This is the authors version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source:

Sauret, Emilie & Hargreaves, Douglas

(2015)
Collaborative learning approach to introduce computational fluid dynamics.
In
2015 Australasian Association for Engineering Education (AAEE) Conference, 6-9 December 2015, Geelong, Vic.
This file was downloaded from: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/91622/

c Copyright 2015 [Please consult the author]

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as

copy-editing and formatting may not be reflected in this document. For a
definitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:
https://aaee2015conference.sched.org/event/5aYs/1a-collaborativelearning-approach-to-introduce-computational-fluid-dynamics

Collaborative learning approach to introduce computational fluid dynamics

Emilie Saureta; Doug Hargreavesa.
School of Chemistry, Physics & Mechanical Engineering, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
Corresponding Author Email: emilie.sauret@qut.edu.au

ABSTRACT
This paper presents the design, implementation and evaluation of a collaborative learning
activity designed to replace traditional face-to-face lectures in a large classroom. This activity
aims to better engage the students with their learning and improve the students experience
and outcomes. This project is implemented in the Fluid Mechanics unit of the Mechanical
Engineering degree at the Queensland University of Technology to introduce students with
the concept, terminology and process of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). The
approach integrates a constructive collaborative assignment which is a key element in the
overall quality of teaching and learning, and an integral component of the students
experience. A detailed survey, given to the students, showed an overall high level of
satisfaction. However, the results also highlighted the gap between students expectations
both for contents and assignment and teacher expectations. Discussions to address this
issue are presented in the paper based on a critical reflection.
BACKGROUND
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is a multi-disciplinary field which requires a large
amount of fundamental knowledge in mathematics, fluid mechanics, fluid dynamics and
thermodynamics. Due to this complexity, some questioning remains in regards to how avoid
the student perception of CFD as a black box, and promote the understanding of detailed
CFD methodology and procedures (Stern, et al., 2006). As suggested by Darmofal
(Darmofal, 2006), the application of active learning will contribute to enhance the conceptual
understanding in conjunction with the integration of theoretical, experimental and
computational techniques.
PURPOSE
This project will evaluate the benefits of collaborative learning activities to introduce CFD in
2nd Year Mechanical Engineering degree.
DESIGN/METHOD
This paper will thus address this issue by replacing traditional face-to-face CFD lectures by
collaborative learning activities with an assessment as the central part of this pilot project. A
complete survey will be proposed to the students and analysed to identify both the positive
and negative outcomes of collaborative active learning on the students learning and
experience compared to traditional lectures.
RESULTS
The project was overall well perceived by the students who performed well in the
assessment. The group work helped students to better engage in their learning and the
collaborative space environment improved the group relationships both inside the group and
with the facilitator.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the overall positive feedback from the students, the expectations gap between
students and teacher in terms of content, assignment and activities is thought to be the main

reason to explain a lower percentage of students intending to recommend this CFD

introduction, indicating that expectations (both from students and teachers) must be clearly
set at the beginning of the teaching period, no matter the teaching method.
KEYWORDS
Collaborative learning activity, constructive assessment, engineering education, CFD.

Introduction
Due to the increasing demand for Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) in a range of
industries (mining, oil and gas, automotive) combined with the availability of user friendly
commercial packages, the demand for engineers trained in CFD has dramatically risen. More
engineering companies are now using CFD in house and it is likely that engineering
graduates will, at some stage of their career, be required to either perform modelling tasks or
at least be able to interpret the simulation results. The demand for students to receive a
higher level of exposure to CFD has been evidenced by employer expectations, engineering
education literature (Adair & Jaeger, 2011; Barber & Timchenko, 2011; Stern, et al., 2006)
and even student feedback. CFD is a multi-disciplinary field which requires a large amount of
fundamental knowledge in mathematics, fluid mechanics, fluid dynamics and
thermodynamics. Due to this complexity, some questioning remains on how to avoid the
student perception of CFD as a black box, and promote the understanding of detailed CFD
methodology and procedures (Stern, et al., 2006). As suggested by Darmofal (2006), the
application of active learning will contribute to enhance the conceptual understanding in
conjunction with the integration of theoretical, experimental and computational techniques.
This paper will thus address this issue by replacing traditional face-to-face CFD lectures by
collaborative learning activities.

