Section 1 Introduction

This section of the guide:

· Indicates the purpose of the guide and the nature of projects

· Introduces the PBLE (Project Based Learning in Engineering) project

· Explains the structure of the guide and of the complete package

· Acknowledges the help of colleagues

1.1 Purpose and projects

The fundamental purpose of this guide is to help those involved in the teaching of engineering to implement or improve the use of projects in their work with students.

Projects can take many and varied forms including:

· Design and build

· Design portfolio

· Environmental impact assessment

· Management simulation

· Production of a tender document

· Reverse engineering or product analysis

· Simulated public enquiry

The main characteristics of the projects addressed in this guide are that they:

· Are student-centred

· Develop a wide range of skills

· Involve active learning

· Frequently draw on knowledge from a range of modules

· Often involve group work

Some of the main benefits of learning engineering through projects are that:

· Students are encouraged to use a wide range of skills to apply their theoretical knowledge to practical situations

· This helps them to develop a better grasp of theory and to develop new and powerful skills

· Learning engineering through projects is fun for students and for staff.

Projects can operate within hugely diverse contexts and along a broad continuum of approaches. They may be used by a single lecturer or course team within a department that mainly uses more traditional methods of teaching. Or they may be linked to a complete restructuring of the learning experience of all students.

The focus of this guide is the individual lecturer or course team; other parts of the PBLE project will consider department or faculty-wide approaches to learning engineering through projects.

Clearly different types of project will require different approaches. Rather than go into huge amounts of detail on every possible approach this guide seeks to offer general advice and to highlight areas that present particular challenges.

It is worth remembering, though, that most projects take time to develop and usually evolve over several years.

1.1.1 PBL – project-based and problem-based

The focus of this project has been on project based learning because this is a widely used approach within engineering. The term project based learning, and its abbreviation PBL, can cause confusion with problem based learning.

Part of the difficulty is the range of forms that both project based and problem based learning can take. Problem based learning can make use of projects, but does not have to. Project based learning can make use of problems but does not have to. Both can be group-based, but neither has to be. Both can be department-, faculty- or institution-wide (see Case Study 8), but neither has to be.

In engineering the similarities between the two approaches may well be greater than in some other disciplines. Engineering projects will typically address a real world problem; this may not be true of projects elsewhere.

Camille Esch, at http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/PBL&PBL.htm, offers two helpful continua for distinguishing between problem based and project based learning.

One is the extent to which the end product is the organizing center of the project. On one end of this continuum, end products are elaborate and shape the production process, such as a computer animation piece which requires extensive planning and labor. On the other end, end products are simpler and more summative, such as a group’s report on their research findings. The former example is best described as project-based learning, where the end product drives the planning, production, and evaluation process. The latter example, where the inquiry and research (rather than the end product) is the primary focus of the learning process, is a better example of problem-based learning.

A second continuum of variation is the extent to which a problem is the organizing center of the project. On one end of this continuum are projects in which it is implicitly assumed that any number of problems will arise and students will require problem-solving skills to overcome them. On the other end of this continuum are projects that begin with a clearly stated problem or problems and require a set of conclusions or a solution in direct response, where "the problematic situation is the organizing center for the curriculum.". Here again, the former example typifies project-based learning, where the latter is best described as problem-based learning.

It is certainly true that the characteristics identified earlier (see page 1 above) are quite close to the characteristics of problem based learning. So it may not be very helpful to expend too much effort on over-subtle distinctions.

Or, as one authority, described by some as “the father of Project-Based Learning in California”, puts it…

Why should we care what we call it? Are the two the same? If we can develop a meaningful way for anyone, any age, to be challenged and to learn useful skills and knowledge as they answer the challenge, why should we care if it is called project-based, problem-based, or circus-based? We should be expending our energy on more useful questions.

Joe Oakey

http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/Oakey_comments.htm

1.2 The PBLE project

The PBLE project’s aims are to enhance engineering education by promoting and facilitating the use of Project Based Learning, thereby improving students' key transferable skills and their grasp of the subject content. The key skills developed by learning through projects will produce more employable graduates, ready and confident to begin their professional careers.

PBLE is a consortium project, involving engineering academics from the following institution’s engineering faculties:

· University of Nottingham

· Loughborough University

· Nottingham Trent University

The PBLE website (http://www.pble.ac.uk) has resources from the three years the project has been running, including those from the workshops on group work and assessment, mailing lists, and information on ongoing events, such as the PBLE competition for UK academics, and the 2003 conference.

The PBLE project is funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Department for Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment under the Fund for the Development of Teaching and Learning (phase 3).

1.3 How this guide is organised

This guide includes the following chapters:

1	Introduction
2	Case Studies
3	Project Design
4	Learning Outcomes
5	Learners
6	Knowledge Based Skills
7	Process Skills
8	Assessment
9	Supporting Individuals and Groups
10	Resources

This guide is divided into two parts – at the front, immediately after this introduction, are a collection of 12 case studies, real world examples from active academics, using PBL in their courses. The second part is a collection of guidelines for using project-based learning within your own curricula.

Each section – except for the Case Studies - starts with an introduction, and ends with a brief summary.

Within the chapters there are examples drawn from the case studies. These will make it possible to access detailed information about particular approaches. These examples are indicated thus…

“Overall, the project received very positive student feedback and the team training was extremely well regarded…students felt that they had improved a range of skills…[including] delivering presentations, time management, teamworking and problem solving.”

There are also examples of resources that are not taken from the case studies but that provide valuable practical support. These are show thus…

Budget Costs Form

Project title		Students/ departments
Session/ semester		Supervisors/ departments

Component/ Activity Code	Description	Cost Item	Budget cost	Department responsible	Actual cost
		Materials

		Consumables

		Bought-in parts

		Manufacturing

		Equipment buy/hire

		Travel/ subsistence

		Other

		Emergency

		Total costs

1.4 The overall package

This guide is itself part of a more substantial pack. When complete it will also include staff development materials to allow staff/educational developers to work with academic staff to support Learning Engineering Through Projects

1.5 Project team

The team that has put the guide together comprises:

· Editor in chief	Professor Ban Seng Choo Director - Centre for Timber Engineering School of the Built Environment Faculty of Engineering & Computing Napier University 10 Colinton Road Edinburgh EH10 5DT
· Editor	Dr Andrew Wilson Staff Development Loughborough University
· Authors	Dr Adam Crawford Engineering Education Centre Loughborough University	Jan Tennant Staff Development Loughborough University
· Other Contributors	Dr Richard Brooks University of Nottingham Professor George Brown Kathy Carter University of Nottingham Dr Tom Cross University of Nottingham Melvyn Dodridge University of Derby Dr Alistair Duffy De Montfort University Rob Eley LTSN Engineering Chris Evans Aston University Norton Farrow University of Derby Dr Colin Fryer University of Derby Alastair Gardner Independent consultant	Dr Peter Hedges Aston University Dr David Johnson Nottingham Trent University Dr Patrick Littlehales Aston University Dr Andrew McLaren University of Strathclyde Dr Andrew Nurse Loughborough University Iain Paterson-Stephens University of Derby Dr Colin Smith University of Sheffield Dr Simon Tait University of Sheffield Dr Naomi Tyack University of Nottingham Dr Peter Willmot Loughborough University
· Electronic version	Dr Adam Moore University of Nottingham
· Case Study Authors	Melvyn Dodridge University of Derby Dave Easterbrook University of Plymouth Norton Farrow University of Derby Colin Fryer University of Derby Peter Hedges Aston University Warren Houghton University of Exeter	Barry Lennox University of Manchester Patrick Littlehales Aston University Andrew McLaren University of Strathclyde Colin Smith University of Sheffield Simon Tait University of Sheffield Peter Willmot Loughborough University
· PBLE management	Dr Ed Williams PBLE Director University of Nottingham	Dr Alan Howe University of Nottingham

1.6 Contact Information

To offer feedback or to engage in any further discussions on this guide please contact:

The Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre…

Phone	(01509) 227170
Email	enquiries@engsc.ac.uk
Fax	(01509) 227172
Post	Higher Education Academy Engineering Subject Centre Loughborough University Leicestershire LE11 3TU

2.1 A Simulated Public Inquiry

Author(s) Dr Peter Hedges

Institution Aston University

Faculty / School School of Engineering and Applied Science

Department Civil Engineering and Logistics

Programme(s) Civil Engineering

Title of Module(s) Public Inquiry Project

Award(s) BEng, MEng Year of study 2

Module Credits 10 % project assessment 100%

Assessment Outputs Decision report; Proof of Evidence; Oral defence; Journal/newspaper style report; Peer assessment

Industrial/ Professional Participation Yes

Group Project: Yes Group Size: 5 to 7 Group Selection: Tutor/Student

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

The simulated Public Inquiry project, run during the second year of the Civil Engineering degree programmes at Aston University, adopts a student-centred learning approach. It involves undergraduates working as a team to acquire, interpret and analyse pertinent information, and to prepare and present their case at a simulated public inquiry.

The Public Inquiry Project is based upon a real inquiry which took place at Broad Oak in Kent some years ago. Within the inquiry the student groups are allocated roles such as the water companies promoting the scheme, the county council, or local residents . Each group presents their case at the inquiry from the perspective of their allocated role. To assist in developing their case, students may request supporting documents, the majority of which have been distilled from the original reports. Throughout the inquiry the students gain practical experience of real life engineering problems.

The project has a variety of learning outcomes beyond knowledge acquisition. These include: the development of teamwork, communication and decision making skills; generating an understanding of the role of the professional engineer within society; and raising awareness of the sociological and environmental effects of a major development.

Introduction

Engineering and technology degrees tend to be highly structured with programmes biased towards the acquisition of knowledge. Somehow more time needs to be devoted to enabling students to develop inquiring and creative minds, and a project based on a student centred learning approach with role play at its heart is one answer.

The Public Inquiry Project has evolved into its present form through several iterations, and is now taken by all civil engineering undergraduates at Aston during their second year. Ten afternoon sessions are timetabled for the project (see Table 1), but a considerable amount of work takes place outside the allocated time.

The project, in which undergraduates work in groups of between five and seven, has a range of learning outcomes:

i. knowledge acquisition: e.g. water resources, construction, and the UK planning process;

ii. teamwork and communication skills development;

iii. development of decision making skills (the project is open ended);

iv. generation of an awareness of the responsibilities of the professional engineer;

v. introduction to the environmental and social implications of a major development.

Project Background

The current Public Inquiry project is based upon the Broad Oak Reservoir Scheme, which was proposed for development in 1979 as a joint venture between Southern Water Authority and Mid-Kent Water Company – but failed at the Public Inquiry stage. However, it continues to be a viable option for solving water shortages in the south east of England.

The proposed dam site is located in the valley of the Sarre Penn River north of Canterbury. This valley is lined with London Clay, and is the only viable location in Kent where a reservoir could be constructed. Broad Oak is to be a pumped storage reservoir, and will be filled from the River Ouse. Much of the land required for the reservoir has been purchased by the mid-Kent Water Company, but even so a number of people will be displaced and loose their livelihoods.

Project Structure

The project starts with students being supplied with basic information that provides the bare bones of the scheme. This outlines the relevant legislation, and gives the reasons why the water is needed, why a reservoir scheme has been selected, and a description of the proposal. Over the following weeks (see Table 1), the students, working in teams, can request additional information on any aspect that they feel is relevant. This enables them initially to decide whether they would promote such a scheme or not. Later, once their team has been allocated a role, the information is used in building up their case for the Public Inquiry.

The additional information the students can request is usually supplied as reports. These range from the technical, through demand estimation, alternative resource developments, financial matters, to sociological and environmental issues. Students may acquire access to other documents, such as the relevant Structure Plan and geological maps.

During the course of the eight weeks leading up to the day of the Inquiry, the main focus is on information acquisition and decision-making. For instance in Week 2 there is a guided discussion on the operation of the scheme, and students are shown a 'home grown' video of the Sarre Penn valley and its surrounds in Week 3.

The activities directly related to the project are interspersed with support activities aimed at raising student awareness of issues surrounding the scheme and developing transferable skills. These include ranking quotations from residents experiencing an Urban Renewal scheme, which is designed to encourage them to question the sociological impact of such developments. There is a film following the history and impacts of a reservoir, which has a variety of relevant issues embedded in it. They receive a briefing on planning procedures, and how a Public Inquiry is conducted, together with advice on preparing and presenting their evidence. Originally the project included the development of oral presentation skills (Hedges, 1991), but when the format of communication skills within the degree programme was revised, this was replaced by team skills.

Prior to the Inquiry each group will have been allocated a role (Week 4) – the promoters (or Appellants) are the Mid-Kent Water/Southern Water consortium – and there are two opposition groups: Kent County Council and the Broad Oak Action Group. The latter is a loose alliance of local representatives and pressure groups. Each group selects a Queens Council (QC) to represent them at the Inquiry, and every other student takes the role of an Expert Witness.

Two weeks before the Inquiry the Expert Witnesses write and submit a Proof of Evidence. These are copied and circulated to the other groups one week before the Inquiry. Since each of the groups will have acquired different information, the contents of its opponent's Proofs of Evidence often come as a surprise. At this stage no further information can be acquired and the week available in which to prepare for cross examination and rebuttal sees a ferment of activity.

The Inquiry

The simulated Inquiry itself follows as closely as possible the procedures of a real Inquiry. It is presided over by an Inspector, who is a consultant engineer with practical experience of Inquiries. The Inspector is assisted by an Assessor, usually a full time member of staff.

The Inquiry is opened by the Inspector, and the QCs for each group introduce their witnesses. The main procedure gets underway, when the Council for the Appellants delivers an opening speech, and the principles of the scheme are outlined. Subsequently, each of the expert witnesses is called in turn and reads their Proof of Evidence. They are then cross examined by the opposition QCs, the Assessor and the Inspector, with the Appellant’s QC having the opportunity to re-examine their witness in an attempt to rebut any evidence that has been discredited.

The Appellant’s case is followed by each of the opposition groups in turn following the same procedure. The Inquiry ends with each QC summing up their case in a closing speech. After the Inspector has closed the Inquiry there is a brief review and feedback session.

Reflection On Project

In the final week of the project, each student writes a report on the Inquiry in the style of a Journal, Newspaper or relevant publication. This encourages them to think about how the same information can be presented to different audiences, and forces them to reflect on the conduct of the Inquiry.

The final session is devoted to debriefing. It starts with a review of the scheme’s history. This enables students to: put their project in perspective; see how important planning and feasibility studies are, and how long and costly this process can be. The students then brainstorm and feedback the learning situations they have experienced. Invariably, it is at this stage that they realise the breadth of the project and that they have not only gained new technical knowledge, but have also developed their decision-making and communication skills, and acquired an understanding of the environmental and social issues raised and impacts caused by many major development schemes. The project is rounded off by students undertaking a structured self and peer assessment exercise in their project groups (Boud, 1995).

Resourcing the Project

The information underpinning the project has been drawn from a wide variety of sources. However, at the core is the documentation produced prior to, during and after the original Broad Oak Public Inquiry. The majority of the various reports, drawings etc. have been distilled from this. Beyond the underlying data, the only resources required are: adequate room space, support from an external professional to act as the Inspector; a photocopier; and boundless energy and enthusiasm!

Trials and Tribulations of the Project Supervisor

The main pain associated with a project such as the Public Inquiry, is that it requires considerable investment of time and energy collecting data before it can even start. To enable an immediate response to the students' requests, the underlying information has to be at the supervisor's fingertips. The first few years are the most demanding, whilst the 'Additional Information' reports are prepared on the hoof, until the variety of possible questions have been largely addressed. But don’t be complacent - students will inevitably find new questions to challenge you with!

Student motivation is rarely a problem. The pressures of meeting deadlines, and the different nature of the project to their normal learning experience, suffice to generate enthusiasm. However, ensuring that the less strong students, or those lacking in self-confidence are not pushed to the periphery or threatened by some of the activities, can be a challenge. Spending some time with each group every week, discretely supporting and drawing out the strengths of these students, has been found to be the best course of action.

In conclusion, the active learning role-play model will be a challenge to any educator. It should not be seen as a static entity to be repeated year after year. New information, current attitudes, and prospective changes, together with the latest educational philosophies, can be introduced to make the project as dynamic, relevant and topical as possible.

Week 1 i) Introductory briefing

ii) Issue of Project Format and Engineering Report

iii) Urban Renewal Case Study and ranking exercise

Week 2 i) Discussion on operation of Broad Oak Scheme

ii) Film on history and consequences of a reservoir development

iii) First requests for information

Week 3 i) The Planning System and the Format of a Public Inquiry

ii) Video of proposed development area

iii) Selection by each group of preferred development option

(Group Report 15%)

iv) Issue of and requests for additional information

Week 4 i) Allocation of groups' roles for Public Inquiry

ii) Team Skills

iii) Issue of and requests for additional information

Week 5 i) Introduction to Proofs of Evidence

ii) The role of the Expert Witness

iii) Issue of and requests for additional information

Week 6 i) Preparation of Proofs of Evidence

ii) Issue of and requests for additional information

Week 7 i) Submission of Proofs of Evidence

(Individual Assignment 25%)

ii) Preparation for 'reporting' on Inquiry

iii) Issue of and requests for additional information

Week 8 i) Preparation for Inquiry: rebuttal of evidence

ii) Distribution of Proofs of Evidence

iii) Final issue of additional information

Week 9 PUBLIC INQUIRY (Individual Performance 25%)

Week 10 i) Submission of ‘reports’ on Public Inquiry (Individual Report 15%)

ii) Evaluation and feedback on project

iii) Self/Peer-Assessment (Peer Assessment 20%)

Table 1 Public Inquiry Project Timetable and Assessment Pattern

References

· Boud, D. (1995), Enhancing Learning Through Self Assessment, Kogan Page

· Hedges, P.D. (1991), 'Communication Skills and the Undergraduate Engineer', in R.A.Smith (Ed), Innovative Teaching in Engineering, Ellis Horwood.

2.2 Facilitating Collaborative Design through ICT

Author(s) Dr Patrick Littlehales

Institution Aston University

Faculty / School School of Engineering and Applied Science

Department Mechanical Engineering

Title of Programme(s) Mechanical Engineering, Product Design

Project Title: Global Design initiative (GDi)

Award(s) Extra curricular Year(s) of study 1/2/3/4

Module Credits N/A % project assessment N/A

Outputs (non assessed) Online progress records

Solid Model CAD (total of X component parts)

Industrial Participation Yes

Group Project: Yes Group Size: (3 x 25) Group Selection: All who expressed

an interest

Synopsis of Case Study

The Global Design initiative (GDi) project provided a unique opportunity for students to learn about real world, collaborative design on a global basis. Developed within Mechanical Engineering at Aston University a team comprising students in the UK, USA and Singapore were tasked to co-operate on the engineering design of a racing car.

The project yielded a reusable model for experiential learning and proprietary recording software was used to capture and communicate a record of the design process used during the event as part of the design process and for analysis after the event.

The model developed is generic and may be easily employed in projects ranging in size from small classroom activity to large scale global events.

This case study describes the technology tools developed for the project and how they facilitated information management and exchange, helping to ensure the success of GDi.

The Global Design initiative

Within the Global Design initiative (GDi), three student teams based in UK, Singapore and USA had to design a radical concept, formula racing car within 5 days. Each international team worked for an eight hour period, at the end of this period there was a hand over to the next team. GDi was designed so that the time zone differences meant that together the three teams worked around the clock. To ensure effective communication and transfer between international teams the project was facilitated using an interactive web based learning environment developed by the author.

This design process employed commercially available computer aided design (CAD) software ‘SolidWorks’ together with internet based communication software and custom developed discussion and logging software. The teams worked in shifts conceptualising, designing and communicating with each other pushing the racing car design towards completion. They also shared responsibility for receiving and passing on key information at the beginning and end of each working day. It was important that individual student contributions were recorded in real time. Participants used the logging environment to communicate with the global team and gradually built up resources which incorporated all the research, exchange of ideas and thinking processes.

A new online environment to facilitate experiential learning projects was developed from a simple web based communications mechanism, used in undergraduate programmes (DPE 2002). This interactive environment which logged the development process overcame the need for unregulated email and had the feature of keeping all team members fully informed of progress. This record of the development process was a valuable project output, consisting of a narrative, media rich documentary.

Online logging

A project shift involved 8 hours of design and CAD work culminating in a hand over to the follow on team. It was necessary to notify the next team of design progress and issues as efficiently and clearly as possible. This was enabled by using a web based historical project log that could be searched, read and contributed to at all times.

The system was developed at Aston University, Littlehales et al. (2002), as a simple database driven web-site based on ASP technologies. A balance was achieved to extract as much process information as possible without over-burdening the participant, they used the system to:

o browse details of the design

o evaluate previous work

o communicate with each other

o read and contribute to discussion threads in a forum

o add project resources: websites, documents, diagrams and written comments

o add critical comment and guidance for other members of the research team

As students experience of using the environment increased they relied less and less on face to face meetings (although these continued to be an important part of the process).

Discussion threads were created to organise the research effort, stimulate debate and encourage investigation. These threads contained information on project activities including its management and particular resources and debates. The project group individuals decided what to create and who else to invite into the discussions, eg. receiving critical comment from outside persons in industry which are consequently available for the group to analyse and comment on.

The process of logging is illustrated in figures 1a-d.

Figure 1

The 'add NEW log' page (Figure 1a) was split into three broad sections:

o Personal user data – a section to encourage individuals to take ownership of their contributions.

o Component and process information – additional information necessary to explain design reasoning and unusual project decisions.

o Related document and image resources – visual and written media relating to the design.

The car design structure was split into working sub groups. A visual hierarchy (Figure 1b) was provided including views of the components at that particular point in time. The project resources and progress logs were also navigated by list forum. This threaded presentation (Figure 1c) identical to common newsgroup and discussion forums would allow access to each message page (Figure 1d) which contains the comments and links to resources.

The process logger was technically simple in design. It provided a channel for recording of the design process, progress and reasoning. Web database access is simple to create with current technologies. The real challenge was capturing the right information to allow the project to flourish extending the confidence of participants in design and use of the technology.

Solid modelling

The 3D, solid modelling tool, SolidWorks, formed part of the inspiration for the project. The manufacturers claim that the tool was easy to learn and had integrated collaborative design tools set the challenge for GDi. The software provided a platform for an effective design process with quick sketch prototyping through to detailed design.

To enable multiple persons to develop the same project files without undoing each others work a part data management tool (PDM) was required. DBWorks provided an integrated tool that did just that, a simple set of macros were developed to integrate the CAD and PDM data with the process logger. A solid model design was linked into the appropriate section in the logger, capturing descriptive and visual information forming the initial part of a new log.

Collaborative meetings

The project used NetMeeting (available with MS Windows operating systems) to enable group to group discussion at handover sessions. This component was easy to use and configure and provided audio, web-cam video and text communication between networked computers. An application sharing function allowed SolidWorks parts and assemblies to be explored collaboratively. This proved an extremely valuable collaborative tool particularly when used alongside the SolidWorks design software.

NetMeeting provided early integration of the project communities where individuals got to see and speak to their counterparts in the other teams. Nervous initial conversations were soon replaced by confident, focussed sessions where the teams explained their design decisions and project direction. It was also extremely valuable to share a design image or model and debate issues amongst the groups. An additional function allowing sketching onto a shared illustrative space facilitated discussion on design specifics. The meetings were vital to back up written and illustrative progress provided by the recording system and took place between pairs of students working on particular aspects of the project. The other team members watched the progress via a projected image on the wall of the design studio. Comments were relayed from team to team via the pair of students at the controls. The meetings had agendas and minutes that were included in the process log to enhance the record of discussion.

Teams in UK and USA discuss project plan
via web conference

Two teams interactively discuss
suspension mount issues

UK team participate in web conference

Information transfer

The individual ICT tools described integrated to facilitate the project goal, design of a car. The project as a whole discouraged email as a communication mechanism as it was external to the recorded communication process. It was important to create a complete history of all decisions and design aspects. The process forum and logger, NetMeeting and the CAD tools with integrated part data management (PDM) provided everything required to transfer the project information. During the run up to the project a website was created to provide a portal for the general public to view the project and watch the design progress. This now provides a narrative description of the project for further learning activities http://www.GDiCar.com

During a ‘shift' a team would have ownership of the data and design files. Other teams could browse these files but generally used the process logger to identify the current status of the design, particularly aspects that had been developed over night during other team sessions. Ownership was transferred during handover periods.

Outcomes

GDi was a complex project however the teams adapted particularly well to the problems of concept design, technical drawing and communication with their team peers. Student understanding of the technology progressed considerably and they also learnt much about the physical process of design and project management. Their confidence and motivation grew exponentially during the week. This was evident from the early starts and enthusiasm towards the conclusion of the design.

Substantial time was invested in the creation and testing of the recording system software. This was worthwhile as the system proved invaluable and worked due to its simplicity and structure and ability to submit research, designs and ideas.

Initially it was difficult to get participants engaged because the feedback they strived for their own contribution was missing until the end of day one, however as the project developed the design process became efficient and streamlined. In future projects include a short prior exercise is planned to demonstrate the logging and feedback mechanism in action.

The software tools created have formed part of a valuable suite of tools for collaborative design, appropriate for local university projects and more ambitious overseas events ensuring that the project was very successful. The work has since been nominated by the University for the Queens Anniversary prize for Higher and Further Education, 2002.

Project Benefit of Using ICT for Staff and Students

The GDi project delivered a unique blend of enhanced technology, design process and social experiment. The exposure to modern tools and techniques via a global project requiring such levels of focussed information management and communication provided a real world learning experience rarely seen in academia. All the participating students and staff benefited tremendously. The fast pace of the project required concentration on using technology effectively and appropriately to get the message across. To have any influence on the ultimate creation, that students became so attached to, they had to put their case strongly in the logger and during web conference meetings. The technology provided the opportunity to quickly prototype, sketch and annotate key components that would eventually be seen in the final design. The logger provided an historical narrative and the web conferences a forum for the global team to accept or reject aspects of design. There was no doubt that the technology enabled the development of expertise and a confidence to share experience and skill where necessary, even across continents via the web.

Implementing Global Collaborative Projects

The GDi project was an ambitious extra curricular experiment that succeeded due to the generous enthusiasm offered by all participants and sponsors. It demonstrated the potential for creating exciting learning opportunities with little preparation. The level of outcomes and achievement were not taken for granted and curriculum based collaborations in the future may benefit from further trials and experiments before a similar project is attempted. In GDi, students were left to draw their own conclusions and appreciation. The motivation of the team that created the project was to explore an idea and some technologies that boasted the ability to support such ventures. Technically the tools were all very simple. Netmeeting and its alter ego, MSN messenger, are the champion of young internet communicators of this generation. These tools are freely available and provide a valuable backbone to the exploits of learning via collaborative project whether in the locale or on a truly global basis.

References

DPE- Design Process Environment- Sustainability Project Module, Aston University UK, [2002] http://mech.aston.ac.uk/dpe

· Littlehales P.A, Evans C.D, Hardy N.R [2002] The Global Design Initiative. A Collaborative Engineering Learning Environment, Aston University Submission for The Queens Anniversary Prize for Higher and further Education 2002.

2.3 Learning Outcomes and their Assessment in Independent Studies

Author(s) M.J.Dodridge

Institution University of Derby

Faculty / School School of Computing and Technology

Department Division of Electronics, Media Technology and Mathematics

Programme(s) BSc/BSc (Hons) Electrical &Electronic Engineering

BSc/BSc (Hons) Music Technology and Audio System Design

Title of Module(s) Project

Award(s) BSc and BSc (Hons) Year(s) of study 3

Module Credits 30 % project assessment 25

Assessment Outputs 4 Learning outcomes

Industrial/ Professional Participation Yes (in the case of part-time students)

Group Project No

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

This case study considers intended student learning achievements for a major independent project carried out in the final year of an honours degree programmes in engineering/technology. The focus is on the writing of learning outcomes, prioritising these into categories, the writing of appropriate assessment criteria and choosing the most appropriate assessment methods. Examples of typical outcomes are given together with an assessment matrix. The tracing of outcomes in the Programme Specification to module level using mapping techniques is also illustrated. The study concludes with some reflections on experiences relating to the student/tutor interface associated with learning and assessment.

______________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The final year of the majority of three-year undergraduate programmes of study in engineering contain a substantial project in the form of independent study. In the case of the University of Derby this is a double module amounting to 25% of the final phase. The project therefore attracts 30 credits at level 6 (UG level 3). This is somewhat lower than in many universities where the trend has been to increase the weighting, in some cases to as much as 50% (60 credits). Independent study in the form of a major project is designed to integrate much of the knowledge and skills developed by the student in the first two years of the programme. Because of the nature of the work it is expected to develop further skills and enhance existing ones. In particular, the project is a useful vehicle for promoting the intellectual, practical and transferable skills defined in the Programme Specification.

Learning Outcomes

It is quite possible to specify a large number of learning outcomes for most modules of study, and the project is no exception. However, setting too many outcomes can lead to over-assessment, which in turn can result in student underperformance. Where learning outcomes are to be formally assessed they need to be measurable by the tutor, achievable by the student and essential to the aims of the module. The University of Derby has produced a set of guidelines for the assessment of learning outcomes, the 3^rd edition of which was published in September 1999. These guidelines were written in light of the experience gained in employing outcomes-based assessment over a number of years. The guidelines recommend that no more than four learning outcomes per module should be formally assessed. Each outcome statement should describe a learning achievement, which is considered fundamental to the purpose of the module. This sense of intrinsic importance for each designated learning outcome leads to what might be described as the acid test for a prospective learning outcome. In testing a prospective outcome, it is necessary to ask whether a situation could be envisaged where there may be a wish to recommend that the student should gain the credit for the item of assessed work despite not having satisfied the prospective learning outcome. If the answer is positive then the learning outcome is clearly not fundamental to the module and is unnecessary; if the answer is negative then the learning outcome has passed the test and is demonstrably fundamental to the module. Where possible, a single assessment should have one learning outcome attached to it. This has been achieved in the case of the project module, although it is recognised that this is not possible in all cases. Table 1 shows typical outcomes that might be expected in a project module; those in bold text are considered of fundamental importance and therefore are the only ones formally assessed.

Skill Area	P, A
A Knowledge and Understanding
Have knowledge and an understanding in the subject area of the project.	P
B Intellectual Skills
Execute a long-term investigation, which involves a structured approach to in-depth problem solving, planning, progress reporting and project management with regard to constraints of time, budget and available resources. Formulate a design in hardware and/or software to a given specification making use of ICT tools where appropriate. Assess and manage risks.	P,A P P
C Practical Skills
Constructs prototype hardware and/or computer programmes to the design. Selects and demonstrates the use of laboratory and measurement for testing the prototype.	P P
D Transferable Skills
Retrieve relevant information and organise this to assess the feasibility of a project and provide a realistic plan of execution to deliver the project within a time and budget constrained period. Write an analytical technical report containing an extensive critical evaluation of the given problem and make recommendations and conclusions based on a sound body of knowledge. Present and discuss a technical project in depth and clearly communicate the critical issues and key features of the project.	P,A P,A P,A

Table 1: Project Module Outcomes Key: P – Practised A – Assessed

Assessment Criteria and Assessment Methods

Learning outcomes are identifiable goals that students must achieve in order to pass. They are the basis for the learning and assessment strategy in a module and, unlike learning objectives, are systematically tested through assessment. There should be strong links between learning outcomes, assessment criteria and the assessment method. Having written a set of learning outcomes, tutors need to think about the best method for achieving each of them and the criteria that will be used to judge the standard of work. Table 2 shows the assessment matrix for the project module.

Assessment Number	Weighting (%)	Semester	Learning Outcome	Assessment Criteria	Assessment Method
1	10	Autumn Week 3	LO1 Retrieve relevant information and organise this to assess the feasibility of a project and provide a realistic plan of execution to deliver the project outcomes within a time and budget constrained period.	Students must demonstrate they are able to systematically retrieve and organise relevant information taken from published sources in order to assess the feasibility of the project. Students must provide a realistic plan of execution covering the project duration so that the outcomes can be delivered within a budget and constrained period. Also they must demonstrate that they can negotiate their findings with the project tutor in order to agree the best plan of action.	An assignment requiring the student to negotiate and successfully agree a plan of work with appropriate aims, objectives and outcomes for the project, culminating in a written proposal.
2	10	Autumn/ Spring Weeks 8, 19 & 31	LO2 Execute a long-term investigation, which involves a structured approach to in-depth problem solving, planning, progress reporting and project management with regard to the constraints of time, budget and available resources.	Students must demonstrate that they are able to execute a project within given time and budget constraints and maintain a record of their progress and achievements in line with the project requirements. Students must manage all aspects of the project and report its progress on a regular basis to the project tutor. The student is required to submit the logbook to the tutor for formative assessment on two occasions, prior to final submission with the project report.	A written logbook in which the student will maintain a continuous record detailing analysis, calculations and methodology of work conducted throughout the year.
3	60	Spring Week 31	LO3 Write an analytical technical report containing an extensive critical evaluation of the given problem and make recommendations and conclusions based on a sound body of work.	Students must demonstrate the ability to provide clearly structured and concise written evidence of a literature survey, the application of sound working practices, relevant technical theory and the ability to present in depth technical issues, making recommendations and conclusions based on a sound body of work. The report is strictly limited to 50 A4 sides and no more than 10,000 words, material submitted beyond this limit will not be considered for assessment.	A written technical report incorporating concise evidence of a literature survey, application of professional practices, relevant technical theory and the ability to discuss in depth technical issues.
4	20	Spring Week 36	LO4 Present and discuss a technical project in-depth and clearly communicate the critical issues and key features of the project	Students must demonstrate the ability to present and discuss their project in depth and communicate the critical issues and key factors of the project. The viva will be an opportunity for an in-depth discussion about critical issues and key features of the project. Also they must be able communicate a summary of their work in poster form and discuss it with their peers including the project tutor in the poster session.	A project viva and poster session attended by academic staff and the student. The student will be expected to provide an overview of the project in the form of a short presentation at the start of the viva and via an A3 poster.

Table 2: Project Module Assessment Matrix

The Programme Specification and Generic Outcomes

Since the independent project is an excellent vehicle for developing so many skills it is important that these are reflected in the programme generic outcomes. Table 3 shows generic outcomes for two programmes of study, which are BSc (Hons) Electrical and Electronic Engineering and BSc (Hons) Music Technology and Audio System Design. The skills map column has been selected from the Programme Skills Map and indicates how the overall project learning outcomes map to the programme outcomes. The next four columns show how the programme outcomes can be traced to individual module learning outcomes. It is all too easy to tick many more boxes than shown. This has been avoided by only mapping outcomes where the corresponding assessment provides the strongest opportunity for evidencing learning.

Programme Generic Learning Outcomes

Skills Map

Module

Learning

Outcomes

LO 1

LO 2

LO 3

LO 4

(A) Knowledge and Understanding (Electrical and Electronic Engineering)

1. Basic mathematics to underpin electrical and electronic engineering (E)

2. Basic principles used in analogue/digital electronic and electrical power circuits and systems (E)

3. Technology supporting electronic and power circuits and systems

4. Application of advanced and new technologies employed in the electrical and electronic industries

5. Management of business relevant to the commerce and industry (E)

6. Engineering practice and regulatory frameworks in the electrical and electronic industries (E)

(A) