Session F2H

Creating a Sun Clock

Richard Bannerot
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, TX, 77204-4006; rbb@uh.edu
Abstract - An individual project in an early engineering
design course is described in which students were required
to learn about a simple, ancient system for telling time,
namely a sun clock. The students then designed, fabricated
and presented for testing both a vertically and horizontally
mounted sun clock. These projects were evaluated based
on the accuracy of the clocks, the quality of the artifacts,
and a written report.
The students were asked to
participate in the grading of the artifacts.
Their
evaluations were shown to be very conservative
(Everyone was given As and Bs.) in spite of explicit
instructions to the contrary, leading to the suggestion that
engineering students may lack the skills to make effective,
qualitative judgments and may benefit from an exposure
to design in other, more qualitative disciplines like interior
design, industrial design, and/or architecture.
Index Terms Design and fabricate, Early design, Subjective
evaluation, Sun clocks

INTRODUCTION
A project oriented, sophomore design course [1] has been a
required course for the BSME at the University of Houston
since 1980. The course is taught each fall and spring semester
to between 35 and 55 students. The course is usually the first
engineering course taken by a mechanical engineering student.
Therefore, part of the courses objective is to introduce
students to, and build their confidence in, problem-solving.
During a typical semester, one major team project and one or
two minor projects (individual or team) are assigned. This
paper describes one of the two minor, individual projects
given to the class in the spring 2003 which counted for 15% of
the semester grade.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
The problem statement is paraphrased as follows: Design,
fabricate and test a device that will use the sun to determine
local time in Houston, Texas, between February 6th and 8th as
accurately as possible. The correct local time is that
provided by the US Naval Observatory for the central time
zone. Students were urged to visit various websites or to
consult other resources to learn about the history, design and
construction of such devices. They were told to use materials
and designs that would survive for a least a few weeks outside
in Houston in February, and in particular to design and

construct: 1) a vertically mounted device (for a south-facing

surface) and 2) a portable device for use on a horizontal
surface. Both devices were to be designed to read the time
directly, i.e., without any correction, at times between 8 AM
February 6th and 5 PM February 8th. Detailed instructions
were given concerning the testing procedures and the
alternatives for non-sunny days. Grading would be based on
the accuracy of their clocks (30%); the creativity, robustness,
and beauty of their devices (20%); and the quality of their
written report (50%).
RESULTS
Thirty-eight sets of sun clocks were presented on time for
testing (from the 39 students in the class). The devices were
tested between 3:30 and 4:15 PM on February 6th and
between 9:30 and 10:30 AM on February 7th. The test results
are summarized in Table I. Four of the horizontal devices and
five of the vertical devices were labeled backward, i.e., the
afternoon shadow fell on the AM scale, etc. These devices
received zero credit for testing. For the remaining devices
(34 horizontal and 33 vertical) the mean square errors (the
square root of the sum of squares of the differences between
the indicated and the true time divided by the number of
measurements) were 49 minutes and 75 minutes, respectively
as shown in Table I. Nine horizontal and nine vertical devices
indicated times within 15 minutes of the true time. The
number of devices with errors of less than 30 and 60 minutes
are also shown in Table I. Four of the students produced
devices that indicated a time within 15 minutes of the true
time for both of their devices. (They received 35 out of 30
points, i.e., bonus points, for the testing portion of the project).
The one and seven students who produced devices whose
cumulative errors were between 15 and 30 and between 30
and 60 minutes received 30 and 25 points, respectively. Fewer
points were given for progressively poorer performance. Six
students received 5 or fewer points. The average score was 18
(out of 30).
TABLE I
MEASURING ERRORS FOR SUN CLOCKS

Mean Square Error (minutes)

Number of Devices with AM/PM Error
Number of Devices within 15 Minutes
Number of Devices within 30 Minutes
Number of Devices within an Hour
*horizontal sun clock
**vertical sun clock

H*

V**

49
4
9
17
27

75
5
9
12
21

0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

October 19 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2H-1

Session F2H
TABLE II
GRADING RUBRIC PROVIDED TO STUDENTS

different from
most, a good idea

Engineering

robust and appears accurate

to within 10 minutes

robust but not as

accurate

excellent design and

craftsmanship (top 2 or 3)
one of best five in the class
(100 points or more if
merited)