Context
A new Engineering course at Queensland University of Technology (QUT) was developed,
which started in 2015. Focusing on the Mechanical Engineering degree, the CFD content
was designed based on a whole of course approach. Thus, in second year, the students will
receive a CFD introduction included in their Fluid Mechanics unit; while in third year, they will
gain practical skills through solving problems using commercial software. In addition, a new
minor will be proposed to students, which will include an advanced CFD unit allowing
students to further deepen their knowledge and skills in CFD.
This paper focuses on the CFD introduction in second year which already exists in the
current Engineering degree in the Fluid Mechanics unit. This unit has approximately 300
students enrolled. The aim of this unit is to introduce the fundamental concepts and
principles of fluid mechanics that are applied by engineers to understand and characterise
mechanical systems using simple examples of the application of the relevant principles. This
year, in conjunction with the unit coordinator, it was decided to:
1. Replace face-to-face lectures by a collaborative and interactive learning approach.
2. Create an assignment for this part of the unit fully-integrated with the collaborative
and interactive learning approach.
The issue of the students engagement in traditional face-to-face large class lectures is thus
addressed in order to improve the students learning experiences and outcomes by using
more collaborative and interactive learning spaces and activities. This paper discusses the
details of the development and implementation of the collaborative learning activity,
integrating a constructive assignment which is a key element in the overall quality of teaching
and learning, and an integral component of the students experience (Brown, Bull, &
Pendlebury, 1997; Hunt & Chalmers, 2012).

Literaturereview
Traditional lectures are still currently the most common instructional method in higher
education. However, according to Bligh (2000), they are ineffective to maintain students
attention, which starts to decline after only 10-15 minutes (Hartley & Davies, 1978). Lectures
are effective to transfer knowledge but not to actively engage students. The Confucius
aphorism: `I hear and I forget, I see and I remember, I do and I understand summarizes the

justification that traditional face-to-face lectures do not promote active learning and thus by
disengaging students limit their learning and outcomes. To engage students at the six levels
of the cognitive domain of the Blooms taxonomy, Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse,
Evaluate, and Create (Anderson, et al., 2000), interactive learning methods are critical.
Hake (1998) published an extensive survey over 6500 students showing that conceptual and
problem-solving skills of students are significantly improved by using interactive-engagement
methods compared to traditional approaches. In engineering, Prince (2004) found that all
forms of active learning provide positive outcomes to the students engagement and
outcomes over traditional methods where the students passively get information. However,
the positive outcomes differ according to the method applied. Prince (2004) identified four
different methods.
Active learning consists of activities introduced in traditional classrooms to engage the
students to think about what they are doing. This is particularly effective for students
attention which thus improves their retention of information (Hartley & Davies, 1978).
Collaborative learning, in contrast to individual work has been extensively studied. Three
important studies (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998a; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998b;
Springer, Stanne, & Donovan, 1999) showed that collaboration at different education levels
and for different disciplines, contributes to significantly improve academic achievement, selfesteem, interpersonal interactions, and perceptions of greater social support of the students.
Cooperative learning slightly differs from collaborative work in the sense that students are
working in teams but are individually assessed. This promotes individual accountability and
mutual interdependence. This also requires the students to periodically self-assess the group
using their own relevant criteria. The main studies in engineering from Johnson et al. (1998a;
1998b) showed similar improvements as with collaborative learning, i.e. improved academic
achievements and social skills. Panitz (1999) also identified improvements in four categories:
academic, social, psychological, and interpersonal skills required for effective team work.
Finally, problem-based learning (PBL) is a method that promotes lifelong learning through
the process of questioning and constructivist learning which generates knowledge and
meaning from interactions between experiences and ideas. Problems introduced to the
students at the beginning of the teaching period provide the motivation for learning by giving
the context. This is a student-centred, directed pedagogy in which students learn about a
subject through the experience of solving a problem. PBL is usually a collaborative or
cooperative work. Many different practices in PBL were identified (Prince, 2004) making the
analysis of its effectiveness on the learning outcomes complex. However, one accepted
conclusion is that it provides positive outcomes in student attitudes. Also, it was evidenced
(Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011) that PBL enhances long-term retention of knowledge and
provides students with better habits, i.e. class attendance, library use and textbook reading
(Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011). Improved comprehension of new information especially
when supported by collaborative or cooperative learning was also reported. PBL provides
opportunities to develop further that knowledge, the extent of learning resulting from both
group collaboration and individual knowledge acquisition (Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011).
Finally, as outlined by Norman and Schmidt (2000), the positive outcomes from PBL rely
heavily on the teachers ability to provide direction. Indeed, they have identified that selfdirection and self-pacing of PBL have detrimental effects on the learning outcomes.
Exeter et al. (2010) listed several approaches that enhance student engagement in different
disciplines. For example, Clark et al. (2008) found that team-based learning is efficient to
engage students in large groups. Students feeling connectedness within a large class will
show better outcomes and engagement (Bilgin, Bulger, Robertson, & Gudlaugsdottir, 2012).
Biggs (2011) highlighted that a constructive alignment of the assessment also helps active
learning and improves students achievements. The use of technologies also appears to
positively engage the students with the learning context (Poirier & Feldman, 2007).
In the particular field of CFD, the demand for trained students has been evidenced by
employer expectations, engineering education literature (Adair & Jaeger, 2011; Barber &

