCTION SYSTEM FOR RETRIEVAL OF SMALL ITEMS.............................136
BATTERY-OPERATED AUTOMATIC TOOTHPASTE DISPENSER..............................................................138
REMOTE CONTROL ENTRY DOOR.................................................................................................................140
POWERED DESKTOP LETTER OPENER .........................................................................................................142
POCKET-SIZED CHANGE SORTER..................................................................................................................144
BATHTUB TRANSFER BENCH WITH ROTARY SEAT..................................................................................146
TURN-EASE MOTORIZED REFRIGERATOR..................................................................................................148
LAZY SUSAN.......................................................................................................................................................148
EASY-STORE EASY-USE CRUTCHES .............................................................................................................150
ROTATIONAL SHOWER SCALD SAFE VALVE .............................................................................................152
APPARATUS FOR REMOVAL AND TRANSPORTATION OF GARBAGE ...................................................154
TANGLE-FREE CPAP MASK.............................................................................................................................156
CANE SEAT.........................................................................................................................................................158
PAPER CURRENCY IDENTIFIER......................................................................................................................160
ADJUSTABLE MECHANICAL REACHER .......................................................................................................162
ADJUSTABLE SCISSOR LIFT TO MOVE A PERSON BETWEEN A WHEELCHAIR AND THE FLOOR ...164
ONE-BUTTON INFRARED REMOTE CONTROL ............................................................................................166
TABLETOP PILL REMINDER............................................................................................................................168
PORTABLE DEVICE TO LIFT A PERSON INTO A VEHICLE ........................................................................170
QUICK AND EASY HEIGHT-ADJUSTABLE WALKER ATTACHMENT FOR FOREARM SUPPORT .......172
E-Z REACH VERTICAL SPACE SAVER STORAGE SYSTEM........................................................................174
VIBRATING BRACELET....................................................................................................................................176
TACTILE FEEDBACK PRESSURE SENSOR WALKING DEVICE .................................................................178
AUTOMATIC CORD RETRACTOR FOR PORTABLE VENTILATORS.........................................................180
CHAPTER 12 STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT STONY BROOK..........................................183
BIKE EXERCISER ...............................................................................................................................................184
CLEANING ASSISTANT.....................................................................................................................................186
ALTERNATELY-PROPELLED MECHANICAL WHEELCHAIR ....................................................................188
TRICYCLE-BASED HAND-POWERED WHEELCHAIR .................................................................................190
HILL ASSIST WHEELCHAIR WITH ENHANCED SAFETY ...........................................................................192
TIDIS-B: WHEELCHAIR-TO-BED TRANSFER SYSTEM ...............................................................................194
ELECTRICALLY-ASSISTED HUMAN-POWERED VEHICLE........................................................................196
SMART SHOWER................................................................................................................................................198
CHAPTER 13 UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM...........................................................201
v
CHEETAH WALKER: TRANSITIONAL WALKING DEVICE.........................................................................202
ELECTRIC ELEVATION ASSIST AND SPASTICITY CONTROL ARM.........................................................204
SAFE FLOORS FOR PREVENTION OF FALLS ................................................................................................206
STAIR TRAINER FOR CHILDREN WITH CEREBRAL PALSY ......................................................................208
CHAPTER 14 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AT AMHERST....................................................211
SPATIAL RESOLUTION ENHANCEMENT IN ULTRASONIC RANGING FOR A SMART CANE..............212
SMART CANE MODIFICATIONS......................................................................................................................214
DAMPER DEVICE TO PROTECT SMART CANE ELECTRONICS.................................................................216
BOTTLE CAP REMOVAL ASSISTANT.............................................................................................................218
ASSISTIVE REACH MECHANISM....................................................................................................................220
ASSISTIVE STAIR CLIMBER ............................................................................................................................222
STOW AND GO: JOHN DEERE GATOR WHEELCHAIR STORAGE SYSTEM .............................................224
CHAPTER 15 UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS AT LOWELL.......................................................227
NINE-BUTTON TALKING BOX ........................................................................................................................228
DROP FOOT SOCK..............................................................................................................................................230
SNOEZELEN SWITCH........................................................................................................................................232
HEAD-ACTIVATED WHEELCHAIR.................................................................................................................234
TRANSITIONAL TIMER.....................................................................................................................................236
NO TOUCH SWITCH...........................................................................................................................................238
WIRELESS BASE SIGNAL FOR BEEP BASEBALL.........................................................................................240
VOICE ACTIVATED ALARM CLOCK SYSTEM..............................................................................................242
FOOT-CONTROLLABLE TEXT PROCESSOR .................................................................................................244
KEYLESSBOARD................................................................................................................................................246
CIRCLE TIME APPARATUS ..............................................................................................................................248
WIRELESSLY CONTROLLED HEATED GLOVES AND SOCKS...................................................................250
PERFECT WORKSTATION................................................................................................................................252
WHEELCHAIR SCALE .......................................................................................................................................254
NUMBER ACTIVITY BOARD............................................................................................................................256
SNOOZELLEN SWITCH .....................................................................................................................................258
VOCAL TRAINER ...............................................................................................................................................260
LIGHT, MUSIC AND TOY BOX .........................................................................................................................262
JOYSTICK-CONTROLLED TILTING MIRROR................................................................................................264
MOTION-ACTIVATED CD PLAYER.................................................................................................................266
INTERACTIVE BUBBLE TUBE.........................................................................................................................268
SMART PILLBOX................................................................................................................................................270
PROGRAM TIMER ..............................................................................................................................................272
ALARM SYSTEM FOR AN AUTISTIC CHILD .................................................................................................273
CHAPTER 16 UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL...........................................275
ELECTRONICALLY-ACTUATED LAZY SUSAN............................................................................................276
FLOW-CONTROLLED SPORTS BOTTLE.........................................................................................................278
ONE-HANDED NAILSET AND CHISEL ...........................................................................................................280
JAWS: ZIPLOC BAG MANAGEMENT SYSTEM..............................................................................................282
CHAPTER 17 UNIVERSITY OF TOLEDO..................................................................................................285
VEHICLE CARRIER FOR A RECUMBENT TRIKE..........................................................................................286
ALL-TERRAIN WHEELCHAIR..........................................................................................................................292
WALKER WITH REMOVABLE TRAY..............................................................................................................296
TANDEM ICE HOCKEY SLED...........................................................................................................................298
AIMING DEVICE AND STAND .........................................................................................................................300
WHEELCHAIR CAMERA STAND.....................................................................................................................302
EXTENSION PUSH HANDLES FOR A MANUAL WHEELCHAIR.................................................................304
POOL WHEELCHAIR..........................................................................................................................................306
vi
CHAPTER 18 UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN AT MILWAUKEE..........................................................309
ACCESSIBLE WEIGHT SCALE .........................................................................................................................310
ACCESSIBLE EXERCISER: HANDGRIP ASSIST ............................................................................................312
ACCESSIBLE EXERCISER: LEG SUPPORT.....................................................................................................315
ACCESSIBLE EXERCISER: LEG SUPPORT.....................................................................................................316
TRANSFER LIFT ASSIST FOR PEOPLE WHO USE WHEELCHAIRS............................................................318
CHAPTER 19 UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING..............................................................................................321
ACCESSIBLE SYRINGE DOSING DEVICE......................................................................................................322
WHEELCHAIR/BICYCLE TANDEM ADAPTER..............................................................................................324
HUNTING BLIND FOR PEOPLE WITH PHYSICAL DISABILITIES...............................................................326
HIGH/LOW BATH SEAT.....................................................................................................................................328
CHILD MONITORING SYSTEM........................................................................................................................330
POWER-ASSISTED TRICYCLE SAFETY ENHANCEMENT ..........................................................................332
LEG-POWERED QUADCYCLE BY FOX ENGINEERING...............................................................................336
HANDS-FREE MOUSE........................................................................................................................................338
LUNCHROOM CHAIR ........................................................................................................................................340
EXTENDABLE REACHER .................................................................................................................................342
WHEELCHAIR PLATFORM FOR MEDICAL DEVICES..................................................................................344
ELECTRONIC BOARD GAME FOR CHILDREN WITH LIMITED MOBILITY .............................................346
OFF-ROAD HAND-POWERED TRIKE..............................................................................................................348
CHAPTER 20 WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY............................................................................................351
PACKAGING AND ASSEMBLY ENHANCEMENTS.......................................................................................352
DISABILITY ADVOCATES AND COMMUNITY ACTION USING...................................................................................356
WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION’S NEW INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONING, DISABILITY, AND
HEALTH (ICF)........................................................................................................................................................356
USER INTERFACE AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE RF TAG EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES SYSTEM ..........358
MARK MY WORDS.............................................................................................................................................360
CHAPTER 21 WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY..........................................................................................363
LIGHTED CLOUD CEILING...............................................................................................................................364
NURSING ALERT SYSTEM ...............................................................................................................................368
HAND WASHER..................................................................................................................................................370
AUDIO-VISUAL ALERT SYSTEM ....................................................................................................................372
PAPER COLLATING MACHINE........................................................................................................................374
ADAPTED RADIO...............................................................................................................................................376
HEAT- AND OCCUPANCY-DETECTING SYSTEM ........................................................................................378
ACOUSTIC VIBRATING PILLOW.....................................................................................................................380
INDEX ......................................................................................................................................................................383
vii
CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
Steven Barrett, Electrical and Computer Engineering
College of Engineering, P.O. Box 3295, Laramie, WY
82071-3295
John E. Beard, Department of Biomedical
Engineering, Michigan Technological University,
1400 Townsend Drive, 312 Chemical Sciences &
Engineering, Houghton, Michigan 49931-1295
Laurence N. Bohs, Department of Biomedical
Engineering, Duke University, Durham, North
Carolina 27708-0281
Fu-Pen Chiang, State University Of New York At
Stony Brook, College of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Stony Brook, New York 11794-2300
Donn Clark, Department of Electrical and Computer
Engineering, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 1
University Ave., Lowell, MA 01854
Kyle Colling, Department of Special Education
Counseling, Reading and Early Childhood
(SECREC), Montana State University, 1500
University Dr., Billings, MT 59101-0298
Kay Cowie, Department of Special Education, The
University of Wyoming, Mcwhinnie Hall 220,
Laramie, WY 82071
Alan W. Eberhardt, University Of Alabama At
Birmingham, Department of Materials and
Mechanical Engineering, BEC 254, 1150 10th Ave. S.,
Birmingham, Alabama, 35294-4461
John Enderle, Biomedical Engineering, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-2157
Robert F. Erlandson, Wayne State University,
Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering,
5050 Anthony Wayne Drive, Detroit, MI 48202
Bertram N. Ezenwa, Department of Occupational
Therapy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 212
Hartford Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53211
Donald Fisher, University Of Massachusetts At
Amherst. College of Engineering, Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Engineering
Lab, Amherst, MA 01003-3662
Robert X. Gao, University Of Massachusetts at
Amherst. College of Engineering, Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Engineering
Lab, Amherst, MA 01003-3662
Jeffrey Q. Ge, State University Of New York At Stony
Brook, College of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stony
Brook, New York 11794-2300
Jacob S. Glower, Department of Electrical
Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo,
North Dakota 58105
Richard Goldberg, Department of Biomedical
Engineering, University Of North Carolina At
Chapel Hill, 152 MacNider, CB #7455, Chapel Hill,
NC 27599
Roger A. Green, Department of Electrical
Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo,
North Dakota 58105
Brooke Hallowell, College of Health and Human
Services, W378 Grover Center, Ohio University,
Athens, OH 45701
Jiping He, Dept. of Bioengineering, Arizona State
University, Tempe, AZ 85287-9709
Mohamed Samir Hefzy, Department of Mechanical,
Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering,
University Of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, 43606-3390
Joel A. Jorgenson, Department of Electrical
Engineering, North Dakota State University, Fargo,
North Dakota 58105
Sundar Krishnamurty, University Of Massachusetts
At Amherst. College of Engineering, Department of
Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Engineering
Lab, Amherst, MA 01003-3662
Michael A. Lambert, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, San Diego State University, 5500
Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1323
viii
Kathleen Laurin, Department of Special Education
Counseling, Reading and Early Childhood
(SECREC), Montana State University, 1500
University Dr., Billings, MT 59101-0298
Joseph C. Mollendorf, Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, State University of New York at
Buffalo, Buffalo, NY 14260
David A. Nelson, Department of Biomedical
Engineering, Michigan Technological University,
1400 Townsend Drive, 312 Chemical Sciences &
Engineering, Houghton, Michigan 49931-1295
Gregory Nemunaitis, Medical College of Ohio,
Department of Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, Toledo, Ohio 43614
Karen May-Newman, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, San Diego State University, 5500
Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182-1323
Chandler Phillips, Biomedical and Human Factors
Engineering, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
45435
David B. Reynolds, Biomedical and Human Factors
Engineering, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
45435
Debra D. Wright, Department of Biomedical
Engineering, Michigan Technological University,
1400 Townsend Drive, 312 Chemical Sciences &
Engineering, Houghton, Michigan 49931-1295
ix
FOREWORD
Welcome to the seventeenth annual issue of the
National Science Foundation Engineering Senior
Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities. In
1988, the National Science Foundation (NSF) began a
program to provide funds for student engineers at
universities throughout the United States to
construct custom designed devices and software for
individuals with disabilities. Through the
Bioengineering and Research to Aid the Disabled
(BRAD) program of the Emerging Engineering
Technologies Division of NSF1, funds were awarded
competitively to 16 universities to pay for supplies,
equipment and fabrication costs for the design
projects. A book entitled NSF 1989 Engineering
Senior Design Projects to Aid the Disabled was
published in 1989, describing the projects that were
funded during the first year of this effort.
In 1989, the BRAD program of the Emerging
Engineering Technologies Division of NSF increased
the number of universities funded to 22. Following
completion of the 1989-1990 design projects, a
second book describing these projects, entitled NSF
1990 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid the
Disabled, was published.
North Dakota State University (NDSU) Press
published the following three issues. In NSF 1991
Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid the
Disabled almost 150 projects by students at 20
universities across the United States during the
academic year 1990-91 were described. NSF 1992
Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid the
Disabled presented almost 150 projects carried out
by students at 21 universities across the United
States during the 1991-92 academic year. The fifth
issue described 91 projects by students at 21
universities across the United States during the
1992-93 academic year.
Creative Learning Press, Inc. has published the
succeeding volumes. NSF 1994 Engineering Senior
1 In January of 1994, the Directorate for Engineering
(ENG) was restructured. This program is now in the
Division of Bioengineering and Environmental
Systems, Biomedical Engineering & Research Aiding
Persons with Disabilities Program.
Design Projects to Aid the Disabled, published in
1997, described 94 projects carried out by students at
19 universities during the academic 1993-94 year.
NSF 1995 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid
the Disabled, published in 1998, described 124
projects carried out by students at 19 universities
during the 1994-95 academic year. NSF 1996
Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons
with Disabilities, published in 1999, presented 93
projects carried out by students at 12 universities
during the 1995-96 academic year. The ninth issue,
NSF 1997 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid
Persons with Disabilities, published in 2000,
included 124 projects carried out by students at 19
universities during the 1996-97 academic year. NSF
1998 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid
Persons with Disabilities, published in 2001,
presented 118 projects carried out by students at 17
universities during the 1997-98 academic year. NSF
1999 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid
Persons with Disabilities, published in 2001,
presented 117 projects carried out by students at 17
universities during the 1998-99 academic year. NSF
2000 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid
Persons with Disabilities, published in 2002,
presented 127 projects carried out by students at 16
universities during the 1999-2000 academic year. In
2002, NSF 2001 Engineering Senior Design Projects
to Aid Persons with Disabilities was published,
presenting 134 projects carried out by students at 19
universities during the 2000-2001 academic year.
NSF 2002 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid
Persons with Disabilities, published in 2004,
presented 115 projects carried out by students at 16
universities during the 2001-2002 academic year. In
2005, NSF 2003 Engineering Senior Design Projects
to Aid Persons with Disabilities was published,
presenting 134 projects carried out by students at 19
universities during the 2002-2003 academic year.
NSF 2004 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid
Persons with Disabilities, published in 2005,
presented 173 projects carried out by students at 17
universities during the 2003-2004 academic year.
This book, funded by the NSF, describes and
documents the NSF-supported senior design
projects during the seventeenth year of this effort,
2004-2005. Each chapter, except for the first five,
describes activity at a single university, and was
x
written by the principal investigator(s) at that
university and revised by the editors of this
publication. Individuals wishing more information
on a particular design should contact the designated
supervising principal investigator. An index is
provided so that projects may be easily identified by
topic. Chapters on best practices in design
experiences, outcomes assessment, and writing
about and working with individuals who have
disabilities are also included in this book.
It is hoped that this book will enhance the overall
quality of future senior design projects directed
toward persons with disabilities by providing
examples of previous projects, and by motivating
faculty at other universities to participate because of
the potential benefits to students, schools, and
communities. Moreover, the new technologies used
in these projects will provide examples in a broad
range of applications for new engineers. The
ultimate goal of this publication and all the projects
built under this initiative is to assist individuals with
disabilities in reaching their maximum potential for
enjoyable and productive lives.
This NSF program has brought together individuals
with widely varied backgrounds. Through the
richness of their interests, a wide variety of projects
has been completed and is in use. A number of
different technologies were incorporated in the
design projects to maximize the impact of each
device on the individual for whom it was
developed. A two-page project description format is
generally used in this text. Each project is
introduced with a nontechnical description,
followed by a summary of impact that illustrates the
effect of the project on an individual's life. A
detailed technical description then follows.
Photographs and drawings of the devices and other
important components are incorporated throughout
the manuscript.
Sincere thanks are extended to Dr. Allen Zelman, a
former Program Director of the NSF BRAD
program, for being the prime enthusiast behind this
initiative. Additionally, thanks are extended to Drs.
Peter G. Katona, Karen M. Mudry, Fred Bowman,
Carol Lucas, Semahat Demir and Gil Devey, former
and current NSF Program Directors of the
Biomedical Engineering and Research to Aid
Persons with Disabilities Programs, who have
continued to support and expand the program.
We acknowledge and thank Samuel Enderle for
technical illustrations, and Alexandra Enderle,
Nicholas Linn, Rachel Poling, Annie Puntillo,
Heather Williams, and Imogene Preisch for editorial
assistance. We also acknowledge and thank Ms.
Shari Valenta for the cover illustration and the
artwork throughout the book, drawn from her
observations at the Children's Hospital Accessibility
Resource Center in Denver, Colorado.
The information in this publication is not restricted
in any way. Individuals are encouraged to use the
project descriptions in the creation of future design
projects for persons with disabilities. The NSF and
editors make no representations or warranties of any
kind with respect to these design projects, and
specifically disclaim any liability for any incidental
or consequential damages arising from the use of
this publication. Faculty members using the book as
a guide should exercise good judgment when
advising students.
Readers familiar with previous editions of this book
will note that John Enderle moved from North
Dakota State University to the University of
Connecticut in 1995. With that move, annual
publications also moved from NDSU Press to
Creative Learning Press Inc. in 1997. During 1994,
Enderle also served as NSF Program Director for the
Biomedical Engineering and Research Aiding
Persons with Disabilities Program while on a leave
of absence from NDSU. Brooke Hallowell is
Associate Dean for Research and Sponsored
Programs in the College of Health and Human
Services and Director of the School of Hearing,
Speech and Language Sciences at Ohio University.
Hallowell's primary area of expertise is in
neurogenic communication disorders. She has a
long history of collaboration with colleagues in
biomedical engineering, in research, curriculum
development, teaching, and assessment.
xi
The editors welcome any suggestions as to how this
review may be made more useful for subsequent
yearly issues. Previous editions of this book are
available for viewing at the web site for this project:
http://nsf-pad.bme.uconn.edu/.
John D. Enderle, Ph.D., Editor
260 Glenbrook Road
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut 06269-2247
Voice: (860) 486-5521; FAX: (860) 486-2500
E-mail: jenderle@bme.uconn.edu
Brooke Hallowell, Ph.D., Editor
W378 Grover Center
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
Voice: (740) 593-1356; FAX: (740) 593-0287
E-mail: hallowel@ohio.edu
May 2006
xii
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
2005
ENGINEERING SENIOR DESIGN
PROJECTS TO AID PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
John Enderle and Brooke Hallowell
Devices and software to aid persons with disabilities
often require custom modification. They are
sometimes prohibitively expensive or even
nonexistent. Many persons with disabilities have
limited access to current technology and custom
modification of available devices. Even when
available, personnel costs for engineering and
support make the cost of custom modifications
beyond the reach of the persons who need them.
In 1988, the National Science Foundation (NSF),
through its Emerging Engineering Technologies
Division, initiated a program to support student
engineers at universities throughout the United
States in designing and building devices for persons
with disabilities. Since its inception, this NSF
program (originally called Bioengineering and
Research to Aid the Disabled) has enhanced
educational opportunities for students and
improved the quality of life for individuals with
disabilities. Students and university faculty
members provide, through their Accreditation
Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET)
accredited senior design class, engineering time to
design and build the device or software. The NSF
provides funds, competitively awarded to
universities for supplies, equipment and fabrication
costs for the design projects.
Outside of the NSF program, students are typically
involved in design projects that incorporate
academic goals for solid curricular design
experiences, but that do not necessarily enrich the
quality of life for persons other than, perhaps, the
students themselves. For instance, students might
design and construct a stereo receiver, a robotic unit
that performs a household chore, or a model racecar.
Under this NSF program, engineering design
students are involved in projects that result in
original devices, or custom modifications of devices,
that improve the quality of life for persons with
disabilities. The students have opportunities for
practical and creative problem solving to address
well-defined needs, and persons with disabilities
receive the products of that process at no financial
cost. Upon completion, each finished project
becomes the property of the individual for whom it
was designed.
The emphases of the program are to:
• Provide children and adults with disabilities
student-engineered devices or software to
improve their quality of life and provide
greater self-sufficiency,
• Enhance the education of student engineers
through the designing and building of a device
or software that meets a real need, and
• Allow participating universities an
opportunity for unique service to the local
community.
Local schools, clinics, health centers, sheltered
workshops, hospitals, and other community
agencies participate in the effort by referring
interested individuals to the program. A single
student or a team of students specifically designs
each project for an individual or a group of
individuals with a similar need. Examples of
projects completed in past years include laser-
pointing devices for people who cannot use their
hands, speech aids, behavior modification devices,
hands-free automatic telephone answering and
hang-up systems, and infrared systems to help
individuals who are blind navigate through indoor
spaces. The students participating in this program
are richly rewarded through their activity with
persons with disabilities, and justly experience a
unique sense of purpose and pride in their
accomplishments.
The Current Book
This book describes the NSF supported senior
design projects during the academic year 2003-2004.
2 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
The purpose of this publication is threefold. First, it
is to serve as a reference or handbook for future
senior design projects. Students are exposed to this
unique body of applied information on current
technology in this and previous editions of this
book. This provides an even broader education than
typically experienced in an undergraduate
curriculum, especially in the area of rehabilitation
design. Many technological advances originate from
work in the space, defense, entertainment, and
communications industry. Few of these advances
have been applied to the rehabilitation field, making
the contributions of this NSF program all the more
important.
Secondly, it is hoped that this publication will serve
to motivate students, graduate engineers and others
to work more actively in rehabilitation. This will
ideally lead to an increased technology and
knowledge base to effectively address the needs of
persons with disabilities.
Thirdly, through its initial four chapters, the
publication provides an avenue for motivating and
informing all involved in design projects concerning
specific means of enhancing engineering education
through design experiences.
This introduction provides background material on
the book and elements of design experiences. The
second chapter highlights specific aspects of some
exemplary practices in design projects to aid persons
with disabilities. The third chapter addresses
assessment of outcomes related to design projects to
aid persons with disabilities. The fourth chapter
provides details on enhancing students’ writing
skills through the senior design experience. The fifth
chapter addresses the importance of fostering
relationships between students and individuals with
disabilities.
After the five introductory chapters, 15 chapters
follow, with each chapter devoted to one
participating school. At the start of each chapter, the
school and the principal investigator(s) are
identified. Each project description is written using
the following format. On the first page, the
individuals involved with the project are identified,
including the student(s), the professor(s) who
supervised the project, and key professionals
involved in the daily lives of the individual for
whom the project has been developed. A brief
nontechnical description of the project follows with
a summary of how the project has improved a
person's quality of life. A photograph of the device
or modification is usually included. Next, a
technical description of the device or modification is
given, with parts specified in cases where it may be
difficult to fabricate them otherwise. An
approximate cost of the project, excluding personnel
costs, is provided.
Most projects are described in two pages. However,
the first or last project in each chapter is usually
significantly longer and contains more analytic
content. Individuals wishing more information on a
particular design should contact the designated
supervising principal investigator.
Some of the projects described are custom
modifications of existing devices, modifications that
would be prohibitively expensive were it not for the
student engineers and this NSF program. Other
projects are unique one-of-a-kind devices wholly
designed and constructed by students for specific
individuals.
Engineering Design
As part of the accreditation process for university
engineering programs, students are required to
complete a minimum number of design credits in
their course of study, typically at the senior
level.2,3,4 Many call this the capstone course.
Engineering design is a course or series of courses
that brings together concepts and principles that
students learn in their field of study. It involves the
integration and extension of material learned
throughout an academic program to achieve a
specific design goal. Most often, the student is
2 Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology
(1999). Accreditation Policy and Procedure Manual
Effective for Evaluations for the 2000-2001
Accreditation Cycle. ABET: Baltimore, MD.
3 Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology
(2000). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs. ABET: Baltimore, MD.
4 Enderle, J.D., Gassert, J., Blanchard, S.M., King, P.,
Beasley, D., Hale Jr., P. and Aldridge, D., The ABCs
of Preparing for ABET, IEEE EMB Magazine, Vol. 22,
No. 4, 122-132, 2003
Chapter 1: Introduction 3
exposed to system-wide analysis, critique and
evaluation. Design is an iterative decision-making
process in which the student optimally applies
previously learned material to meet a stated
objective.
There are two basic approaches to teaching
engineering design, the traditional or discipline-
dependent approach, and the holistic approach. The
traditional approach involves reducing a system or
problem into separate discipline-defined
components. This approach minimizes the essential
nature of the system as a holistic or complete unit,
and often leads participants to neglect the
interactions that take place between the components.
The traditional approach usually involves a
sequential, iterative approach to the system or
problem, and emphasizes simple cause-effect
relationships.
A more holistic approach to engineering design is
becoming increasingly feasible with the availability
of powerful computers and engineering software
packages, and the integration of systems theory,
which addresses interrelationships among system
components as well as human factors. Rather than
partitioning a project based on discipline-defined
components, designers partition the project
according to the emergent properties of the problem.
A design course provides opportunities for problem
solving relevant to large-scale, open-ended,
complex, and sometimes ill-defined systems. The
emphasis of design is not on learning new material.
Typically, there are no required textbooks for the
design course, and only a minimal number of
lectures are presented to the student. Design is best
described as an individual study course where the
student:
• Selects the device or system to design,
• Writes specifications,
• Creates a paper design,
• Analyzes the paper design,
• Constructs the device,
• Evaluates the device,
• Documents the design project, and
• Presents the project to a client.
Project Selection
In a typical NSF design project, the student meets
with the client (a person with a disability and/or a
client coordinator) to assess needs and to help
identify a useful project. Often, the student meets
with many clients before finding a project for which
his or her background is suitable.
After selecting a project, the student then writes a
brief description of the project for approval by the
faculty supervisor. Since feedback at this stage of
the process is vitally important for a successful
project, students usually meet with the client once
again to review the project description.
Teams of students often undertake projects. One or
more members of a team meet with one or more
clients before selecting a project. After project
selection, the project is partitioned by the team into
logical parts, and each student is assigned one of
these parts. Usually, a team leader is elected by the
team to ensure that project goals and schedules are
satisfied. A team of students generally carries out
multiple projects.
Project selection is highly variable depending on the
university and the local health care facilities. Some
universities make use of existing technology to
develop projects by accessing databases such as
ABLEDATA. ABLEDATA includes information on
types of assistive technology, consumer guides,
manufacturer directories, commercially available
devices, and one-of-a-kind customized devices. In
total, this database has over 23,000 products from
2,600 manufacturers and is available from:
http://www.abledata.com
or
(800) 227-0216.
More information about this NSF program is
available at:
http://nsf-pad.bme.uconn.edu
Specifications
One of the most important parts of the design
process is determining the specifications, or
requirements that the design project must fulfill.
There are many different types of hardware and
software specifications.
Prior to the design of a project, a statement as to
how the device will function is required.
Operational specifications are incorporated in
determining the problem to be solved.
Specifications are defined such that any competent
engineer is able to design a device that will perform
a given function. Specifications determine the
4 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
device to be built, but do not provide information
about how the device is built. If several engineers
design a device from the same specifications, all of
the designs would perform within the given
tolerances and satisfy the requirements; however,
each design would be different. Manufacturers'
names are generally not stated in specifications,
especially for electronic or microprocessor
components, so that design choices for future
projects are not constrained.
If the design project involves modifying an existing
device, the modification is fully described in detail.
Specific components of the device, such as
microprocessors, LEDs, and electronic parts, are
described. Descriptive detail is appropriate because
it defines the environment to which the design
project must interface. However, the specifications
for the modification should not provide detailed
information about how the device is to be built.
Specifications are usually written in a report that
qualitatively describes the project as completely as
possible, and how the project will improve the life of
an individual. It is also important to explain the
motivation for carrying out the project. The
following issues are addressed in the specifications:
• What will the finished device do?
• What is unusual about the device?
Specifications include a technical description of the
device, and all of the facts and figures needed to
complete the design project. The following are
examples of important items included in technical
specifications:
• Electrical parameters (including interfaces,
voltages, impedances, gains, power output,
power input, ranges, current capabilities,
harmonic distortion, stability, accuracy,
precision, and power consumption)
• Mechanical parameters (including size, weight,
durability, accuracy, precision, and vibration)
• Environmental parameters (including location,
temperature range, moisture, and dust)
Paper Design and Analysis
The next phase of the design is the generation of
possible solutions to the problem based on the
specifications, and selection of an optimal solution.
This involves creating a paper design for each of the
solutions and evaluating performance based on the
specifications. Since design projects are open-ended,
many solutions exist, solutions that often require a
multidisciplinary system or holistic approach for a
successful and useful product. This stage of the
design process is typically the most challenging
because of the creative aspect to generating problem
solutions.
The specifications previously described are the
criteria for selecting the best design solution. In
many projects, some specifications are more
important than others, and trade-offs between
specifications may be necessary. In fact, it may be
impossible to design a project that satisfies all of the
design specifications. Specifications that involve
some degree of flexibility are helpful in reducing the
overall complexity, cost and effort in carrying out
the project. Some specifications are absolute and
cannot be relaxed.
Most projects are designed in a top-down approach
similar to the approach of writing computer
software by first starting with a flow chart. After the
flow chart or block diagram is complete, the next
step involves providing additional details to each
block in the flow chart. This continues until
sufficient detail exists to determine whether the
design meets the specifications after evaluation.
To select the optimal design, it is necessary to
analyze and evaluate the possible solutions. For
ease in analysis, it is usually easiest to use computer
software. For example, PSpice, a circuit analysis
program, easily analyzes circuit problems. Other
situations require that a potential design project
solution be partially constructed or breadboarded
for analysis and evaluation. After analysis of all
possible solutions, the optimal design selected is the
one that meets the specifications most closely.
Construction and Evaluation of the Device
After selecting the optimal design, the student then
constructs the device. The best method of
construction is often to build the device module by
module. By building the project in this fashion, the
student is able to test each module for correct
operation before adding it to the complete device. It
is far easier to eliminate problems module by
module than to build the entire project and then
attempt to eliminate problems.
Design projects are analyzed and constructed with
safety as one of the highest priorities. Clearly, the
design project that fails should fail in a safe manner,
Chapter 1: Introduction 5
without any dramatic and harmful outcomes to the
client or those nearby. An example of a fail-safe
mode of operation for an electrical device involves
grounding the chassis, and using appropriate fuses;
if ever a 120-V line voltage short circuit to the
chassis should develop, a fuse would blow and no
harm to the client would occur. Devices should also
be protected against runaway conditions during the
operation of the device and during periods of rest.
Failure of any critical components in a device should
result in the complete shutdown of the device.
After the project has undergone laboratory testing, it
is then tested in the field with the client. After the
field test, modifications are made to the project, and
then the project is given to the client. Ideally, the
project in use by the client should be periodically
evaluated for performance and usefulness after the
project is complete. Evaluation typically occurs,
however, when the device no longer performs
adequately for the client, and is returned to the
university for repair or modification. If the repair or
modification is simple, a university technician may
handle the problem. If the repair or modification is
more extensive, another design student may be
assigned to the project to handle the problem as part
of his or her design course requirements.
Documentation
Throughout the design process, the student is
required to document the optimal or best solution to
the problem through a series of written assignments.
For the final report, documenting the design project
involves integrating each of the required reports into
a single final document. While this should be a
simple exercise, it is often a most vexing and
difficult endeavor. Many times during the final
stages of the project, some specifications are
changed, or extensive modifications to the ideal
paper design are necessary.
Most universities require that the final report be
professionally prepared using desktop publishing
software. This requires that all circuit diagrams and
mechanical drawings be professionally drawn.
Illustrations are usually drawn with computer
software, such as OrCAD or AutoCAD.
The two-page reports within this publication are not
representative of the final reports submitted for
design course credit, and in fact, are summaries of
the final reports. A typical final report for a design
project is approximately 30 pages in length, and
includes extensive analysis supporting the operation
of the design project. Usually, photographs of the
device are not included in the final report since
mechanical and electrical diagrams are more useful
to the engineer to document the device.
6 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
7 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
7
CHAPTER 2
BEST PRACTICES IN SENIOR DESIGN
John Enderle and Brooke Hallowell
This chapter presents different approaches to the
design course experience. For example, at Texas
A&M University, the students work on many small
design projects during the two-semester senior
design course sequence. At North Dakota State
University, students work on a single project during
the two-semester senior design course sequence. At
the University of Connecticut, students are involved
in a web-based approach and in distance learning, in
a collaborative arrangement with Ohio University.
Duke University
The Devices for the Persons with Disabilities course
is offered as an elective to seniors and graduate
students through the Biomedical Engineering
Department at Duke University. The course has
been supported since September 1996 by a grant
from the National Science Foundation, and is offered
each fall. The course size is limited to 12 students
and four to six projects to provide a team
atmosphere and to ensure quality results.
The course involves design, construction and
delivery of a custom assistive technology device,
typically in one semester. At the start of the
semester, students are given a list of descriptions for
several possible projects that have been suggested
by persons with disabilities and health care workers
in the local community. Students individually rank
order the list, and for their top three selections
describe why they are interested and what skills
they possess that will help them be successful.
Projects are assigned to teams of one to three
students based on these interests and expected
project difficulty. Soon thereafter, students meet
with the project's supervisor and client. The
supervisor is a health care professional, typically a
speech-language pathologist or occupational or
physical therapist, who has worked with the client.
Student teams then formulate a plan for the project,
and present an oral and written project proposal to
define the problem and their expected approach. In
the written proposal, results of a patent and product
search for ideas related to the student project are
summarized and contrasted with the project.
Each student keeps an individual laboratory
notebook for his or her project. Copies of recent
entries are turned in to the course instructor for a
weekly assessment of progress. During the
semester, students meet regularly with the
supervisor and/or client to insure that the project
will be safe and meet the needs of the client. Three
oral and written project reports are presented to
demonstrate progress, to provide experience with
engineering communications, and to allow a public
forum for students to receive feedback from other
students, supervisors, engineers, and health care
professionals.
Course lectures are focused on basic principles of
engineering design, oral and written
communication, and ethics. In addition, guest
lectures cover topics such as an overview of assistive
technology, universal design, ergonomics and patent
issues. Field trips to a local assistive technology
lending library, and to an annual exposition of
commercial assistive technology companies, provide
further exposure to the field.
Students present their projects in near-final form at a
public mock delivery two weeks before their final
delivery, which provides a last chance to respond to
external feedback. Final oral presentations include
project demonstrations. Each project's final written
report includes a quantitative analysis of the design,
as well as complete mechanical drawings and
schematics. At the end of the semester, students
deliver their completed project to the client, along
with a user's manual that describes the operation,
features, and specifications for the device.
For projects requiring work beyond one semester,
students may continue working through the spring
semester on an independent study basis. A full-time
8 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
summer student provides service on projects
already delivered.
University of Massachusetts-Lowell
The capstone design experience at University of
Mass-Lowell is divided into two three-credit
courses. These courses are taken in the last two
semesters of undergraduate studies and for the most
part involve the design of assistive technology
devices and systems. The program costs are
supported in part by a five-year grant from the
National Science Foundation. Additional funding
comes from corporate and individual donations to
the assistive technology program at University of
Mass-Lowell. Both courses are presented in each
semester of a traditional academic year. The
combined enrollment averages between 40 and 50
each semester.
The major objective of the first course is for each
student to define a major design to be accomplished
prior to graduation and ideally within the timeframe
of the second course. The process for choosing a
design project begins immediately. However, there
are other activities that take place concurrently with
the search for a project. The most significant of these
is a team effort to generate a business plan for
securing venture capital or other forms of financing
to support corporate development of a product
oriented towards the disadvantaged community.
The instructor chooses a number of students to serve
as CEOs of their company. The remaining students
must present oral and written resumes and
participate in interviews.
The CEO of each company must then hire his/her
employees and the teams are thus formed. Each
team is expected to do the following:
• Determine a product,
• Name the company,
• Determine the process for company name
registration,
• Generate a market analysis,
• Determine the patent process,
• Generate a cost analysis for an employee
benefit package,
• Generate information on such terms as FICA,
FUTA, SS, 941, MC, IRA, SRA, I9, and other
terms relative to payroll deductions and state
and federal reporting requirements,
• Meet with patent attorneys, real estate agents,
members of the business community, bankers,
and a venture capitalist,
• Demonstrate understanding of the cost of
insurance and meet with insurance agents to
discuss health and life insurance for employees
and liability insurance costs for the company,
and
• Explore OSHA requirements relative to setting
up development laboratories.
Students carry out these tasks using direct person-
to-person contact and the vast amount of
information on the Internet.
The teams are also required to understand the
elements of scheduling and must produce a Gant
chart indicating the tasks and allotted times to take
their product through development and make ready
for manufacture. A cost analysis of the process is
required, and students are expected to understand
the real cost of development, with overhead items
clearly indicated.
Much of the subject material described above is
covered in daily classroom discussions and with
guest speakers. During the process of generating
the team business plan, each team is required to
present two oral reports to the class. The first is a
company report describing their company, assigned
tasks, their product, and a rationale for choosing
their product.
The second is a final report that is essentially a
presentation of the company business plan.
Technical oral and written reports are essential
components of the first course. Two lectures are
presented on the techniques of oral presentations
and written reports are reviewed by the college
technical writing consultants. All oral presentation
must be made using PowerPoint or other advanced
creative tools.
Early in the course, potential capstone projects are
presented; students are required to review current
and past projects. In some semesters, potential
clients address the class. Representatives from
agencies have presented their desires and
individuals in wheelchairs have presented their
requests to the class. Students are required to begin
the process of choosing a project by meeting with
potential clients and assessing the problem, defining
the needs, and making a decision as to whether or
not they want the associated project. In some cases,
students interview and discuss as many as three or
four potential projects before finding one they feel
confident in accomplishing. If the project is too
Chapter 2: Best Practices in Senior Design 9
complex for a single student, a team is formed. The
decision to form a team is made by the instructor
only after in-depth discussions with potential team
members. Individual responsibilities must be
identified as part of a team approach to design. Once
a project has been chosen, the student must begin
the process of generating a written technical
proposal. This document must clearly indicate
answers to the following questions:
• What are the project and its technical
specifications?
• Why is the project necessary?
• What technical approach is to be used to
accomplish the project?
• How much time is necessary?
• How much will the project cost?
The final activity in this first course is the oral
presentation of the proposal.
The second course is concerned with the design of
the project chosen and presented in the first course.
In the process of accomplishing the design, students
must present a total of five written progress reports,
have outside contacts with a minimum of five
different persons, and generate at least three
publications or public presentations concerning their
project. Finally, they demonstrate their project to the
faculty, write a final comprehensive technical report,
and deliver the project to their client.
Texas A&M University
The objective of the NSF program at Texas A&M
University is to provide senior bioengineering
students an experience in the design and
development of rehabilitation devices and
equipment to meet explicit client needs identified at
several off-campus rehabilitation and education
facilities. Texas A&M has participated in the NSF
program for seven years. The students meet with
therapists and/or special education teachers for
problem definition under faculty supervision. This
program provides significant "real world" design
experiences, emphasizing completion of a finished
product. Moreover, the program brings needed
technical expertise that would otherwise not be
available to not-for-profit rehabilitation service
providers. Additional benefits to the participating
students include a heightened appreciation of the
problems of persons with disabilities, motivation
toward rehabilitation engineering as a career path,
and recognition of the need for more long-term
research to address the problems for which today's
designs are only an incomplete solution.
Texas A&M University's program involves a two-
course capstone design sequence, BIEN 441 and 442.
BIEN 441 is offered during the fall and summer
semesters, and BIEN 442 is offered during the spring
semester. The inclusion of the summer term allows
a full year of ongoing design activities. Students are
allowed to select a rehabilitation design project, or
another general bioengineering design project.
The faculty members at Texas A&M University
involved with the rehabilitation design course have
worked in collaboration with the local school
districts, community rehabilitation centers,
residential units of the Texas Department of Mental
Health and Mental Retardation (MHMR),
community outreach programs of Texas MHMR,
and individual clients of the Texas Rehabilitation
Commission and the Texas Commission for the
Blind. Appropriate design projects are identified in
group meetings between the staff of the
collaborating agency, the faculty, and the
participating undergraduate students enrolled in the
design class. In addition, one student is employed
in the design laboratory during the summer to
provide logistical support, and pursue his or her
own project. Each student is required to participate
in the project definition session, which adds to the
overall design experience. The meetings take place
at the beginning of each semester, and periodically
thereafter as projects are completed and new ones
identified.
The needs expressed by the collaborating agencies
often result in projects that vary in complexity and
duration. To meet the broad spectrum of needs,
simpler projects are accommodated by requiring
rapid completion, at which point the students move
on to another project. More difficult projects involve
one or more semesters, or even a year's effort; these
projects are the ones that typically require more
substantial quantitative and related engineering
analysis.
Following the project definition, the students
proceed through the formal design process of
brainstorming, clarification of specifications,
preliminary design, review with the collaborating
agency, design execution and safety analysis,
documentation, prerelease design review, and
delivery and implementation in the field. The
10 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
execution phase of the design includes identifying
and purchasing necessary components and
materials, arranging for any fabrication services that
may be necessary, and obtaining photography for
their project reports.
Throughout each phase of the project, a faculty
member supervises the work, as well as the teaching
assistants assigned to the rehabilitation engineering
laboratory. These teaching assistants are paid with
university funds. The students also have continued
access to the agency staff for clarification or revision
of project definitions, and review of preliminary
designs. The latter is an important aspect of meeting
real needs with useful devices. The design team
meets as a group to discuss design ideas and project
progress, and to plan further visits to the agencies.
One challenging aspect of having students
responsible for projects that are eagerly anticipated
by the intended recipient is the variable quality of
student work, and the inappropriateness of sending
inadequate projects into the field. This potential
problem is resolved at Texas A&M University by
continuous project review, and by requiring that the
projects be revised and reworked until they meet
faculty approval.
At the end of each academic year, the faculty
member and the personnel from each collaborating
agency assess which types of projects met with the
greatest success in achieving useful delivered
devices. This review has provided ongoing
guidance in the selection of future projects. The
faculty members also maintain continuous contact
with agency personnel with respect to ongoing and
past projects that require repair or modification. In
some instances, repairs are assigned as short-term
projects to currently participating students. This
provides excellent lessons in the importance of
adequate documentation.
Feedback from participating students is gathered
each semester using the Texas A&M University
student "oppinionaire" form as well as personal
discussion. The objective of the reviews is to obtain
students' assessment of the educational value of the
rehabilitation design program, the adequacy of the
resources and supervision, and any suggestions for
improving the process.
North Dakota State University
North Dakota State University (NDSU) has
participated in this program for ten years. All senior
electrical engineering students at NDSU are
required to complete a two-semester senior design
project as part of their study. These students are
partitioned into faculty-supervised teams of four to
six students. Each team designs and builds a device
for a particular disabled individual within eastern
North Dakota or western Minnesota.
During the early stages of NDSU's participation in
projects to aid persons with disabilities, a major
effort was undertaken to develop a complete and
workable interface between the NDSU electrical
engineering department and the community of
persons with disabilities to identify potential
projects. These organizations are the Fargo Public
School System, NDSU Student Services and the
Anne Carlson School. NDSU students visit potential
clients or their supervisors to identify possible
design projects at one of the cooperating
organizations. All of the senior design students visit
one of these organizations at least once. After the
site visit, the students write a report on at least one
potential design project, and each team selects a
project to aid a particular individual.
The process of a design project is implemented in
two parts. During the first semester of the senior
year, each team writes a report describing the
project to aid an individual. Each report consists of
an introduction, establishing the need for the project.
The body of the report describes the device; a
complete and detailed engineering analysis is
included to establish that the device has the
potential to work. Almost all of the NDSU projects
involve an electronic circuit. Typically, devices that
involve an electrical circuit are analyzed using
PSpice, or another software analysis program.
Extensive testing is undertaken on subsystem
components using breadboard circuit layouts to
ensure a reasonable degree of success before writing
the report. Circuits are drawn for the report using
OrCAD, a CAD program. The OrCAD drawings are
also used in the second phase of design, which
allows the students to bring a circuit from the
schematic to a printed circuit board with relative
ease.
During the second semester of the senior year, each
team builds the device to aid an individual. This
first involves breadboarding the entire circuit to
Chapter 2: Best Practices in Senior Design 11
establish the viability of the design. After
verification, the students build printed circuit
boards using OrCAD, and then finish the
construction of the projects using the fabrication
facility in the electrical engineering department. The
device is then fully tested, and after approval by the
senior design faculty advisor, the device is given to
the client. Each of the student design teams receives
feedback throughout the year from the client or
client coordinator to ensure that the design meets its
intended goal.
Each design team provides an oral presentation
during regularly held seminars in the department.
In the past, local TV stations have filmed the
demonstration of the senior design projects, and
broadcast the tape on their news show. This media
exposure usually results in viewers contacting the
electrical engineering department with requests for
projects to improve the life of another individual,
further expanding the impact of the program.
Design facilities are provided in three separate
laboratories for analysis, prototyping, testing,
printed circuit board layout, fabrication, and
redesign/development. The first laboratory is a
room for team meetings during the initial stages of
the design. Data books and other resources are
available in this room. There are also 12
workstations available for teams to test their
designs, and verify that the design parameters have
been met. These workstations consist of a power
supply, waveform generator, oscilloscope,
breadboard, and a collection of hand tools.
The second laboratory contains Intel computers for
analysis, desktop publishing and microprocessor
testing. The computers all have analysis, CAD and
desktop publishing capabilities so that students may
easily bring their design projects from the idea to
implementation stage. Analysis software supported
includes Microsoft EXCEL and Lotus 123
spreadsheets, PSpice, MATLAB, MATHCAD, and
VisSim. Desktop publishing supported includes
Microsoft Word for Windows, Aldus PageMaker,
and technical illustration software via AutoCAD and
OrCAD. A scanner with image enhancement
software and a high-resolution printer are also
available in the laboratory.
The third laboratory is used by the teams for
fabrication. Six workstations exist for breadboard
testing, soldering, and finish work involving printed
circuit boards. Sufficient countertop space exists so
that teams may leave their projects in a secure
location for ease of work.
The electrical engineering department maintains a
relatively complete inventory of electronic
components necessary for design projects, and when
not in stock, has the ability to order parts with
minimal delay. The department also has a teaching
assistant assigned to this course on a year round
basis, and an electronics technician available for help
in the analysis and construction of the design
project.
There were many projects constructed at NDSU (and
probably at many other universities) that proved to
be unsafe or otherwise unusable for the intended
individual, despite the best efforts of the student
teams under the supervision of the faculty advisors.
These projects are not officially documented.
University of Connecticut
In August 1998 the Department of Electrical &
Systems Engineering (ESE) at the University of
Connecticut (UConn), in collaboration with the
School of Hearing, Speech and Language Sciences at
Ohio University, received a five-year NSF grant for
senior design experiences to aid persons with
disabilities. An additional five-year grant was
awarded in 2005. These NSF projects are a
pronounced change from previous design
experiences at UConn, which involved industry
sponsored projects carried out by a team of student
engineers. The new Biomedical Engineering
Program at UConn has now replaced the ESE Dept.
in this effort.
To provide effective communication between the
sponsor and the student teams, a web-based
approach was implemented.5 Under the new
scenario, students work individually on a project
and are divided into teams for weekly meetings.
The purpose of the team is to provide student-
derived technical support at weekly meetings.
Teams also form throughout the semester based on
needs to solve technical problems. After the
5 Enderle, J.D., Browne, A.F., and Hallowell, B.
(1998). A WEB Based Approach in Biomedical
Engineering Design Education. Biomedical Sciences
Instrumentation, 34, pp. 281-286.
12 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
problem is solved, the team dissolves and new
teams are formed.
Each year, 25 projects are carried out by the students
at UConn. Five of the 25 projects are completed
through collaboration with personnel at Ohio
University using varied means of communication
currently seen in industry, including video
conferencing, the Internet, telephone, e-mail, postal
mailings, and videotapes.
Senior design consists of two required courses,
Design I and II. Design I is a three-credit hour
course in which students are introduced to a variety
of subjects. These include: working in teams, design
process, planning and scheduling (timelines),
technical report writing, proposal writing, oral
presentations, ethics in design, safety, liability,
impact of economic constraints, environmental
considerations, manufacturing, and marketing.
Each student in Design I:
• Selects a project to aid a disabled individual
after interviewing a person with disabilities,
• Drafts specifications,
• Prepares a project proposal,
• Selects an optimal solution and carries out a
feasibility study,
• Specifies components, conducts a cost analysis
and creates a time-line, and
• Creates a paper design with extensive modeling
and computer analysis.
Design II is a three-credit hour course following
Design I. This course requires students to implement
a design by completing a working model of the final
product. Prototype testing of the paper design
typically requires modification to meet
specifications. These modifications undergo proof
of design using commercial software programs
commonly used in industry. Each student in Design
II:
• Constructs and tests a prototype using modular
components as appropriate,
• Conducts system integration and testing,
• Assembles a final product and field-tests the
device,
• Writes a final project report,
• Presents an oral report using PowerPoint on
Senior Design Day, and
• Gives the device to the client after a waiver is
signed.
Course descriptions, student project homepages and
additional resources are located at
http://design.bme.uconn.edu/.
The first phase of the on-campus projects involves
creating a database of persons with disabilities and
then linking the student with a person who has a
disability. The A.J. Pappanikou Center provided an
MS Access database with almost 60 contacts and a
short description of disabilities associated with the
clients in each. The involvement of the Center was
essential for the success of the program. The A.J.
Pappanikou Center is Connecticut's University
Affiliated Program (UAP) for disabilities studies. As
such, relationships have been established with the
Connecticut community of persons affected by
disabilities, including families, caregivers, advocacy
and support groups and, of course, persons with
disabilities themselves. The Center serves as the link
between the person in need of the device and the
Design course staff. The Center has established
ongoing relationships with Connecticut's Regional
Educational Service Centers, the Birth to Three
Network, the Connecticut Tech Act Project, and the
Department of Mental Retardation. Through these
contacts, the Center facilitates the interaction
between the ESE students, the client coordinators
(professionals providing support services, such as
the speech-language pathologists, physical and
occupational therapists), individuals with
disabilities (clients), and clients' families.
The next phase of the course involves students'
selection of projects. Using the on-campus database,
each student selects two clients to interview. The
student and a UConn staff member meet with the
client and/or client coordinator to identify a project
that would improve the quality of life for the client.
After the interview, the student writes a brief
description for each project. Almost all of the clients
interviewed have multiple projects. Project
descriptions include: contact information (client,
client coordinator, and student name) and a short
paragraph describing the problem. These reports
are collected, sorted by topic area, and put into a
Project Notebook. In the future, these projects will
be stored in a database accessible from the course
server for ease in communication.
Each student then selects a project from a client that
he or she has visited, or from the Project Notebook.
If the project selected was from the Project
Notebook, the student visits the client to further
Chapter 2: Best Practices in Senior Design 13
refine the project. Because some projects do not
involve a full academic year to complete, some
students work on multiple projects. Students submit
a project statement that describes the problem,
including a statement of need, basic preliminary
requirements, basic limitations, other data
accumulated, and important unresolved questions.
Specific projects at Ohio University are established
via distance communication with the co-principal
investigator, who consults with a wide array of
service providers and potential clients in the Athens,
Ohio region.
The stages of specification, project proposal, paper
design and analysis, construction and evaluation,
and documentation are carried out as described
earlier in the overview of engineering design.
To facilitate working with sponsors, a web-based
approach is used for reporting the progress on
projects. Students are responsible for creating their
own Internet sites that support both html and pdf
formats with the following elements:
• Introduction for the layperson,
• Resume,
• Weekly reports,
• Project statement,
• Specifications,
• Proposal, and
• Final Report.
Teamwork
Student learning styles differ among team members.
Gender, cultural factors, personality type,
intelligence, previous educational background,
academic achievement, and previous experience in
teams may influence the strengths and weaknesses
that individuals bring to team membership.
Research pertaining to differences in cognitive style
characterized by field dependence versus
independence helps to shed light on individual
differences among team members and how those
differences may affect team interactions6,7. There is
6 Tinajero, C., & Paramo, M. F. (1997). Field
dependence-independence and academic
achievement: A re-examination of their relationship.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 2, 199-
212.
strong empirical evidence in numerous disciplines
suggesting that students may benefit from explicit
training to compensate for or enhance the cognitive
style with which they enter an educational
experience, such as a senior design course.8,9,10
Research on effective teamwork suggests that key
variables that should be attended to for optimal
team performance include:
• Explicit sharing of the group’s purpose among
all team members,
• Concerted orientation to a common task,
• Positive rapport among team members,
• Responsiveness to change,
• Effective conflict management,
• Effective time management, and
• Reception and use of ongoing constructive
feedback.
According to the literature on cooperative learning
in academic contexts,11,12 the two most essential
determiners for success in teamwork are positive
interdependence and individual accountability.
7 Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981).
Cognitive Styles: Essence and Origins. International
Universities Press, Inc., NY.
8 Deming, W. (1986). Out of the crisis: quality,
productivity, and competitive position. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press.
9 Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (1993). The wisdom of
teams: creating the high-performance organization.
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School
Press.
10 Larson, C. & LaFasto, F. (1989). Teamwork: what
must go right, what can go wrong. Newbury Park,
California: SAGE Publications.
11 Cottell, P.G. & Millis, B.J. (1994). Complex
cooperative learning structures for college and
university courses. In To improve the Academy:
Resources for students, faculty, and institutional
development. Stillwater, OK: New Forums Press.
12 Jaques, D. (1991). Learning in groups, 2nd edition.
Guilford, Surrey, England: Society for Research into
Higher Education.
14 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
Positive interdependence, or effective synergy
among team members, leads to a final project or
design that is better than any of the individual team
members may have created alone. Individual
accountability, or an equal sharing of workload,
ensures that no team member is overburdened and
also that every team member has an equal learning
opportunity and hands-on experience.
Because students are motivated to work and learn
according the way they expect to be assessed,
grading of specific teamwork skills of teams and of
individual students inspires teams’ and individuals’
investment in targeted learning outcomes associated
with teamwork. Teamwork assessment instruments
have been developed in numerous academic
disciplines and can be readily adapted for use in
engineering design projects.
Clearly targeting and assessing teamwork qualities
may help to alleviate conflicts among team
members. In general, most team members are
dedicated to the goals of the project and excel
beyond all expectations. When there is a breakdown
in team synergy, instructors may sometimes be
effective in facilitating conflict resolution.
Timeline development by the team is vital to
success, eliminates most management issues, and
allows the instructor to monitor the activities by
student team members. Activities for each week
must be documented for each team member, with an
optimal target of five to 10 activities per team
member each week. When each team member
knows what specific steps must be accomplished
there is a greater chance of success in completing the
project.
History of Teams in Senior Design at
UConn
Projects Before the NSF Program
Before the NSF-sponsored program, senior design
was sponsored by local industry. During these
years, all of the students were partitioned into four-
member teams whereby student names were
selected at random to choose a particular sponsored
project. The projects were complex. Team members
were challenged to achieve success. All of the
students met each week at a team meeting with the
instructor. During the first semester, lectures on
teaming and communication skills were given, as
well as team skills training. No timelines were used
and general project goals were discussed throughout
the two semesters. A teaching assistant was used in
the course as an assistant coach to help the students
in whatever manner was necessary. In general,
multidisciplinary teams were not formed since the
student backgrounds were not the criteria used to
select team members.
Procrastination, a lack of enthusiasm and poor
planning were common themes among the students.
Most teams encountered significant difficulties in
completing projects on time. Conflict among team
members was more frequent than desired, and in
some extreme encounters, physical violence was
threatened during lab sessions. Many students
complained that the projects were far too difficult,
scheduling of team meetings was too challenging,
they did not have the proper background, they had
difficulty communicating ideas and plans among
team members, and they did not have enough time
with outside activities and courses. A peer
evaluation was used without success.
NSF Projects Year 1
During year one of the NSF senior design program,
students worked individually on a project and were
divided into teams for weekly meetings. The level
of project difficulty was higher than previous years.
The purpose of the team was to provide student-
derived technical support at weekly team meetings.
Students were also exposed to communication skills
training during the weekly team meetings, and
received feedback on their presentations. In
addition, timelines were used for the first time,
which resulted in greater harmony and success. The
course improved relative to previous years. Many
students continued working on their projects after
the semester ended.
Throughout the year, students also divided
themselves into dynamic teams apart from their
regular teams based on needs. For example,
students implementing a motor control project
gathered together to discuss various alternatives and
help each other. These same students would then
join other dynamic teams in which a different
technology need was evident. Dynamic teams were
formed and ended during the semester. Both the
regular team and dynamic teams were very
important in the success of the projects.
Overall, students were enthusiastic about the
working environment and the approach. Although
students seemed content with being concerned only
Chapter 2: Best Practices in Senior Design 15
with their individual accomplishments, completing
a project according to specifications and on time,
this approach lacked the important and enriching
multidisciplinary team experience that is desired by
industry.
NSF Projects Year 2
During the second year of the NSF senior design
program, seven students worked in two- and three-
person team projects, and the remaining students in
the class worked in teams oriented around a client;
that is, a single client would have three students
working on individual projects, projects that
required integration in the same way a music system
requires integration of speakers, a receiver, an
amplifier, CD player, etc. In general, when teams
were formed, the instructor would facilitate the
teams’ multidisciplinary nature. Two teams
involved mechanical engineering students and
electrical engineering students. The others were
confined by the homogeneity of the remaining
students. All of the students met each week at a
team meeting with the same expectations as
previously described, including oral and written
reports. Dynamic teaming occurred often
throughout the semester.
While the team interaction was significantly
improved relative to previous semesters, the process
was not ideal. Senior Design is an extremely
challenging set of courses. Including additional skill
development with the expectation of success in a
demanding project does not always appear to be
reasonable. A far better approach would be to
introduce team skills much earlier in the curriculum,
even as early as the freshman year. Introducing
teamwork concepts and skills earlier and
throughout the curriculum would ensure an
improved focus on the project itself during the
senior design experience.
Timelines
At the beginning of the second semester, the student
is required to update the timeline to conform to
typical project management routines wherein the
student focuses on concurrent activities and maps
areas where project downtimes can be minimized.
This updated timeline is posted on a student project
web page and a hard copy is also attached to the
student’s workbench. This allows the professor or
instructor to gage progress and to determine
whether the student is falling behind at a rate that
will delay completion of the project.
Also during the second semester, the student is
required to report via the web on a weekly basis
project progress. Included in this report are sections
of their timeline that focus on the week just past and
on the week ahead. During these meetings the
instructor can discuss progress or the lack thereof,
but more importantly the instructor can take mental
note of how the student is proceeding on a week-by-
week basis.
Theory
The Senior Design Lab utilizes what is perhaps the
most easily understood project-planning tool: the
timeline. The timeline, or Gantt chart (see Figure
2.1), displays each task as a horizontal line that
shows the starting and ending date for each task
within a project and how it relates to others.
The relation of one task to another is the central part
of a timeline. The student lists tasks and assigns
durations to them. The student then “links” these
tasks together. Linking is done in the order of what
Figure 2.1. Shown above is a section of a typical
timeline. The rectangular boxes represent certain
tasks to be completed. These singular tasks are
grouped into larger tasks, represented by thick black
lines. The tasks are numbered to correspond to a task
list that is not shown. The thin lines that descend from
task to task are the links. Notice that task 42 must be
completed before task 43 can be started. Also, task
45 must be completed before task 46 and 50 can be
started. However, task 46 and 50 are concurrent,
along with task 47, and can therefore be completed at
the same time. No link from task 47 shows that it is
out of the critical path.
16 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
needs to happen first before something else can
happen. These links are known as dependencies.
An example of this is a construction project. The
foundation must be poured before you can start to
erect the walls. Once all dependencies are
determined, the end date of the project can be
determined. This line of linked dependencies is also
known as the critical path.
The critical path, the series of tasks in a project that
must be completed on time for the overall project to
stay on time, can be examined and revised to
advance the project completion date. If after linking
tasks the timeline does not result in the required or
desired completion date, it is recast. For example,
sequential activities may be arranged to run in
parallel, that is, concurrently to the critical path
whenever this is practicable. An example of this is
performing certain types of design work on sub-
assembly B while injection mold parts are being
manufactured for item A, which is in the critical
path. In the case of the Senior Design Lab, the
student would schedule report writing or
familiarization of certain software packages or
equipment concurrently with parts delivery or parts
construction. Parallel planning prevents downtime
– time is utilized to its fullest since work is always
underway. The project completion date is also
advanced when assigned durations of critical path
tasks are altered. Concurrent tasks should be clearly
delineated in the timeline for each project.
It is the planning and mapping of concurrent tasks
that make the timeline a project-planning tool. In
the modern working world time is a most valuable
resource. The timeline facilitates time loading
(resource management) by helping the project
manager schedule people and resources most
efficiently. For example, optimum time loading
keeps a machining center from being overloaded
one day and then having zero work the next day.
The timeline schedules “full time busy” for people
and equipment allowing for maximum pay-off and
efficiency. In the machining center example, less
than optimum time loading would delay any tasks
that require usage of the center because a greater
number of tasks are assigned than can be
accomplished in the amount of time scheduled.
Tasks would slide, resulting in delayed projects.
The same idea of time loading is also applied to
personnel resources. Less than optimal time loading
could result in absurd schedules that require
employees to work excessive hours to maintain
project schedules.
A timeline also allows for updates in the project plan
should a task require more time than expected or if a
design methodology turns out to be unsatisfactory
with the result of new tasks being added. These
extra times or new tasks that outline the new design
track are logged into the timeline with the project
completion date being altered. From this
information, the project manager can either alter
durations of simpler tasks or make certain tasks
parallel to place the new completion date within
requirements.
The timeline also acts as a communication tool.
Team members or advisors can see how delays will
affect the completion date or other tasks in the
project. Project progress is also tracked with a
timeline. The project manager can see if the tasks
are completed on time or measure the delay if one is
present. Alterations to amount of resources or time
spent on tasks are implemented to bring the project
plan back on schedule. Alterations are also made by
removing certain tasks out of the critical path and
placing them into a parallel path, if practical.
One major advantage of successful project planning
using the timeline is the elimination of uncertainty.
A detailed timeline has all project tasks thought out
and listed. This minimizes the risk of missing an
important task. A thoughtfully linked timeline also
allows the manager to see what tasks must be
completed before its dependent task can start. If
schedule lag is noticed, more resources can be
placed on the higher tasks.
Method
Discussed below is a method in which a timeline can
be drawn. The Senior Design Lab utilizes Microsoft
Project for project planning. Aspects such as
assigning work times, workday durations, etc. are
determined at this time but are beyond the scope of
this chapter.
Tasks are first listed in major groups. Major
groupings are anything that is convenient to the
project. Major groups consist of the design and/or
manufacture of major components, design type (EE,
ME or programming), departmental tasks, or any
number of related tasks. After the major groups are
listed, they are broken down into sub-tasks. If the
major group is a certain type of component, say an
electro-mechanical device, then related electrical or
Chapter 2: Best Practices in Senior Design 17
mechanical engineering tasks required to design or
build the item in the major group are listed as sub-
groups. In the sub-groups the singular tasks
themselves are delineated. All of the
aforementioned groups, sub-groups, and tasks are
listed on the left side of the timeline without regard
to start, completion, or duration times. It is in this
exercise where the project planner lists all of the
steps required to complete a project. This task list
should be detailed as highly as possible – higher
detail allowing the project manager to follow the
plan with greater ease.
The desired detail is determined by the
requirements of the project. Some projects require
week-by-week detail; other projects require that all
resource movements be planned. It is also useful to
schedule design reviews and re-engineering time if a
design or component does not meet initial
specifications as set out at project inception. Testing
of designs or component parts should also be
scheduled.
The second step followed in timeline drawing is the
assignment of task duration. The project planner
assigns time duration to each task, usually in
increments of days or fractions thereof. If, for
example, a task is the manufacturing of a PC Board
(without soldering of components), the planner may
assign a half-day to that task. All durations are
assigned without regard to linking.
The next step is task linking. Here the planner
determines the order in which tasks must be
completed. Microsoft Project allows linking with
simple keyboard commands. The planner links all
tasks together, with a final completion date being
noted. It is in this step where the planner must
make certain decisions in order to schedule a
satisfactory completion date. Tasks may be altered
with respect to their duration or scheduled as
concurrent items. The critical path is also delineated
during the linking exercise. Once a satisfactory
completion date has been scheduled due to these
alterations, the planner can then publish his/her
timeline and proceed to follow their work plan.
Weekly Schedule
Weekly activities in Design I consist of lectures,
student presentations and a team meeting with the
instructor. Technical and non-technical issues that
impact the design project are discussed during team
meetings. Students also meet with
clients/coordinators at scheduled times to report on
progress.
Each student is expected to provide an oral progress
report on his or her activity at the weekly team
meeting with the instructor, and record weekly
progress in a bound notebook as well as on the web
site. Weekly report structure for the web page
includes: project identity, work completed during
the past week, current work within the last day,
future work, status review, and at least one graphic.
The client and/or client coordinator uses the web
reports to keep up with the project so that they can
provide input on the progress. Weekly activities in
Design II include team meetings with the course
instructor, oral and written progress reports, and
construction of the project. As before, the WEB is
used to report project progress and communicate
with the sponsors. For the past two years, the
student projects have been presented at the annual
Northeast Biomedical Engineering Conference.
Other Engineering Design
Experiences
Experiences at other universities participating in this
NSF program combine many of the design program
elements presented here. Still, each university's
program is unique. In addition to the design
process elements already described, the program at
the State University of New York at Buffalo, under
the direction of Dr. Joseph Mollendorf, requires that
each student go through the preliminary stages of a
patent application. Naturally, projects worthy of a
patent application are actually submitted. Thus far,
a patent was issued for a “Four-Limb Exercising
Attachment for Wheelchairs” and another patent has
been allowed for a “Cervical Orthosis.”
18 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
19
CHAPTER 3
”MEANINGFUL” ASSESSMENT OF
DESIGN EXPERIENCES
Brooke Hallowell
During the past ten years, the Accrediting Board for
Engineering and Technology (ABET)13 has worked
to develop increasingly outcomes-focused standards
for engineering education. This chapter is offered as
an introduction to the ways in which improved foci
on educational outcomes may lead to: (a)
improvements in the learning of engineering
students, especially those engaged in design projects
to aid persons with disabilities, and consequently,
(b) improved knowledge, design and technology to
benefit individuals in need.
Brief History
As part of a movement for greater accountability in
higher education, U.S. colleges and universities are
experiencing an intensified focus on the assessment
of students' educational outcomes. The impetus for
outcomes assessment has come most recently from
accrediting agencies. All regional accrediting
agencies receive their authority by approval from
the Council for Higher Education Accreditation
(CHEA), which assumed this function from the
Council on Recognition of Postsecondary
Accreditation (CORPA) in 1996. The inclusion of
outcomes assessment standards as part of
accreditation by any of these bodies, such as North
Central, Middle States, or Southern Associations of
Colleges and Schools, and professional accrediting
bodies, including ABET, is mandated by CHEA, and
thus is a requirement for all regional as well as
professional accreditation. Consequently,
13 Accrediting Board for Engineering and
Technology (2000). Criteria for Accrediting
Engineering Programs. ABET: Baltimore, MD.
candidates for accreditation are required to
demonstrate plans for assessing educational
outcomes, and evidence that assessment results have
led to improved teaching and learning and,
ultimately, better preparation for beginning
professional careers. Accrediting bodies have thus
revised criteria standards for accreditation with
greater focus on the "output" that students can
demonstrate and less on the "input" they are said to
receive.14
“Meaningful” Assessment Practices
Because much of the demand for outcomes
assessment effort is perceived, at the level of
instructors, as a bureaucratic chore thrust upon
them by administrators and requiring detailed and
time-consuming documentation, there is a tendency
for many faculty members to avoid exploration of
effective assessment practices. Likewise, many
directors of academic departments engage in
outcomes assessment primarily so that they may
submit assessment documentation to meet
bureaucratic requirements. Thus, there is a
tendency in many academic units to engage in
assessment practices that are not truly "meaningful".
Although what constitutes an "ideal" outcomes
assessment program is largely dependent on the
14 Hallowell, B. & Lund, N. (1998). Fostering
program improvements through a focus on
educational outcomes. In Council of Graduate
Programs in Communication Sciences and
Disorders, Proceedings of the nineteenth annual
conference on graduate education, 32-56.
20 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
particular program and institution in which that
program is to be implemented, there are at least
some generalities we might make about what
constitutes a "meaningful" program. For example:
An outcomes assessment program perceived
by faculty and administrators as an
imposition of bureaucratic control over what
they do, remote from any practical
implications... would not be considered
“meaningful.” Meaningful programs, rather,
are designed to enhance our educational
missions in specific, practical, measurable
ways, with the goals of improving the
effectiveness of training and education in
our disciplines. They also involve all of a
program's faculty and students, not just
administrators or designated report writers.
Furthermore, the results of meaningful
assessment programs are actually used to
foster real modifications in a training
program.15
Outcomes Associated with
Engineering Design Projects
Despite the NSF's solid commitment to engineering
design project experiences and widespread
enthusiasm about this experiential approach to
learning and service, there is a lack of documented
solid empirical support for the efficacy and validity
of design project experiences and the specific aspects
of implementing those experiences. Concerted
efforts to improve learning, assessment methods and
data collection concerning pedagogic efficacy of
engineering design project experiences will enhance
student learning while benefiting the community of
persons with disabilities.
Agreeing on Terms
There is great variability in the terminology used to
discuss educational outcomes. How we develop and
use assessments matters much more than our
agreement on the definitions of each of the terms we
15 Hallowell, B. (1996). Innovative Models of
Curriculum/Instruction: Measuring Educational
Outcomes. In Council of Graduate Programs in
Communication Sciences and Disorders, Proceedings of
the Seventeenth Annual Conference on Graduate
Education, 37-44.
might use to talk about assessment issues. Still, for
the sake of establishing common ground, a few key
terms are highlighted here.
Formative and Summative Outcomes
Formative outcomes indices are those that can be
used to shape the experiences and learning
opportunities of the very students who are being
assessed. Some examples are surveys of faculty
regarding current students' design involvement, on-
site supervisors' evaluations, computer
programming proficiency evaluations, and
classroom assessment techniques.16 The results of
such assessments may be used to characterize
program or instructor strengths and weaknesses, as
well as to foster changes in the experiences of those
very students who have been assessed.
Summative outcomes measures are those used to
characterize programs, college divisions, or even
whole institutions by using assessments intended to
capture information about the final products of our
programs. Examples are student exit surveys,
surveys of graduates inquiring about salaries,
employment, and job satisfaction, and surveys of
employers of our graduates.
The reason the distinction between these two types
of assessment is important is that, although
formative assessments tend to be the ones that most
interest our faculty and students and the ones that
drive their daily academic experiences, the outcomes
indices on which most administrators focus to
monitor institutional quality are those involving
summative outcomes. It is important that each
academic unit strive for an appropriate mix of both
formative and summative assessments.
Cognitive/Affective/Performative Outcome
Distinctions
To stimulate our clear articulation of the specific
outcomes targeted within any program, it is helpful
to have a way to characterize different types of
outcomes. Although the exact terms vary from
context to context, targeted educational outcomes
are commonly characterized as belonging to one of
three domains: cognitive, affective, and
16 Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom
assessment techniques: A handbook for college teachers.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Chapter 3: Educational Outcomes Assessment: Improving Design Projects To Aid Persons With Disabilities 21
performative. Cognitive outcomes are those relating
to intellectual mastery, or mastery of knowledge in
specific topic areas. Most of our course-specific
objectives relating to a specific knowledge base fall
into this category. Performance outcomes are those
relating to a student's or graduate's accomplishment
of a behavioral task. Affective outcomes relate to
personal qualities and values that students ideally
gain from their experiences during a particular
educational/training program. Examples are
appreciation of various racial, ethnic, or linguistic
backgrounds of individuals, awareness of biasing
factors in the design process, and sensitivity to
ethical issues and potential conflicts of interest in
professional engineering contexts.
The distinction among these three domains of
targeted educational outcomes is helpful in
highlighting areas of learning that we often proclaim
to be important, but that we do not assess very well.
Generally, we are better at assessing our targeted
outcomes in the cognitive area (for example, with in-
class tests and papers) than we are with assessing
the affective areas of multicultural sensitivity,
appreciation for collaborative teamwork, and ethics.
Often, our assessment of performative outcomes is
focused primarily on students' design experiences,
even though our academic programs often have
articulated learning goals in the performative
domain that might not apply only to design projects.
Faculty Motivation
A critical step in developing a meaningful
educational outcomes program is to address directly
pervasive issues of faculty motivation. Faculty
resistance is probably due in large part to the
perception that outcomes assessment involves the
use of educational and psychometric jargon to
describe program indices that are not relevant to the
everyday activities of faculty members and students.
By including faculty, and perhaps student
representatives, in discussions of what characterizes
a meaningful assessment scheme to match the
missions and needs of individual programs we can
better ensure a sense of personal identification with
assessment goals on the part of the faculty. Also, by
agreeing to develop outcomes assessment practices
from the bottom up, rather than in response to top-
down demands from administrators and accrediting
agencies, faculty member skeptics are more likely to
engage in assessment efforts.
Additional factors that might give faculty the
incentive to get involved in enriching assessment
practices include:
• Consideration of outcomes assessment work as
part of annual merit reviews,
• Provision of materials, such as sample
instruments, or resources, such as internet sites
to simplify the assessment instrument design
process
• Demonstration of the means by which certain
assessments, such as student exit or employer
surveys, may be used to make strategic program
changes.
These assessment practices may be used to a
program's advantage in negotiations with
administration (for example, to help justify funds for
new equipment, facilities, or salaries for faculty and
supervisory positions).14
With the recent enhanced focus on educational
outcomes in accreditation standards of ABET, and
with all regional accrediting agencies in the United
States now requiring extensive outcomes assessment
plans for all academic units, it is increasingly
important that we share assessment ideas and
methods among academic programs. It is also
important that we ensure that our assessment efforts
are truly meaningful, relevant and useful to our
students and faculty.
An Invitation to Collaborate in Using
Assessment To Improve Design Projects
Readers of this book are invited to join in
collaborative efforts to improve student learning,
and design products through improved meaningful
assessment practices associated with NSF-sponsored
design projects to aid persons with disabilities.
Future annual publications on the NSF-sponsored
engineering design projects to aid persons with
disabilities will include input from students, faculty,
supervisors, and consumers on ways to enhance
associated educational outcomes in specific ways.
The editors of this book look forward to input from
the engineering education community for
dissemination of further information to that end.
22 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
ABET's requirements for the engineering design
experiences17 provide direction in areas that are
essential to assess in order to monitor the value of
engineering design project experiences. For
example, the following are considered "fundamental
elements" of the design process: "the establishment
of objectives and criteria, synthesis, analysis,
construction, testing, and evaluation" (p. 11).
Furthermore, according to ABET, specific targeted
outcomes associated with engineering design
projects should include:
• Development of student creativity,
• Use of open-ended problems,
• Development and use of modern design
theory and methodology,
• Formulation of design problem statements
and specifications,
• Consideration of alternative solutions,
feasibility considerations,
• Production processes, concurrent
engineering design, and
• Detailed system descriptions.
The accrediting board additionally stipulates that it
is essential to include a variety of realistic
constraints, such as economic factors, safety,
reliability, aesthetics, ethics, and social impact.
ABET's most recent, revised list of similar targeted
educational outcomes is presented in the Appendix
to this chapter. We encourage educators, students
and consumers to consider the following questions:
• Are there outcomes, in addition to those
specified by ABET, that we target in our
roles as facilitators of design projects?
• Do the design projects of each of the
students in NSF-sponsored programs
incorporate all of these features?
• How may we best characterize evidence that
students engaged in Projects to Aid Persons
with Disabilities effectively attain desired
outcomes?
• Are there ways in which students'
performances within any of these areas
might be more validly assessed?
• How might improved formative assessment
of students throughout the design
17 Accrediting Board for Engineering and
Technology. Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs. ABET: Baltimore, MD.
experience be used to improve their learning
in each of these areas?
Readers interested in addressing such questions are
encouraged to send comments to the editors of this
book. The editors of this book are particularly
interested in disseminating, through future
publications, specific assessment instruments that
readers find effective in evaluating targeted
educational outcomes in NSF-sponsored
engineering design projects.
Basic terminology related to pertinent assessment
issues was presented earlier in this chapter. Brief
descriptions of cognitive, performative, and affective
types of outcomes are provided here, along with
lists of example types of assessments that might be
shared among those involved in engineering design
projects.
Cognitive outcomes are those relating to intellectual
mastery, or mastery of knowledge in specific topic
areas. Some examples of these measures are:
• Comprehensive exams,
• Items embedded in course exams,
• Pre- and post-tests to assess "value added",
• Design portfolios,
• Rubrics for student self-evaluation of
learning during a design experience,
• Alumni surveys, and
• Employer surveys.
Performative outcomes are those relating to a
student's or graduate's accomplishment of a
behavioral task. Some performance measures
include:
• Evaluation of graduates' overall design
experience,
• Mastery of design procedures or skills
expected for all graduates,
• Student evaluation of final designs, or of
design components,
• Surveys of faculty regarding student design
competence,
• Evaluation of writing samples,
• Evaluation of presentations,
• Evaluation of collaborative learning and
team-based approaches,
• Evaluation of problem-based learning,
• Employer surveys, and
• Peer evaluation (e.g., of leadership or group
participation).
Chapter 3: Educational Outcomes Assessment: Improving Design Projects To Aid Persons With Disabilities 23
Affective outcomes relate to personal qualities and
values that students ideally gain from their
educational experiences. These may include:
• Student journal reviews,
• Supervisors' evaluations of students'
interactions with persons with disabilities,
• Evaluations of culturally-sensitive reports,
• Surveys of attitudes or satisfaction with
design experiences,
• Interviews with students, and
• Peers', supervisors', and employers'
evaluations.
We welcome contributions of relevant formative and
summative assessment instruments, reports on
assessment results, and descriptions of assessment
programs and pedagogical innovations that appear
to be effective in enhancing design projects to aid
persons with disabilities.
Please send queries or submissions for consideration
to:
Brooke Hallowell, Ph.D.
College of Health and Human Services
W378 Grover Center
Ohio University
Athens, OH 45701
E-mail: hallowel@ohio.edu
24 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
APPENDIX: Desired Educational Outcomes as Articulated in ABET's New
“Engineering Criteria 2000” (Criterion 3, Program Outcomes and Assessment)18
Engineering programs must demonstrate that their graduates have:
(a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering
(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and interpret data
(c) An ability to design a system, component, or process to meet desired needs
(d) An ability to function on multi-disciplinary teams
(e) An ability to identify, formulate, and solve engineering problems
(f) An understanding of professional and ethical responsibility
(g) An ability to communicate effectively
(h) The broad education necessary to understand the impact of engineering solutions in a global and societal
context
(i) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in life-long learning
(j) A knowledge of contemporary issues
(k) An ability to use the techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice
18 Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology (2000). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs.
ABET: Baltimore, MD (p. 38-39).
25
CHAPTER 4
USING NSF-SPONSORED PROJECTS TO
ENRICH STUDENTS’ WRITTEN
COMMUNICATION SKILLS
Brooke Hallowell
Based on numerous anecdotes offered inside and
outside of engineering, age-old stereotypes that
engineers lack communication skills may have some
basis in fact. However, current work environments
for most new graduates in a host of professional
biomedical engineering contexts place such heavy
expectations for, and demands on, excellence in oral
and written communication that engineers’ lack of
communication skills can no longer be tolerated as a
trade-off for their strengths in science and
mathematics. Evolving requirements for
communication with interdisciplinary team
members, clients, patients, consumers, employers,
and the public require that educators of engineers
work hard to ensure that students reach a standard
of excellence in communication before they enter the
workforce. This chapter is offered to provide
specific guidance on principles and resources for
enriching written communication skills in
biomedical engineering students through their NSF-
sponsored design project experiences.
A Formative Focus
As discussed in the previous chapter, a formative
focus on academic assessment allows educators to
use assessment strategies that directly influence
students who are still within their reach. A solid
approach to formative assessment of writing skills
involves repeated feedback to students throughout
educational programs, with faculty collaboration in
reinforcing expectations for written work, use of
specific and effective writing evaluation criteria, and
means of enhancing outcomes deemed important for
regional and ABET accreditation19. Given that most
19 Engineering Criteria 2000 (Criterion 3, Program
Outcomes and Assessment)
students in the NSF-sponsored Senior Design
Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities programs
are already in their fourth year of college-level
study, it is critical to recognize that previous
formative writing instruction is essential to their
continued development of writing skills during the
senior year. Model strategies for improving writing
presented here in light of senior design projects may
also be implemented at earlier stages of
undergraduate learning.
Clarifying Evaluation Criteria
Student learning is directly shaped by how students
think they will be assessed. Regardless of the lofty
goals of excellence instructors might set forth in
course syllabi and lectures, if specific performance
criteria are not articulated clearly and assessed
directly, then students are unlikely to reach for those
same goals. To enhance writing skills effectively
through the senior design experience, specific
evaluation criteria for writing quality must be
established at the start of the senior design
experience. Clear expectations should be
established for all written work, including related
progress reports, web page content, and final
reports. Although the examples provided here are
oriented toward writing for annual NSF
publications, the basic assessment process is ideally
applied to other areas of written work as well.
Accrediting Board for Engineering and Technology
(2000). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering
Programs. ABET: Baltimore, MD (p. 38-39).
26 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
Elements of Writing to be Assessed
What aspects of writing quality are important in
writing about senior design projects? The list of
specific ideal aspects probably varies widely among
instructors. Still, consideration of guidelines already
proposed may help to streamline the development
of finely tuned assessment instruments to shape and
evaluate student writing. Each year, the editors of
this annual publication on senior design projects
send guidelines for manuscript publication to
principal investigators on NSF-sponsored
Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons
with Disabilities grants. Those guidelines form the
basis for the elements of writing on which writing
projects may be evaluated.
A sample grading form, based on the most recent
version of those guidelines at the time of this
publication, may be found in Appendix A. Explicit
writing criteria are specified, and a means for
explicit scoring according to those criteria is
provided. Instructors may use such a form to
evaluate drafts and final project reports. Specific
item descriptions and the relative weighting of the
value of performance in specific areas may be
modified according to instructor preferences.
Application of such scoring systems to student
course grades will ensure greater student
accountability for meeting explicit writing
standards.
General categories for analyzing writing
performance for project reports include: A) form and
formatting, B) accompanying images, C) grammar,
spelling, punctuation, and style, D) overall content,
and E) content within specific sections.
Form and formatting concerns are related primarily
to students’ following of explicit instructions
regarding page limitation, spacing, margins, font
size, indentations, and headings. Items related to
images include the type, quality, relevance and
formatting of photographs and drawings used to
illustrate reports. Issues of grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and style may be largely addressed
through adherence to specific conventions for each
of these areas. Thorough proofreading and use of
computerized checks for spelling and grammar,
although frequently recommended by instructors,
are not as likely to be carried out by students who
are not expecting to be assessed for performance in
these important areas.
Areas of overall content evaluation for senior design
reports include aspects of writing that are often
among the most problematic for undergraduate
engineers. One such area is that of using
appropriate language when referring to individuals
with disabilities. Reports submitted for NSF
publications often include terms and descriptions
that may be considered offensive by many, such that
the editors of this annual publication often engage in
extensive rewriting of sections including client
descriptions. It is most likely that students engaged
in projects for persons with disabilities are
wholeheartedly supportive of their clients, and use
such terms out of naiveté rather than any ill intent.
Still, the words we use to communicate about other
people powerfully influences readers’ perceptions of
them, especially in cases in which readers may be
unfamiliar with the types of conditions those people
are experiencing. Using appropriate language is of
paramount importance to our joint mission of
enabling individuals to live fully and with
maximum independence. It is thus critical that
instructors provide clear instruction and modeling
for appropriate language use in writing about
disabilities. In cases where instructors may have
outdated training concerning language use in this
arena, it is critical that they seek training regarding
sensitivity in language use.
Basic guidelines for writing with sensitivity about
persons with disabilities are summarized briefly in
Appendix B. Using person-first language, avoiding
language that suggests that individuals with
disabilities are “victims” or “sufferers”, and
avoiding words with negative connotations are three
key components to appropriate language use.
Evaluation of content within specific sections of
senior design project reports will help students focus
on drafting and appropriately revising and editing
reports. By discussing and evaluating specific
criteria - such as the use of laypersons’ terms in a
project description, effective description of the
motivation for a particular design approach, and the
use of clear, concise technical language to describe a
device modification such that others would be able
to replicate the design - instructors may help
students further hone their writing and revision
skills.
A Hierarchy of Revision Levels
Constructive feedback through multiple revisions of
written work is critical to the development of
Chapter 4: Using NSF-Sponsored Projects To Enrich Students’ Written Communication Skills 27
writing excellence. Even for the accomplished
writer, a series of drafts with a progressive evolution
toward a polished product is essential. It is thus
important that instructors allow time for revision
phases for all writing assignments throughout the
senior design experience.
Three basic levels of writing revision proposed by
some authors include global, organizational, and
polishing revision20. Global revision involves a
general overhaul of a document. Macro-level
feedback to students about their general flow of
ideas and adherence to assignment guidelines helps
to shape an initially-submitted draft into a version
more suitable for organizational revision.
Organizational revision requires reshaping and
reworking of the text. Helpful feedback to students
at this level may involve revising of macro-level
issues not corrected since the initial draft, and/or a
focus on new micro-level issues of coherence, clarity,
relevance, and word choice. Polishing revision
entails attention to such flaws as grammatical errors,
misspellings, misuse of punctuation, and to specific
formatting rules for the assignment. Finding
patterns of errors and providing constructive
feedback about those patterns may help individuals
or teams of students learn efficient strategies for
improving their written work.
Structured Critical Peer Evaluation
Many instructors require several forms of written
assignments within project design courses,
including the final reports required for submission
to the NSF-sponsored annual publication.
Consequently, it is impractical or impossible for
many instructors to provide evaluation and
feedback at three levels of revision for each written
assignment. One means of promoting students’
experience with critical reflection on writing is to
implement assignments of structured critical
evaluation of writing using reader-response
strategies, with students as editors for other
students’ work. Students (as individuals or on
teams) may be given a basic or detailed rubric for
evaluating other students’ written work, and explicit
20 Ohio University Center for Writing Excellence
Teaching Handouts [on-line] (2002). Available at:
http://www.ohiou.edu/writing/3_Ls_of_Revisio
n.htm
guidelines for providing structured constructive
comments following critical evaluation.
Resources and Support
Numerous excellent texts are available to promote
and provide structure and guidance for the
development of essential writing skills in
engineering students. Some sample recommended
texts are listed in Appendix C. Comments and
suggestions from instructors who have developed
model writing programs for engineering design
courses at any level of study are welcome to submit
those to the editors of this book, to be considered for
future publication.
It is the profound hope of the editors of this book
that future improvements in reports submitted for
NSF-sponsored publications will reflect instructors’
increasingly greater attention to the quality of
student-generated writing. With continuously
enhanced attention to the development of
engineering students’ writing through improved
foci on writing skills and strategic assessment of
written work, all with interest in design projects for
persons with disabilities will benefit.
28 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
APPENDIX A: Sample Evaluation Form for Project Reports Prepared for
Annual NSF Publications on Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with
Disabilities
Item evaluated Score/ Possible Score
A. Form and formatting
Does not exceed two pages (unless authorized by instructor) /2
10 point size type throughout the manuscript /2
Margin settings: top =1", bottom=1", right=1", and left=1" /2
Title limited to 50 characters on each line (if longer than 50 characters,
then skips two lines and continues, with a blank line between title
text lines)
/1
Text single spaced /2
No indenting of paragraphs /1
Blank line inserted between paragraphs /1
Identifying information includes: project title, student name, name of
client coordinator(s), supervising professor(s), university address
/2
Appropriate headings provided for Introduction, Summary of
impact, and Technical description sections
/2
Total points for form and formatting /15
B. Images
Photographs in black and white, not color /1
Photographs are hard copies of photo prints, not digital /1
Line art done with a laser printer or drawn professionally by pen
with India (black) ink
/2
Images clearly complement the written report content /2
Photographs or line art attached to report by paperclip /1
Photographs or line art numbered on back to accompany report /1
Figure headings inserted within the text with title capitalization,
excluding words such as “drawing of” or “photograph of”
/2
Total points for images /10
Chapter 4: Using NSF-Sponsored Projects To Enrich Students’ Written Communication Skills 29
C. Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style
Consistent tenses throughout each section of the report /2
Grammatical accuracy, including appropriate subject-verb agreement /2
Spelling accuracy /2
Appropriate punctuation /2
Abbreviations and symbols used consistently throughout (For
example, " or in. throughout for “inch;” excludes apostrophe for
plural on abbreviations, such as “BMEs” or “PCs”
/2
Uses the word “or” rather than a slash (/) (For example, “He or she
can do it without assistance.”)
/1
Numbers one through 9 spelled out in text; number representations
for 10 and higher presented in digit form (except in series of numbers
below and above 10, or in measurement lists)
/1
In lists, items numbered, with commas between them (for example:
“The device was designed to be: 1) safe, 2) lightweight, and 3)
reasonably priced.”)
/1
Consistent punctuation of enumerated and bulleted lists throughout
the report
/2
Total points for grammar, spelling, punctuation, and style /15
D. Overall content
Excludes extensive tutorials on specific disabilities /2
Demonstrates appropriate language regarding individuals with
disabilities
/3
Avoids redundancy of content among sections /3
Demonstrates clear and logical flow of ideas /3
Excludes use of proper names of clients /3
Citation and reference provided for any direct quote from published
material
/1
Total points for overall content /15
30 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
E. Section content
Introduction
Includes a brief description of the project in laypersons’ terms /4
Includes problem addressed, approach taken, motivation for the
approach, a summary of usual or existing solutions, and problems
with these solutions
/4
Summary of impact
Includes a brief description of how this project has improved the
quality of life of a person with a disability
/5
Includes a quoted statement from an educational or health care
specialist who supervises the client, or from a significant other
/2
Includes a description of the project’s usefulness and overall design
evaluation
/5
Technical description
Clear, concise technical description of the device or device
modification such that others would be able to replicate the design
/10
Detailed parts lists included only if parts are of such a special nature
that the project could not be fabricated without the exact identity of
the part
/2
Text refers to circuit and/or mechanical drawing of the device /3
Includes analysis of design effectiveness /5
Concludes with approximate cost of the project, including parts and
supplies (not just the NSF's contribution) and excluding personnel
costs
/5
Total points for section content /45
Evaluation Summary
A. Total points for form and formatting /15
B. Total points for images /10
C. Total points for grammar, spelling, punctuation, style /15
D. Total points for overall content /15
E. Total points for section content /45
TOTAL POINTS /100
Chapter 4: Using NSF-Sponsored Projects To Enrich Students’ Written Communication Skills 31
APPENDIX B: A Summary of Guidelines for Writing about Persons with
Disabilities
The World Health Organization (WHO) has
launched world-wide efforts to modify the ways in
which we refer to persons with disabilities. The
WHO emphasizes that disablement is not
considered an attribute of an individual, but rather
the complex interactions of conditions involving a
person in the context of his or her social
environment. One classification scheme proposed
by the WHO, the International Classification of
Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH)
employs the general terms “impairment”,
“disability”, and “handicap”, while a more recent
scheme, the ICIDH-2, employs the terms
“impairment”, “activity”, and “participation”, to
refer to the various contextual aspects of disabling
conditions one might experience. 21 Healthcare
professionals and researchers throughout the world
are following suit by de-emphasizing the reference
to individuals according to medically-based
diagnostic categories, focusing instead on their
holistic functional concerns and what might be done
to address them. Readers of this book are
encouraged to join in this important movement.
General guidelines are presented here.
Recognize the importance of currency and
context in referring to individuals with
disabilities
There are always variances in the terms that
particular consumers or readers prefer, and it is
essential to keep current regarding changes in
accepted terminology.
21 World Health Organization (1999). ICIDH-2:
International Classification of Impairments,
Activities and Participation: A manual of
dimensions of disablement and health [on-line].
Available:
http://www.who.int/msa/mnh/ems/icidh/introd
uction.htm
Refer to “disabilities”
Although the very term “disability” may be
considered offensive to some (with its inherent focus
on a lack of ability), it is currently preferred over the
term “handicap” in reference to persons with
physical, cognitive, and/or psychological challenges
or “disabilities”.
Use person-first language.
Person-first language helps emphasize the
importance of the individuals mentioned rather than
their disabilities. For example, it is appropriate to
refer to a “person with a disability” instead of
“disabled person,” and to say “a child with cerebral
palsy” instead of “a cerebral palsied child.
Avoid using condition labels as nouns
Many words conveying information about specific
disabilities exist in both noun and adjectival forms,
yet should primarily be used only as adjectives, or
even better, modified into nouns corresponding to
conditions, as in the person-first language examples
given above. For example, it is not appropriate to
call an individual with aphasia “an aphasic.”
Although the term “an aphasic individual” would
be preferred to the use of “an aphasic” as a noun,
such labeling may convey a lack of respect for, and
sensitivity toward, individuals who have aphasia.22
A more appropriate term would be “person with
aphasia.” Likewise, it is not appropriate to call an
individual with paraplegia “a paraplegic,” or to call
persons with disabilities “the disabled.”
Avoid Language of Victimization
Do not use language suggesting that clients are
“victims” or people who “suffer” from various
forms of disability. For example, say, “the client
had a stroke” rather than “the client is a stroke
victim.” Say, “She uses a wheelchair,” rather than
“she is confined to a wheelchair.” Say “her leg was
22 Brookshire, R.H. (1992). An introduction to
neurogenic communications disorders. St. Louis:
Mosby – Year Book.
32 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
amputated…” instead of, “the client suffered an
amputation of the leg.”
Avoid Words with Negative Connotations
Words that evoke derogatory connotations should
be avoided. These include such words and phrases
as affliction, crazy, crippled, defective, deformed,
dumb, insane, invalid, lame, maimed, mute, retard,
and withered.
Encourage Others in Appropriate
Language Use
By modeling appropriate language in writing about
persons with disabilities, authors take an important
step in helping others to improve in this area. It is
also important to help others learn to implement
guidelines such as these directly through course
work and other educational experiences. Likewise,
polite and constructive corrections of others using
inaccurate language helps encourage more positive
communication as well as more enabling positive
societal attitudes, widening the arena for
empowering persons with disabilities.
33
CHAPTER 5
CONNECTING STUDENTS WITH
PERSONS WHO HAVE DISABILITIES
Kathleen Laurin, Ph.D., CRC (Certified Rehabilitation Counselor),
Department of Special Education Counseling, Reading and Early Childhood (SECREC),
Montana State University,
1500 University Dr., Billings, MT 59101-0298, (406) 657-2064,
klaurin@msubillings.edu
Steven Barrett23, Ph.D., P.E.,
Assistant Professor Electrical and Computer Engineering
College of Engineering,
P.O. Box 3295, Laramie, WY 82071-3295
steveb@uwyo.edu
Kyle Colling, Ph.D.,
Department of Special Education Counseling, Reading and Early Childhood (SECREC),
Montana State University,
1500 University Dr.,Billings, MT 59101-0298, (406) 657-2056,
kcolling@msubillings.edu
Kay Cowie, Assistant Lecturer, MS,
Department of Special Education,
The University of Wyoming,
Mcwhinnie Hall 220, Laramie, WY 82071, (307) 766-2902,
kaycowie@uwyo.edu
23 Portions of “The Engineering Perspective” were presented at the 40th Annual Rocky Mountain Bioengineering
Symposium, April 2003, Biloxi, MS (Barrett, 2003)
34 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
INTRODUCTION
For many students, participation in the National
Science Foundation (NSF) projects to aid persons
with disabilities is a unique experience. Often it is
their first opportunity to work with individuals with
disabilities. As such, not only must they meet the
academic requirements of their senior design
project, but in order to be successful, they must also
learn about disabilities and related issues. Only
when students are able to combine their scientific
knowledge with an understanding of other related
humanistic factors will they be able to make
significant contributions to the field. Therefore, it is
imperative for engineering programs participating
in the NSF projects to ensure that students have the
opportunity to gain the necessary awareness and
social competencies needed. Specifically, students
need to have a basic understanding of philosophical
attitudes toward disability as well as an
understanding of assistive technology and how to
communicate effectively with persons with
disabilities. This awareness and understanding will
not only enable students to have a more meaningful
experience, but also ensure a more meaningful
experience for the individuals with whom they will
be working.
Students must also understand the engineering
aspects of their project. The engineering aspects
may be viewed from two different levels: the
programmatic aspects of the project and the
engineering details of their specific project. At the
program level, projects must be properly scoped for
difficulty and required expertise. At the individual
project level the projects must meet specific
requirements but also must be safe and reliable.
Senior design faculty as well as participating
students have the joint responsibility of ensuring
these engineering aspects are met.
In this chapter we will discuss these diverse yet
related aspects of National Science Foundation
engineering senior design projects to aid persons
with disabilities. We will first examine the social
constructs of disability, followed by the proper
language of disability. We will then investigate
assistive technology and universal design principles.
This chapter will conclude with a discussion of the
engineering aspects for a successful design
experience.
Models of Disability
There are three predominant social constructs of
disability. These models define the source or
problem of disability, who holds the onus, and the
ways that best address the related issues. The oldest
model is the moral model, which posits that
disability is caused by moral lapse or sin. It explains
disability as a supernatural phenomena or act of
God that serves as punishment and represents the
consequences of perceived wrongdoing. It brings
shame to the individual and in cultures that
emphasize family and/or groups over the
individual, the shame spreads to the family and/or
group. The person and/or family carry the blame
for causing the disability. In a tenuously more
auspicious interpretation of the moral model,
disability is perceived as a test of faith, i.e. “God
only gives us what we can bear” or as a mystical
experience in which one sense may be impaired but
others are heightened and the adversity of the
disability provides increased emotional and spiritual
strength often recognized by the belief that “with the
grace of God” the disability can be overcome.
Given the limitations of the moral model, the
medical model began to emerge in the mid- 1800s as
a result of developing science and improved
humanistic medicine. In this model, disability is
recognized as a medical problem that resides within
the individual. It is a dysfunction, defect, or
abnormality that needs to be fixed. The ambition is
to restore normality and cure the individual. It is a
paternalistic model that expects an individual to
assume the role of a victim or sick person and avail
themselves to medical professionals and services.
The individual is a passive participant. However, as
medicine and professionals have advanced in their
knowledge and understanding, this model has given
way to a more person centered version, often
referred to as the rehabilitation model, in which
disability is analyzed in terms of function and
limitations. In this paradigm, a more holistic
approach is taken. The individual is a more active
participant and his or her goals are the basis for
therapeutic intervention. The emphasis is on
functioning within one’s environments and a variety
of factors are assessed in terms of barriers and or
facilitators to increased functioning. This model
recognizes disability as the corollary of interaction
between the individual and the environment. The
individual is recognized as a client and the emphasis
is based on assisting the individual in adjusting or
adapting. It is important to note that, although this
Chapter 5: Connecting Students With Persons Who Have Disabilities 35
model derives from a systems approach, the
primary issues of disability are still attributed to the
individual.
In the last 30 years, another model has emerged, the
social model of disability, which is also referred to as
a minority group model and/or independent living
model. Its genesis resides within the disability rights
movement and proclaims that disability is a social
construction. Specifically, the problem of disability
is not within the individual, but within the
environment and systems with which the individual
must interact. The barriers that prevent individuals
with disabilities from participating fully and equally
within society include prejudice, discrimination,
inaccessible environments, inadequate support, and
economic dependence.
While it is beyond the scope of this chapter to view
these constructs in detail, an awareness of these
models enables one to examine their own beliefs and
attitudes toward disability. It also helps students
understand that they will encounter both
professionals and persons with disabilities whose
beliefs are rooted in any one (or combination of)
these identified constructs. Although it may not be
readily evident, these beliefs will impact how
students approach their projects, their ability to see
beyond the disability and consider other related
factors, and their ability to establish meaningful
relationships with the individuals they are trying to
assist. Therefore, it is highly recommended that all
engineering programs establish collaborative
partnerships with other disability professionals in
order to provide students with an awareness of
disability issues. Potential partners include other
programs within the university, especially those
with disability studies programs, state assistive
technology projects, and independent living centers.
Language of Disability
Terminology and phrases used to describe many
people (those with and without disabilities) have
changed over time. Many words and phrases are
embedded in the social constructs and ideologies of
our history and the changes in terminology reflect
the paradigm shifts that have occurred over time.
For example, the terms Native American or African
American have changed with the Zeitgeist and no
longer reflect the often derogatory words or phrases
that preceded them. Although there is often disdain
for those that advocate political correctness, it is
important to realize that words and expressions can
be very powerful and they do in fact communicate
attitudes, perceptions, feelings, and stereotypes.
They can be oppressive or empowering. The
changes in language that have occurred represent an
acceptance of diversity and a respect for differences
which ultimately impact social change. As
professionals and educators, we are in fact, agents of
change, and it is our responsibility to recognize the
power of language and to use it befittingly in our
conversations, discussions and writings.
In regard to disability, the use of person first
language (i.e. always putting the person before the
disability) recognizes the person first and foremost
as a unique individual. In contrast, referring to
someone by his or her disability defines them by a
single attribute and limits the ability to distinguish
who they are as a person from the disability, which
in fact they may consider to be a very minute
characteristic. For example, the statement “The
stroke victim’s name is Joe” conjures up a very
different image from “Joe is a great musician who
had a stroke last year”, or “she can’t ski; she is
paralyzed and confined to a wheelchair” versus “she
loves to ski and uses a sit ski device because she has
paraplegia and is a wheelchair user.” Putting the
person before the disability demonstrates respect
and acknowledges the person for who they are, not
for what they do or do not have. Although it may
seem awkward when one first begins to use person
first language, it will become natural over time, it
will demonstrate respect, and it will have a positive
societal impact. For general guidelines on person
first language, a keyword internet search will reveal
many resources. For guidelines on writing, see
Chapter 4.
Assistive Technology and Universal
Design
Assistive Technology (AT) is a general term that
describes any piece of equipment or device that may
be used by a person with a disability to perform
specific tasks and to improve or maintain functional
capabilities, thus providing a greater degree of
independence, inclusion, and/or community
integration. It can help redefine what is possible for
people with a wide range of cognitive, physical, or
sensory disabilities. AT can be simple or complex,
and can include off the shelf items as well as special
design. Devices become AT through their
application. This technology may range from very
low-cost, low-tech adaptations (such as a battery
interrupter to make a toy switch accessible) to high-
36 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
tech, very expensive devices (such as a powered
mobility equipment and environmental controllers).
Assistive Technology can include cognitive aids,
aids to assist with walking, dressing, and other
activities of daily living, aids to augment hearing or
vision, adaptive recreation devices, augmentative
communication aids, and alternate computer access.
Services related to Assistive Technology may
include evaluation for appropriate equipment and
systems, assistance with purchasing or leasing
devices, and selecting, defining, fitting, adapting,
applying, maintaining, repairing, or replacement of
equipment and systems. In addition, services could
include training and technical assistance for
individuals and their families, and/or other
professionals. Assistive Technology may be used at
home, in the workplace, in the classroom and in the
community to provide creative solutions in assisting
individuals as they go about their activities of living,
learning, working, and playing.
Universal Design (UD) refers to a concept or
philosophy for designing and delivering products
and services that are usable by people with the
widest possible range of functional capabilities. This
includes products and services that are directly
usable (without requiring assistive technology) and
products and services that are made usable with
assistive technology.
As noted earlier, the social model of disability
focuses on the environment as the most significant
barrier preventing people with disabilities from full
contribution to all aspects of society. As such, the
concepts of universal design have significant
potential for remedy (see reference section for
resources specific to universal design). The basic
premise of universal design is to create access, in
terms of the mass marketplace as well as community
and information environments, for as many people
as possible, regardless of age, size, or ability.
It is estimated that approximately thirty million
people have a disability or functional limitation due
to injury, illness or aging (Vanderheidin, 1990). With
the advances in modern medicine and the emerging
inroads in health promotion and disease prevention,
people are living longer. Nearly everyone will
experience some type of functional limitation during
the course of a lifetime. Given such broad
prevalence of disability in the general population,
the need for universal design becomes self-evident.
The underlying principles of universal design (UD)
are available for review at www.design.ncsu.edu,
The Center for Universal design, North Carolina
State University. These basic principles provide the
philosophical interface between functional
limitations/disability and best practices in design.
In fact, universal design principles can often
simplify the adaptation or even eliminate the need
for specialized design created specifically for the
individual person. Conversely, when prototype
devices are necessary, if they adhere to principles of
UD, it is much more likely that the device will also
be able to be adopted by others and that the
technology will be able to be transferred to other
applications. When assistive technology is necessary
to support access and/or use of the built
environment, products, or information, the
understanding that any design must first and
foremost respect personal dignity and enhance
independence without stigmatizing the individual is
critical. This is clearly a quality of life issue for
everyone. Working with an individual who has
disabilities to develop assistive technology requires
the engineer to actively collaborate, respecting the
right of each person to self-determination and self-
control (Shapiro, 1993).
In general, the areas of functional limitation most
amenable to benefit from the concepts of universal
design (and assistive technology where necessary)
are in the broad categories of: communication,
mobility, sensory, manipulation, and cognition
including memory. All design should consider and
address varying human abilities across each of these
domains. The goal of universal design is to
eliminate, as much as possible, the need for assistive
technologies because the focus of all design is
inclusive rather than restrictive. Historically,
designs were often based on the young, able-bodied
male. With the advent of UD, designers are
redefining the user to include as many people as
possible with the widest range of abilities.
There are many examples of how assistive
technologies have been adopted by the general
population. For example, at one time the use of
closed captioning was limited to individuals who
were hard of hearing or deaf. Today, captioning can
be seen on televisions located in public places such
as restaurants, airports, and sports bars. Captioning
is also used by many people in their own homes
when one person wishes to watch TV while another
does not. Other examples include ramps, curb cuts
Chapter 5: Connecting Students With Persons Who Have Disabilities 37
and automatic door openers. Initially designed for
individuals who were wheelchair users, it was
quickly realized they also benefited delivery
personnel, people with strollers, people with
temporary injuries, cyclists, etc. In addition, many
items related to computer access such as voice
recognition, are now employed in a variety of
computer and telecommunication applications.
When UD principles are employed, the whole
environment, in the broadest sense becomes more
humane and maximizes the potential contribution of
everyone, not just those with disabilities.
As senior design students explore their options for
projects, an awareness of disability issues, existing
assistive technologies and universal design
principles will ensure that their projects incorporate
state-of-the-art practices. A list of valuable resources
is included at the end of this chapter.
The Engineering Perspective
To provide for a successful Engineering Senior
Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
Program, projects must be successful at both the
program level and the individual project level. In
this section we discuss aspects of a successful
program and use the University of Wyoming’s
program as a case study.
To be successful at the academic program level, a
program must successfully address the following
aspects:
• Provide a team approach between assistive
technology professionals and engineering
participants,
• Receive appropriate publicity within
assistive technology channels,
• Provide projects that have been properly
scoped for difficulty, student team size, and
required student expertise, and
• Have mechanisms in place to address the
safety aspects of each project and the legal
aspects of the program.
To address these needs, the College of Engineering
partnered with four other programs to identify the
specific needs of the individual. Specifically, the
college joined with the Wyoming Institute for
Disabilities (WIND) assistive technology program,
Wyoming New Options in Technology (WYNOT)
(including their Sports and Outdoor Assistive
Recreation (SOAR) project) and the university's
Special Education program.
With this assembled team of professionals, we
assigned specific duties to the team members. The
WYNOT Project Director served as the coordinator
with the community to identify specific assistive
technology needs. This was accomplished using a
short project application to identify the desired
assistive device and the special needs of the
individual. Project proposals were initiated by the
individual with a disability, his/her family
members, caregivers, teachers, or any of the service
agencies in the state of Wyoming. WYNOT was also
the key player in the promotion of the Biomedical
Engineering Program and Research to Aid Persons
with Disabilities (BME/RAPD). Marketing included
featured articles in the WYNOT newsletter, posting
of project information on the WYNOT website,
development of a project website,
(http://wwweng.uwyo.edu/electrical/faculty/barr
ett/assist/), public service announcements, and
statewide and nationwide press releases.
The WYNOT project director and the engineering PI
met on a regular basis to evaluate the suitability of
the submitted projects. Specifically, each requested
project was reviewed to ensure it was sufficiently
challenging for a year long senior design project.
Also, the required engineering expertise was scoped
for each project. Once a project was determined to
be of suitable scope for an undergraduate design
project, the PI coordinated with the appropriate
engineering department(s) to publicize the project in
the senior design course. This process is illustrated
in Figure 5.1. Overall, an individual with a
disability was linked with a student engineering
team to provide a prototype custom designed
assistive device specific to his/her needs.
Since these projects involve the use of human
subjects, students were required to complete an
Institutional Review Board (IRB) study prior to
initiating a specific project. These studies were
completed and submitted to the IRB per federal and
university guidelines. Furthermore, projects were
delivered to the recipients only after extensive
testing. At that time the recipient or their legal
guardian signed a “Hold Harmless” agreement.
This agreement was reviewed and approved by the
university’s legal office.
At the individual project level, students must:
38 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities
• Be educated on assistive technology
awareness,
• Be committed to delivering a completed,
quality project,
• Be aware of available expertise to assist with
the technical aspects of the project,
• Work closely with the individual who will
be using the project, and
• Provide adequate time in the project
schedule for testing and remanufacture if
required.
To assist the students in developing these aspects of
the project, the PI met with each senior design
course at the beginning of the semester. The PI
reviewed the purpose of the program, described
potential projects, and also emphasized the
importance of delivering a completed project.
Students were encouraged to meet individually with
the PI if they wanted more information about a
specific project. At these follow-up meetings, the
students were given all available information about
the project and a point of contact to obtain more
information from the requesting assistive technology
agency or individual. Students were encouraged to
contact these individuals to begin developing a
relationship between the project user and designer.
Many of the projects were interdisciplinary in nature
typically involving both mechanical and electrical
engineering students. Faculty advisors for the
senior design courses set up several “get
acquainted” sessions at the local pizza parlor for
students to get to know each other and also to
review potential projects.
WYNOT also provided training to the engineering
students regarding assistive devices and services.
This training was provided to all students in the
senior design course regardless if they were
participating in the assistive technology program.
This provided disability awareness to the state’s
next generation of engineers.
Expected Benefits
It is a challenge to get a program of this type
initiated; however, the potential benefits far
outweigh these challenges. Here is a list of potential
benefits:
• Provide engineering students multi-
disciplinary, meaningful, community
service design projects,
• Provide persons with disabilities assistive
devices to empower them to achieve the
maximum individual growth and
development and afford them the
opportunity to participate in all aspects of
life as they choose,
• Provide engineering students education and
awareness on the special needs and
challenges of persons with disabilities, and
• Provide undergraduate engineering
students exposure to the biomedical field of
engineering.
This quote from a student who participated in the
program best sums up the expected benefit,
“As an undergraduate student in the college of
engineering, this project personally affected my life
in many ways. It not only challenged me to think
creatively and to be able to come up with an original
Engineering
Coordinator
(PI)
WYNOT
Program
Director
Electrical
and Computer Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Civil and Architectural
Engineering
University of Wyoming
College of Engineering
Computer Science University of Wyoming
Special Education Program
Service to the Disabled
Community Programs
Wyoming Institute
for Disabilities (WIND)
Wyoming New Options in
Technology (WYNOT)
Sports & Outdoor
Assistive Recreation
(SOAR)
Figure 5.1. Program Flow for Undergraduate Design Projects to Aid Wyoming Persons with Disabilities (Barrett,
2003).
Chapter 5: Connecting Students With Persons Who Have Disabilities 39
design, but it also allowed me to see at a young age
how the work I do can better other lives. I am proud
to have been a part of this project and to know that
something that I helped design and build is allowing
people from around the state of Wyoming to be
educated about disabilities (Barnes, 2003).”
Resources
Resources on Disability:
The Family Village is a website maintained by the
Waisman Center at the University of Wisconsin-
Madison,
http://www.familyvillage.wisc.edu/index.htmlx
The Library section allows individuals to search for
specific diagnoses or general information on
numerous disabilities.
The ILRU (Independent Living Research Utilization)
http://www.ilru.org/ilru.html program is a
national center for information, training, research,
and technical assistance in independent living. The
directory link provides contact information for all
Independent Living Centers in the country and US
territories.
Resources on Assistive Technology:
The National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation
and Research,
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/NIDRR/
funds the state Assistive Technology projects as well
as Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers
(RERC). The state projects are excellent resources on
a variety of AT issues and the RERC’s conduct
programs of advanced research of an engineering or
technical nature in order to develop and test new
engineering solutions to problems of disability.
Information on these centers is available through the
NIDRR website by searching their project directory
for Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers.
These centers specialize in a variety of areas
including mobility, communication, hearing, vision,
spinal cord injury, recreation, prosthetics and
orthotics, and wireless technologies to name just a
few. These are excellent resources to learn more on
state-of-the-art engineering projects to assist
individuals with disabilities.
Another valuable source is the Rehabilitation
Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of
North America (RESNA) http://www.resna.org/.
This is a transdisciplinary organization that
promotes research, development, education,
advocacy and the provision of technology for
individuals with disabilities. In addition, by using
the technical assistance project link on the home
page, one can then locate all of the state assistive
technology projects and obtain contact information
for their particular state or territory.
For specific product information,
http://www.assistivetech.net/ as well as
http://www.abledata.com/Site_2/welcome.htm are
excellent resources.
Resources on Universal Design:
The Center for Universal Design, North Carolina
State University, http://www.design.ncsu.edu/cud.
The Trace Research and Development Center,
University of Wisconsin-Madison,
http://www.trace.wisc.edu.
The Center for Inclusive Design and Environmental
Access (IDEA), University at Buffalo, New York,
www.ap.buffalo.edu/idea.
References
J. Barnes, S. Popp, S.F. Barrett, K. Laurin, J.
Childester Bloom (2003). Starwriter – Experiences in
NSF Undergraduate Design Projects. Proceedings of
the 40th Annual Rocky Mountain Bioengineering
Symposium 2003, Instrument Society of America, 437,
591-596 .
S.F. Barrett, K. Laurin, J. Chidester Bloom (2003).
Undergraduate Design Projects to Aid Wyoming
Persons with Disabilities. Proceedings of the 40th
Annual Rocky Mountain Bioengineering Symposium
2003, Instrument Society of America, Volume 437, 597-
602, .
Shapiro, J. (1993). No pity: People with disabilities, a
new civil rights movement. New York: Random
House.
Vanderheiden, G. (1990). “Thirty-something
(million): Should they be exceptions?” Human
Factors, 32, (4), 383-396.
40 NSF 2005 Engineering Senior Design Projects to Aid Persons with Disabilities

Navigation menu