good design and

craftsmanship
good work,
impressive, one of
top ten

Craftsmanship
Overall Score

80-90
looks good

All the artifacts were placed on display in the workshop

and members of the class were assigned to view (in groups of
ten for 20 minutes each) and evaluate them according to the
rubric shown in Table II provided by the instructor. The
students were asked to evaluate each pair of artifacts on a
scale of 0 to 100 for the four attributes indicated. These
attributes were: overall impression, creativity (quality of the
idea), engineering (does it look like it will work?) and
craftsmanship (care of construction and esthetics). Based on
these evaluations the students were asked to assign a final
grade between 0 and 100 to each pair of artifacts (70
representing the average for the class). This portion of the
evaluation represents 20% of the project grade as noted above.
There were thirty-nine students in the class. Thirty-seven
submitted their pair of artifacts in time for evaluation, and
thirty-five students participated in the evaluation process. All
students were requested to evaluate all artifacts, but eleven
failed to provide their self-evaluation grade. The summary of
the results listing the average grade for each pair of artifacts is
found in Table III. The instructors grading information is in
column 2 and shows an average grade of 68. (The instructions
were to assign an average grade of 70.) The standard deviation
of these grades was 18, and the grades ranged from 31 to 103.
The students self grading of his/her own artifacts is listed in
column 3. (As noted above, eleven students declined to
evaluate themselves.) The students average inflated opinion
of their artifacts is represented by the per cent above the
instructors grade listed in the last row, i.e., on average the
TABLE III
INSTRUCTOR AND STUDENT EVALUATIONS FOR THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT
Avg Grade
Std Dev
Range
% higher

Instructor
68
18
31-103

Self Grade
91
8
65-100
54

Class Grade
86
7
50-100
35

70-80
looks as good as the
others
a little different

60-70
not as in impressive
looking as others
looks like the rest

not so robust and maybe

accurate to 30 to 60
minutes
OK

flimsy and not to be

trusted

average, as good as most

below average design

and craftsmanship
below expectations

below 60
interior, not
much effort
same as most
and not good
quality
poorly
engineered
poor
unacceptable

students self graded their own artifacts 54% above the grade
assigned by the instructor for the same artifacts. The
evaluations by the entire class (with the self-evaluation grade
removed ) are given in column 4.
Figure 1 plots the students self grades against the
instructors grades for the 26 students who provided self
evaluations. As can be seen, judged relative to the instructors
grading, their grading is essentially random (slope of
essentially zero). The 45 degree line (with slope of 1.0
through the origin) superimposed on the graph would
correspond to grading agreement with the instructor. Only one
student (the highest graded one at 103 by the instructor)
actually graded himself lower than the instructor did; the rest
graded themselves higher. Five students graded themselves
over 100% higher; one, over 200% higher. Figure 2 presents a
similar comparison in which all the grades assigned by each
student (except the self-grade) have been averaged and then
plotted against the instructors grade for that students pair of
artifacts. As seen in the figure only one student achieved an
average of 70 for his grades, the same student noted above.
120
Student Self Grade

Creativity

90-100
looks fantastic, really got
my interest
wow! really different, a
very good idea

Overall
Impression

100
80

y=0.058x + 87.4
R2 = 0.017

60
40

45 degree line

20
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Instructor's Grade

FIGURE 1
PLOT OF EACH STUDENTS SELF GRADE AS A FUNCTION OF THE
INSTRUCTORS GRADE

0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

October 19 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2H-2

Session F2H
100

Average Grade by Student

90
80
y = -0.096x + 92.1
2
R = 0.122

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Instructor's Grade s

FIGURE 2
PLOT OF EACH STUDENTS AVERAGE GRADE GIVEN AS A FUNCTION OF
THE INSTRUCTORS GRADE FOR THAT STUDENT

Photographs of representative artifacts are shown in

Figs. 3 through 9. Figures 3 through 5 present what could
be described as the extraordinary examples (the three
highest grades to the right side of Figure 2). The student
who produced the artifact in Fig. 3 works in a metal forming
shop and built it from scrap. The artifact in Fig. 4 was
built from found parts. The student who produced the
artifact in Fig. 5 owns a company that makes etched glass
displays. Descriptions of the remaining artifacts are
included in the figure titles.

FIGURE 4
ONE OF THE MOST IMPRESSIVE LOOKING HORIZONTAL SUN CLOCKS BUT
MORE THAN AN HOUR FAST

FIGURE 5
A MATCHING SET OF SUN CLOCKS ETCHED ON GLASS. THE HORIZONTAL
DEVICE (ON THE RIGHT) HAD ESSENTIALLY ZERO ERROR, BUT THE OTHER
WAS ABOUT 40 MINUTES SLOW.
FIGURE 3
THE BEST HORIZONTAL SUN CLOCK (5 MINUTES SLOW)

0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

October 19 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2H-3

Session F2H

FIGURE 6
INTERESTING SIMPLE DEVICES BUT BOTH REVERSED AM AND PM. THE
VERTICAL SUN CLOCK ON THE RIGHT PRODUCED AN IMAGE (SHADOW) OF
THE NUMERAL ON THE SPOT.

FIGURE 7
TWO SUN CLOCKS DRAWN ON SECTIONS OF GLAZED TILE. THE VERTICAL
DEVICE ON THE LEFT WAS CORRECT WITHIN MINUTES, BUT THE OTHER
WAS ABOUT 45 MINUTES FAST.

FIGURE 8
WOODEN SUN CLOCKS; BOTH ABOUT 30 MINUTES FAST

FIGURE 9
EXAMPLES OF LESS IMPRESSIVE DEVICES MADE OUT OF PAPER

DISCUSSION
Sun clocks date from around 6000 BC and there is certainly
no lack of interest or information available about them with
over 0.5M hits on Google. Four of the websites reviewed
are listed as [2-5] where the reader is referred for
information on the theory and construction of sun clocks.
Examples of two horizontal and two vertical professionally
constructed sundials (sun clocks) are displayed in Figs. 10
to 13.
As seen in Table III, students grade much more
leniently than the instructor, with average grades 35% to
54% above the instructors. They also assign grades more
conservatively; the average standard deviations of their
grades is less than half that of the instructor. Figures 1 and
2 indicate that the grading of most students bears little
relationship to the quality of the artifacts as defined by the
instructor. Even those students who appear to be good
designers and fabricators (represented by points to the right
side of Fig. 2), with one isolated exception, are unable to
consistently distinguish between good and poor designs.
This result seems to indicate that in teaching only the
mechanics of design we may be missing the point that
engineering students lack the basic skills of critical
evaluation. Similar results have been demonstrated in other
projects [6].
All evaluations were compared only to that of the
instructor and not to that of a panel. In retrospect perhaps
additional credibility could be gained with a better
established baseline. On the other hand there was no other
willing evaluator, and this issue is not really about the
ability to distinguish, for example, between the ninth and
tenth best designs, nor to rate the designs on an absolute
scale, but rather only to rank order the designs. The reader
can be assured that there was no similarity in quality
between the best and worst design. Further, few engineering
faculty are likely to assign all As and Bs in their
sophomore classes as the students seem willing to do.

0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

October 19 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2H-4

Session F2H
Other than providing the grading rubric (Table II) and a
brief discussion of it, no attempt was made prior to the
project to educate these students in subjective or critical
evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has described and presented the results from, an
individual design, fabricate and test project from an
introductory design course taken in the sophomore year of a
BSME program. The purposes of the paper were
to describe an effective problem for introductory
design,
to present examples of the students artifacts and their
testing results, and
to illustrate the students reluctance to seriously
evaluate themselves and their peers or a general
weaknesses in their evaluation skills.
To further emphasize this last point, students undervalued
the best designs and greatly overvalued the worse designs
which resulted in a grouping of grades from B to A for
projects that the instructor rated from F to A+. In most
cases these engineering students were unable to make the
decisions to separate the good or poor designs from the
average designs. Perhaps this result is not surprising since
engineering students generally are not exposed to subjective
decision making and critical evaluation, e.g., unlike a visual
arts student. If engineering students are expected to be able
to make these judgments, perhaps we should provide more
instruction and insight.

[4] http://www.sundialsoc.org.uk/ (website of British Sundial Society with

links to many other sources and the Dials of Distinction video with
images of 80 sundials).
[5] http://sundials.org/ (website of North American Sundial Society with a
directory and pictures of sun dials in North America).
[6] Richard Bannerot, Subjective Evaluation in Engineering Design,
Proceedings of the 2004 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition of
the ASEE, June 20-23, 2004, Salt Lake City, UT.. Available on
Conference CD and posted at http://www.aswee.org/acPapers/2004493_Final.pdf Search at
http://www.asee.org/about/events/conferences/search.cfm .
[7] Angela Patton and Richard Bannerot, Chindogu a Problem Solving
Strategy for Transforming Uselessness into Fearlessness, Paper I A
2, Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Gulf-Southwest Annual Conference,
The University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA, March 2022, 2002, available on the conference CD.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Engineering students (and perhaps engineering and/or
engineering design faculty) would benefit from an exposure
to the design process in the visual arts, e.g., interior
design, industrial design, and/or architecture.
The
suggestion is that it could be very beneficial to have trained
artists discuss and demonstrate design in early engineering
design courses. It would be even more interesting to have
early engineering and visual design classes meet together.
As demonstrated in [7], there are projects that engineering
and visual design students can work on together to the
benefit of both groups.

FIGURE 10
HORIZONTAL SUNDIAL AT LONDON WETLANDS CENTRE, BARNES,
LONDON [3]

REFERENCES
[1] Richard Bannerot, Experiences in Teaching Sophomore Design in
Mechanical Engineering, presented at the International Conference
on Engineering Education 2004: Global Excellence in Engineering
Education, Gainesville, FL, October 16-21, 2004. Available on
Conference
CD
and
posted
at
conference
website:
http://www.ineer.org/Welcome.htm
[2] http://www.cpcug.org/user/jaubert/jsundial.html (details of the theory
and construction of sun dials).
[3] http://www.sundials.co.uk/ (Sundials on the Internet a guide to lots of
information about sundials).

FIGURE 11
HORIZONTAL FLORAL SUNDIAL NEAR DUNMOW IN ESSEX, UK, FROM
AROUND 1865 [3]

0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

October 19 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2H-5

Session F2H

FIGURE 13
VERTICAL SUNDIAL AT TRELOARS COLLEGE, HAMPSHIRE, ENGLAND [3]

FIGURE 12
VERTICAL SUNDIAL IN BITOILA, MACEDONIA (12X5 METERS) WITH WALL
DECLINATION NINE DEGREES TO THE EAST. [3]

0-7803-9077-6/05/$20.00 2005 IEEE

October 19 22, 2005, Indianapolis, IN
35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F2H-6