Timchenko, 2011) and even student feedback. However, CFD is a multi-disciplinary field
requiring fundamental knowledge in different areas. Due to this complexity, theres a lack of
highly-trained users (Stern, et al., 2006) and still some questioning in regards how to avoid
the student perception of CFD as a black box, and promote the understanding of detailed
CFD methodology. Adair and Jaeger (2011) also outlined that the amount of required
knowledge in CFD leads to a steep learning curve for students. As suggested by Darmofal
(2006), the application of active learning will contribute to enhance the conceptual
understanding in conjunction with the integration of theoretical, experimental and
computational techniques as the benefits of integrating computer-assisted learning are
multiple, from increased understanding to students satisfaction (Stern, et al., 2006).

Methodology
This pilot project is designed based on the revised version of the Blooms taxonomy for the
cognitive domain: Remember, Understand, Apply, Analyse, Evaluate, and Create (Anderson,
et al., 2000). As such, this project was expecting students to engage at different levels. To
achieve this, face-to-face lectures were replaced by a CFD project using collaborative
spaces and technologies in which students engage through researching the CFD process
and some specific aspect of it through its theory. This required them to familiarize
themselves with the terminology, understand the fundamentals of the discipline and orally
present their learning. This activity also contributed to the graduate attribute to work in
teams. This activity was expected to help building a culture of connectedness promoting
positive staff-student communication, and active and collaborative peer learning. The
assessment was the central part of the teaching design for the group work activity and fullyintegrated into the learning and teaching process. This is one of the seven recommendations
from the Assessment 2020 (Boud, 2010) which encourage the students to learn rather than
making them stressed about their assignment as mentioned by Race (2010).
The project used different active learning approaches including technologies such as
GoSoapBox. The class was split into two treatment groups, one using only a collaborative
space while the other was in traditional rooms in order to evaluate the influence of the
environment on the students engagement. Students were assessed by an oral presentation.

Organisationandcontentselection
Due to the large number of students, groups of 5-6 were formed arbitrarily, with moderation if
required, leading to 56 groups in total. The topics covered the CFD process and thus allowed
students to learn one specific area in their own group. By attending the oral presentations of
the other groups they got an understanding of the other topics, and to experience the other
presentations in context and delivery. Four different topics were assigned to the groups and
selected in order to cover the general CFD process: Mesh, Discretisation, Turbulence
Modelling and Validation & Verification. A 2-hour introduction lecture was given and a final
lecture summed up the project and gave overall feedback to the students.

Methodofassessment
Assessment is a key element in the overall quality of teaching and learning and an integral
component of the students experience (Brown, Bull, & Pendlebury, 1997) (Hunt & Chalmers,
2012). Summative assessments provide both the students and teachers with an updated
status of the knowledge learned on the subject while formative assessments with
constructive feedback provide the students with the opportunity to better engage with their
learning. However, these positive outcomes depend on how well the assessment was
designed. Thus, a constructive assessment was developed in order to contribute to i)
develop the graduate capabilities as defined by the University Manual of Policies and

Procedures and to ii) constructively align with the objectives of the Engineering course. For
example, after completing the assessment, the students should:
be able to communicate effectively and appropriately with engineering discipline
specialists and non-specialists in professional contexts;
clearly report principles and concepts in a professionally oral manner (communication)
acquire the capacity for life-long learning in context of the engineering profession;
be able to work independently and collaboratively in a multi-disciplinary context.
Based on Princes study (Prince, 2004), as a first implementation of this project, an active
collaborative approach, was chosen so that all students in a group get the same grade. Due
to the large number of groups, the assessment was an 8-minute oral presentation with 2
minutes for questions. Marking criteria included presentation structure and clarity, quality of
the visuals, language and timing, understanding and discussion quality.

Evaluation
The project implementation was evaluated based on the 4Rs: Reporting, Relating,
Reasoning, Reconstructing (Ryan, 2011). Peer-review, students feedback and self-reflection
were used to qualitatively and quantitatively evaluate the project in terms of student
satisfaction. The students outcomes were evaluated through the assignment marks.

StudentsResponses
Survey
A questionnaire including 32 questions related to the facilities and learning and teaching
environment, the assessment, the teaching quality and the collaborative work, was given to
the students at the end of the activity. Possible responses were: SD=Strongly Disagree,
S=Disagree, A=Agree, SA=Strongly Agree. Selected questions are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Sample questions from the students survey
Q13. The activities supported my learning
Q15. The facilitator built a good relationship with the group
Q17. The environment was helpful to my learning
Q19. The assignment activities met my expectations
Q20. The group activities improved my learning engagement compared to traditional lectures
Q22. The assignment and group work aided in my learning
Q23. I was given adequate opportunity to demonstrate what I was learning
Q27. The lectures, activities and assignment met my expectations
Q31. The group work helped me better engaging with my learning
Q32. The CFD introduction was excellent overall

ResultsandDiscussion
Overallresultssatisfaction
85% of students responded to the survey; responses are presented in Figure 1. The overall
satisfaction was good with nearly 76% of respondents finding the CFD introduction excellent
(Q32) and nearly 85% estimated that the group activities helped them better engaging with
their learning (Q31). However, only 75.2% found that the group activities improved their

learning engagement compared to traditional lectures (Q20). This contrasts with the students
in the collaborative space who responded positively to this aspect at 81.5% (Figure 2).

Responses [%]

100

SD

SA

80
60
40
20
0
Q13 Q15 Q17 Q19 Q20 Q22 Q23 Q27 Q31 Q32
Question Number
Figure 1: Overall ratings from the students survey

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

SD

SA

(a)

Responses[%]

Responses[%]

Q13 Q15 Q17 Q19 Q20 Q22 Q31

QuestionNumber

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

SD

SA

(b)

Q13 Q15 Q17 Q19 Q20 Q22 Q31

QuestionNumber

Figure 2: Results Comparison between collaborative space (a) and traditional room (b)

Common recurrent feedback received included the learning about CFD without using
software was challenging and didnt meet students expectations. Also, the group size was
too large and the time during the presentation for each student to demonstrate their
understanding was too short. In addition, few students struggled with their groups, while most
of them were fine. However, some highlighted that managing a group of people was one
thing they learnt during the process.
Overall the students performed very well with an average mark of 15 out of 20 with marks
spread between 12/20 and 19/20.

FacilitiesandDelivery
Students in the collaborative space had higher positive perception of both the facilities
(environment and atmosphere) and the delivery by the facilitators (Figure 2). Over 96% of
students in collaborative spaces agreed that the environment was helpful for their learning
(Q17) compared to 84.6% for the students in the traditional rooms. More than 92.5% of
students in the collaborative space found that the facilitator helped building good
relationships in the group (Q15) compared to only 79.9% for the other students.

Discussion
It is clear that collaborative spaces improved building good relationships between students in
the group and with the facilitator. This helped students with their learning engagement as
shown in Q15, Q17 and Q20. However, these benefits did not necessarily imply better
assignment results and satisfaction. The students in the collaborative space better perceived
the concept than the ones in the traditional room thanks to improved interactions. However,
this did not reflect in their grades with an average mark of 14 compared to 15 for the whole
group which wasnt an expected outcome. However, this relates to the lower score in Q22 for
the students in the collaborative space where only 77.8% agreed that the assignment and
group work aided their learning against 82.5% for the students in the traditional rooms. This
can be explained by the assignment perception not the group work in itself. Also, a surprising
result is that only 59% of the students in the collaborative space found the CFD introduction
excellent. However, only 39.5% of these students responded to this question compared to
63% respondents for the other students. These results correlate with the assignment and
activities expectations from the students (Q19). The results highlight the gap between
students expectations both for content and assignment and teacher expectations. This
expectations gap thus creates a gap in the respective perceptions of content and
assignment. The students expectation to use CFD software instead of going through some
theory is most likely the main reason for their responses in Q19. Finally, the students felt that
they didnt get enough opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge as reflected in Q23.
They also felt that the presentation time was too short compared to the 20% contribution of
the assignment to the overall grade of the unit.

Reconstructing
Based on this reflective approach, the proposed modifications of the project are as follows:
Define a real CFD application as the basis for the project for all groups.
Groups will still be assigned but reduced to 3-4 students
Each group will still be assigned a topic. They will write a report on the theory, apply their
knowledge to a practical case given and critically discuss their findings.
In order to improve engagement, all activities will be in collaborative spaces and
computer labs.
A short oral progress update from each group will be shared at the start of the activity.
Supporting slides will be developed for the group activities to help students engaging
and clearly define the objectives of the sessions.
The marking criteria will be re-defined as: 10% attendance and update progress, 20%
internal peer-review, 20% oral presentation, 50% report.
Re-develop the survey to be more explicit.
Options to run 2 parallel sessions to halve the presentation time (over 16 hours due to
group size reduction) will be investigated. Each presentation will be recorded and a copy
of the visuals provided. This is important for transparency and verifiability of the marking
and also for students to have access to all the topics. A criterion-referenced assessment
(CRA) sheet will be developed for peer-review. Each student attending the presentations
will mark the groups based on the CRA. The final grade would be the average given by
students and lecturer. Based on the literature, involving students in the marking process
appears to be an essential tool for effective learning (O'Donovan, Price, & Rust, 2004)
(Elwood & Klenowski, 2002).
Finally in order to refine the survey, another survey will be developed and given to the
students enrolled in the following year Fluid Dynamics unit where they will apply the

knowledge gained in this unit. This survey will focus on the students perceptions of the
outcomes and impact of the CFD introduction to their learning experience and outcomes in
the following unit.

Conclusion
This paper detailed the design, implementation and evaluation of a collaborative learning
activity to replace traditional face-to-face CFD introduction lectures. The teaching design for
the group activity embedded an assignment which was fully-integrated into the learning and
teaching process. The project was overall well perceived by the students who performed well
in the assessment. The group work helped students to better engage in their learning and the
collaborative space environment improved the group relationships both inside the group and
with the facilitator. However, this doesnt reflect on the marks. The expectations gap for
content, assignment and activities between students and teacher is thought to be the main
reason to explain this. Based on this reflection, the designed activity will be modified and a
second cycle will be implemented and evaluated next year. Additional data will be collected
from students who followed this year project once attending their 3rd year Fluid Dynamics.

References
Adair, D., & Jaeger, M. (2011). Integration of Computational Fluid Dynamics into a Fluid Mechanics
Curriculum. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 22(1), 131-141.
Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., et
al. (2000). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives. Abridged Edition.
Barber, T., & Timchenko, V. (2011). Student-specific projects for greater engagement in a
computational fluid dynamics course. Australasian J. of Eng. Education, 17(2), 129-137.
Biggs, J. (2011). Teaching for Quality Learning at University . Society for Research Into Higher
Education: Open University Press; 4 edition.
Bilgin, A. A., Bulger, D., Robertson, G., & Gudlaugsdottir, S. (2012). Enhancing Student Engagement
through Small Group Pedagogies in a Large Class Environment. Creative Education, 3, 824-828.
Bligh, D. A. (2000). What's the Use of Lectures. John Wiley & Sons; 6th Revised edition: Jossey-Bass
Higher and Adult Education.
Boud, D. &. (2010). Assessment 2020, Seven propositions for assessment reform in higher education.
University of Technology Sydney, Australian Teaching & Learning Council.
Brown, G., Bull, J., & Pendlebury, M. (1997). Assessing Student Learning in Higher Education.
Psychology Press.
Clark, M., Nguyen, H., Bray, C., & Levine, R. E. (2008). Team-based learning in an undergraduate
nursing course. Journal of Nursing Education, 47(3), 111-117.
Darmofal, D. L. (2006). Chapter V: Education. In D. A. Caughey, & M. M. Hafez (Eds.), Frontiers of
Computational Fluid Dynamics 2006 (pp. 433-447). World Scientific Publishing Co.
Elwood, J., & Klenowski, V. (2002). Creating communities of shared practice: the challenges of
assessment use in learning and teaching. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 27, 243-256.
Exeter, D. J., Ameratunga, S., Ratima, M., Morton, S., Dickson, M., Hsu, D., et al. (2010). Student
Engagement in Very Large Classes: the Teachers' Perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 35(7),
761-775.
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement vs traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of
mechanics test data for introducing physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66, 64-74.
Hartley, J., & Davies, I. K. (1978). Note-taking - Critical Review. Programmed Learning & Educational
Technology, 15(3), 207-224.

Hunt, L., & Chalmers, D. (2012). University Teaching in Focus, A learning-centred approach. ACER.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998a). Active Learning: Cooperation in the College
Classroom. 2nd ed., Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998b). Cooperative Learning Returns to College: What
Evidence is There That it Works? Change, 30(4), 26-35.
Norman, G., & Schmidt, H. (2000). Effectiveness of Problem-Based Learning Curricula: Theory,
Practice and Paper Darts. Medical Education, 34, 721-728.
O'Donovan, B., Price, M., & Rust, C. (2004). Know what I mean? Enhancing student understanding of
assessment standards and criteria. Teaching in Higher Education, 9(3), 325-335.
Panitz, T. (1999). The Case for Student Centered Instruction via Collaborative Learning Paradigms.
Lanham, Maryland: U.S. Department of Education.
Poirier, C., & Feldman, R. S. (2007). Promoting Active Learning Using Individual Response
Technology in Large Introductory Psychology Classes. Teaching Psychology, 34(3), 194-196.
Prince, M. (2004). Does Active Learning Work? A Review of Research. J. of Eng. Education, 223-231.
Race, P. (2010). Making Learning Happen. London: SAGE Publications, 2nd ed.
Ryan, M. (2011). Improving reflective writing in higher education : A social semiotic perspective.
Teaching in Higher Education, 16(1), 99-111.
Schmidt, H. G., Rotgans, J. I., & Yew, E. H. (2011). The process of problem-based learning: what
works. Medical Education, 45, 792806.
Springer, L., Stanne, M., & Donovan, S. (1999). Effects of Small-Group Learning on Undergraduates
in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and Technology: A Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 69(1), 21-52.
Stern, F., Xing, T., Yarbrough, D., Rothmayer, A., Rajagopalan, G., Smith, S. et al.(2006). Hand-On
CFD Educational Interface for Engineering Courses & Laboratories. J. of Eng. Education,95(1), 63-80.

Copyright
Copyright 2015 [Emilie Sauret & Doug Hargreaves]: The authors assign to AAEE and
educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal
use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright
statement is reproduced. The authors also grant a non-exclusive licence to AAEE to publish
this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors), on Memory Sticks, and
in printed form within the AAEE 2015 conference proceedings. Any other usage is prohibited
without the express permission of the authors.