Multi‐University Design Projects

We describe a multi‐university design project in which teams of students across different campuses collaborate on a design and manufacturing project. We show how such projects sensitize students to issues in concurrent engineering and train them in interpersonal skills, communications, and system integration. We believe that this approach allows us to simulate real‐world conditions by imposing realistic boundary conditions on the student teams.     

Socially‐Relevant Design: The TOYtech Project at Smith College

As issues of professional and ethical responsibility are receiving greater emphasis in engineering programs, the view of engineering as a profession in service to humanity is becoming more widespread. One approach to fostering this perspective among engineering students is the inclusion of socially relevant design projects throughout the curriculum. In this paper we present an example of one such project used in the introduction to engineering course at Smith College (the largest women's college in the U.S.) in which students are challenged to design toys that introduce children to the principles that underlie technology (TOYtech, or Teaching Our Youth Technology). Based on student surveys, we found that the majority of the course learning objectives were achieved through the implementation of the project, with students emphasizing that the project taught them about the importance of working well in teams and of considering the societal impact of engineering practice. In addition, we present our findings regarding the psychological type distribution of our inaugural class of first‐year engineering students and compare these to national values for female engineering students as a whole. These preliminary Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) data suggest that our students are particularly responsive to the ethic of social responsibility in engineering, and that they are strong communicators in addition to possessing a well‐organized, practical approach to problem solving.     

Preparing Students for Careers in Material Handling

This report summarizes the proceedings of a roundtable discussion of materials handling educational issues by a panel consisting of practitioners in the materials handling industry. The objective of the discussion was to: (i) understand how practitioners apply their engineering expertise to industrial problems, (ii) identify critical skills and attributes required of practicing materials handling engineers, and (iii) determine how ties between universities and the practicing community could be strengthened to prepare material handling students for successful careers in the material handling industry. The discussion was centered around five issues related to the above objectives. The panel felt that a vast majority of the materials handling problems faced by practitioners fall in the operational analysis category. Simulation modeling, group problem solving, project management and simple operational analysis based on fundamental mechanical and electrical engineering principles appear to be the primary analytic methods used for problem solving. Graduating engineers entering the materials handling field must possess strong communication, interpersonal and analytical skills, be able to organize and lead a project successfully, and exhibit a high degree of creativity. Because the role of a materials handling engineer will often be that of an internal consultant, they must be able to lead and work effectively in multi‐disciplinary teams. Increased automation on the shop‐floor and globalization of the business world demand that the engineer have a strong multi‐disciplinary background. Materials handling students in the nation's universities must be familiar with various equipment types including their functionality, applications, strengths and weaknesses, have a firm grasp of the analytical and simulation based problem solving tools, and be able to take the “big picture,” systems approach in problem solving. Classroom instruction must include project and case based learning and coverage of theoretical topics. While the former is important for students to be able to solve practical problems, the latter is valuable for imparting analytical skills and creativity. Increased collaboration between the industry and universities will help prepare successful materials handling engineers.     

Two Way Integration of Engineering Education through a Design Project

Horizontal and vertical integration of engineering education is achieved through an early‐design project where students get acquainted with Total Quality Management (TQM) principles and design processes from year‐one of their University education. The project is embedded in the undergraduate chemical engineering curriculum as an activity that involves horizontally several first‐year subjects and vertically a fourth‐year Project Management Practice course and a related Project Management subject. An assessment of the integrated design project indicates that effective teaching and learning spreads through the curriculum, with fourth‐year students acting as project managers and experiencing engineering practice. These management and leadership training processes include a shared responsibility in the organization and in the development of the project, which are key factors for the success of the integrated activity. They are also a first step towards the ETSEQ goal of becoming a sustainable student‐centered educational system.     

Selecting a Model for Freshman Engineering Design

This paper describes a process undertaken at the University of Alaska Fairbanks to select a model for teaching freshman engineering design. The project identified and characterized methods in use for teaching freshman design, and selected method(s) appropriate for UAF with general recommendations for implementation. Background research included a needs and information survey of freshmen and senior engineers, and research on methods currently used to teach design at ABET accredited colleges and universities. Eight methods for teaching design to freshman engineering students were identified. A Weighted Factor Scoring Model was used to determine which methods of teaching design were most applicable to UAF. A reverse engineering model was selected and proposed for the new freshman engineering design course. The methodology, results, and other considerations are discussed.     

An Introduction to Mechanical Engineering Design for Sophomores at Purdue University

Universities play a key role in developing future engineers who understand the full scope of the product realization process, and are well equipped to produce effective, creative solutions to open-ended problems. A key step toward instilling the problem-solving mind-set in students is to lay the proper foundation early. Thus, a new cornerstone course, Introduction to Mechanical Engineering Design, has been developed in the School of Mechanical Engineering at Purdue University to bridge the gap between the freshman science and mathematics courses, and the more traditional mechanical engineering core courses such as thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid mechanics, and machine design. This paper presents the goals of the new sophomore course, some details of its implementation, and results of the first three offerings. The primary goal of the course is to teach the students effective strategies for solving problems that have many acceptable solutions. This goal is met by a mixture of design theory presentations and design practice in a carefully guided semester-long project. Distinction is made throughout the course between effective problem-solving strategies for single-solution problems, common in math, physics, and chemistry courses for example, and multiple-solution problem-solving strategies. Results from the first three offerings of this course indicate that it is changing the way students approach problems in their later courses. Plans for future revisions of the course are also included.     

Musical Instrument Engineering Program at Tufts University

At Tufts University, we have initiated an engineering minor and concentration certificate program in Musical Instrument Engineering (MIE) as an exciting way to introduce and teach principles of mechanical engineering to undergraduate students. The goal of this program is to teach the fundamentals of engineering through the manufacture of musical instruments. As musical instruments are both familiar and complex, they provide non‐threatening and enjoyable focal points for engineering education. This interdisciplinary curriculum combines a variety of learning experiences, including lecturing, experimental analysis, and project development. In this paper we outline the minor and certificate programs, and assess the initial success of the Musical Instrument Engineering program through the response of faculty, administration, and students.     

Innovative First Year Aerospace Design Course at MIT

Students at MIT typically take major‐specific courses beginning with their second year of studies. For the first year students eager to begin their aerospace education and to help those students unsure about selecting aerospace engineering as their major field, the MIT Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics offers an elective course, Introduction to Aerospace and Design. The course makes use of the new opportunities offered by the World Wide Web and provides students a real engineering experience through the hands‐on, Lighter‐Than‐Air (LTA) vehicle design project. The course teaches the basic concepts of aeronautics, includes lectures on design, and gives an overview of astronautics. The flexibility inherent in the World Wide Web allows us to accommodate the needs of students who require a review of the fundamentals in addition to in‐ class lecture material and the needs of others who desire to learn advanced material beyond what is presented in lecture. A Web‐based Discussion Forum greatly facilitated interaction among students, resulting in better vehicle designs and a friendlier classroom environment. The course culminates in an LTA vehicle design competition in which teams of five to six students design and build radio‐controlled blimps measuring up to 5 meters in length. The vehicles are flown around the perimeter of a basketball court with the objective of carrying a maximum amount of payload in a minimum amount of time. The students are introduced to real‐world engineering practice through oral presentations of their preliminary designs and critical designs in front of a faculty jury. Towards the end of the course, the students are required to submit a design portfolio showing how their LTA vehicles took shape via their individual and team efforts. The students are permitted to examine previous designs and improve upon them, yielding better vehicles every year. Results from a survey indicated that the freshmen felt much more comfortable working on technical problems with no clear answers as well as designing and building a device from an assortment of given parts.     

A Comparison of Group Processes,Performance, and Satisfaction in Face‐to‐Face Versus Computer‐Mediated Engineering Student Design Teams

Industry often requires engineers to work in teams. Therefore, many university engineering courses require students to work in groups to complete a design project. Due to the increasingly global nature of engineering, opportunities for students to navigate the issues of distance, time, culture, language, and multiple perspectives associated with virtual teams are becoming particularly desirable. To understand students' experience with virtual teams in a graduate course on principles of lean manufacturing, a group of researchers at a midwestern university compared the project performance, selected group processes, and satisfaction of students randomly assigned to face‐to‐face and computer‐mediated communication design teams. Students in both the face‐to‐face and computer‐mediated communication design teams performed equally well on the final project, and reported similar patterns in group processes with a few exceptions. Students in face‐to‐face design teams were more satisfied with the group experience than those in the computer‐mediated communication design teams; however, all reported an overall positive experience.     

Interdisciplinary Laboratory in Advanced Materials: A Team‐Oriented Inquiry‐Based Approach

Few opportunities exist in most undergraduate engineering curricula for students of different disciplines, even within engineering, to work together. This project demonstrates a way to interject such activities by bringing together students across disciplines from otherwise independent courses. In this first phase of activities at Tennessee Technological University (TTU), chemical engineering (ChE) students from a required laboratory course and mechanical engineering (ME) students from a design elective were brought together in a common interdisciplinary‐team inquiry‐based term project. This report summarizes the course objectives and structure, offers a brief synopsis of the outcomes and direction for the project.     

Teaching Invention and Design: Multi-Disciplinary Learning Modules

This paper outlines an approach to teaching invention and design that combines engineering, social sciences and humanities. We created an experimental course with a collaborative learning environment in which students from a wide range of majors worked in teams on modules, each of which lasted for several weeks and included strong written and oral components. Standard university curricula tend to compartmentalize engineering, humanities and social sciences. But real world engineering decisions defy such compartmentalization, as students discover when they take this course. Four active learning modules from the course are described in this paper: a hands-on project based on the invention of the telephone, a computer simulator to teach driving, an energy-efficient house and a medical decision support system based on a client's needs. A thorough evaluation of the course and modules is included, as are suggestions for future improvements.     

Addressing Common Problems in Engineering Design Projects: A Project Management Approach

In using projects to teach engineering design, the instructor faces the question of how to structure the process to insure an effective learning environment without compromising the independence and open‐ended nature of the student's experience. The instructor faces the problems of student time scallop (the tendency to increase effort exponentially as the final deadline approaches), of potential laggards in a group (students doing little work and getting credit for the group's results) and of students learning appropriate work documentation habits. All of these problems are project management issues and project management tools can be used to solve them. This includes both the instructor's and the student's use of project management tools. In our process, students use three key techniques to address these issues: 1. a milestone schedule, 2. regular project review meetings and memos and 3. design memos which document each design task as the project progresses. Greatest success results when students utilize all three of these tasks. Both students and instructors have experienced reduced time scallop. A memo portfolio provides a measure of individual student performance. Students turn in improved projects, learn some basic project management tools, and gain experience at regular documentation of their work.     

A Learning Community of University Freshman Design,Freshman Graphics,and High School Technology Students: Description,Projects, and Assessment

A learning community was developed to enhance the teamwork and communication components of a freshman design course. The learning community was comprised of students from a freshman design course, a freshman graphics course, and a high school technology course. Design teams were formed by combining three to four students from each of these courses. These teams were required to research, design, build, and test a specified product. The high school and university students communicated only using e‐mails and Internet conferencing. This paper outlines how the learning community is implemented, describes three design projects, and presents the assessment methods. Assessment reveals that university students who participate in the learning community have a better understanding and confidence in the technical aspects of the design project than the students who do not participate in the learning community. It also reveals that high school participants display notable interest in the engineering design process.     

Interdisciplinary Collaborative Learning in Mechatronics at Bucknell University

Examination of the “cone of learning” shows an increase in retention when students are actively engaged in the learning process. Mechatronics is loosely defined as the application of mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, and computer intelligence to the design of products or systems. By its nature, mechatronics is an activity‐oriented course. The course content also provides an opportunity to employ interdisciplinary collaborative learning with active learning techniques. The mechatronics course at Bucknell consists of mechanical and electrical engineering students at the senior and graduate levels. The students engage in a variety of activities in teams comprised of members from each of these groups. In addition to team laboratory exercises and homework assignments, the students work in interdisciplinary groups to process their efforts. That is, they engage in meaningful discussion among themselves concerning their activities and the implications of the various results. The students also act as teachers by preparing lectures and exercises on topics from their discipline to the students in the cross discipline. Specifically, the electrical engineers teach the mechanical engineers microcontrollers, and the mechanical engineers teach the electrical engineers mechanisms. This paper describes the learning techniques employed in this course, as well as the interpretation of the results from the students. It also discusses the relationship of the course outcomes to Criterion 3 of the engineering accreditation criteria promulgated by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (EAC/ABET).     

Integrating Design into the Sophomore and Junior Level Mechanics Courses

Engineering schools across the country are developing ways of integrating design into their curriculum, and a question that often arises is how to best integrate design into the sophomore and junior level courses. Freshman design projects or mechanical dissection courses are designed to give the students hands-on experience in conceptual design and construction, with little if any of the mathematical modeling normally used in engineering design. The capstone senior design project is a true engineering design experience, where students draw from their background to conceptualize, analyze, model, refine, and optimize a product to meet design, manufacturing, and life cycle cost requirements. The sophomore and junior level courses should assist students in making the transition from the “seat-of-the-pants” freshman design approach to the engineering design approach required for the capstone experience and engineering practice. This paper summarizes a three year effort at integrating design into the Mechanics of Materials course, but the principal conclusions drawn would apply to most sophomore and junior engineering science courses.     

Reverse Engineering and Redesign: Courses to Incrementally and Systematically Teach Design

A variety of design‐process and design‐methods courses exist in engineering education. The primary objective of such courses is to teach engineering design fundamentals utilizing repeatable design techniques. By so doing, students obtain (1) tools they may employ during their education, (2) design experiences to understand the “big picture” of engineering, and (3) proven methods to attack open‐ended problems. While these skills are worthwhile, especially as design courses are moved earlier in curricula, many students report that design methods are typically taught at a high‐level and in a compartmentalized fashion. Often, the students' courses do not include opportunities to obtain incremental concrete experiences with the methods. Nor do such courses allow for suitable observation and reflection as the methods are executed. In this paper, we describe a new approach for teaching design methods that addresses these issues. This approach incorporates hands‐on experiences through the use of “reverse‐engineering” projects. As the fundamentals of design techniques are presented, students immediately apply the methods to actual, existing products. They are able to hold these products physically in their hands, dissect them, perform experiments on their components, and evolve them into new successful creations. Based on this reverse‐engineering concept, we have developed and tested new courses at The University of Texas, MIT, and the United States Air Force Academy. In the body of this paper, we present the structure of these courses, an example of our teaching approach, and an evaluation of the results.     

Pedagogy of an Aircraft Studio

A studio was developed to teach engineering design and prepare students for emerging environments in the aircraft industry. Emphasis is placed on synthesis, in general, and specifically, on rigorous solution of open‐ended engineering problems. Key elements are the design, engineering, testing, and fabrication of an aircraft that provides common focus and interdependency, the structure of teams and phases that allows cycling of leadership responsibilities, an open‐ended grading system that reflects the nature of design, and open‐ended laboratory work that provides the reality check. The central focus of the Aircraft Studio, which has been the RP‐3 two‐seat aerobatic sailplane that made its maiden flight in December 1999, has facilitated pragmatic, relevant, “just‐in‐time” education without abandoning the principles of engineering science.     

An Intervention to Address Gender Issues in a Course on Design,Engineering, and Technology for Science Educators

A course on design, engineering, and technology based on Bandura's theory of self‐efficacy was taught to nine science education graduate students who were also practicing teachers. The interpretive analysis method was used to code and analyze qualitative data from focus groups, weekly reflections on classes and readings, and pre‐, post‐, and delayed‐post course questions. The improvement in tinkering and technical self‐efficacies for five males was limited because of initially higher self‐efficacies while that for four females was moderate to high, especially when working in same‐sex teams in a non‐competitive environment. All students also increased their understanding of the societal relevance of engineering and their ability to transfer engineering concepts to pre‐college classrooms. Implementing the principles employed in this intervention in pre‐college science and university engineering classrooms could help recruit students into engineering as well as help retain both male and female undergraduate engineering students.     

Measuring Engineering Design Self‐Efficacy

Background Self‐concept can influence how an individual learns, but is often overlooked when assessing student learning in engineering. Purpose (Hypothesis ) To validate an instrument designed to measure individuals' self‐concepts toward engineering design tasks, three research questions were investigated: (a) how well the items in the instrument represent the engineering design process in eliciting the task‐specific self‐concepts of self‐efficacy, motivation, outcome expectancy, and anxiety, (b) how well the instrument predicts differences in the self‐efficacy held by individuals with a range of engineering experiences, and (c) how well the responses to the instrument align with the relationships conceptualized in self‐efficacy theory. Design /Method A 36‐item online instrument was developed and administered to 202 respondents. Three types of validity evidence were obtained for (a) representativeness of multi‐step engineering design processes in eliciting self‐efficacy, (b) the instrument's ability to differentiate groups of individuals with different levels of engineering experience, and (c) relationships between self‐efficacy, motivation, outcome expectancy, and anxiety as predicted by self‐efficacy theory. Results Results indicate that the instrument can reliably identify individuals' engineering design self‐efficacy (α = 0.967), motivation (α = 0.955), outcome expectancy (α = 0.967), and anxiety (α = 0.940). One‐way ANOVA identified statistical differences in self‐efficacy between high, intermediate, and low experience groups at the ρ < 0.05 level. Self‐efficacy was also shown to be correlated to motivation (0.779), outcome expectancy (0.919), and anxiety (—0.593) at the ρ < 0.01 level. Conclusions The study showed that the instrument was capable of identifying individuals' self‐concepts specific to the engineering design tasks.     

Toward a Strategy for Teaching Engineering Design

Design is behavior. Therefore, it can best be understood by means of behavioral theory and must be taught in a way consistent with the theory of behavior modification. This simple fact appears to have been overlooked by most, if not all, engineering educators who teach design courses or write textbooks on engineering design. This article examines this thesis and its relationship to engineering heuristics by considering specific examples taken from current practice in engineering design education.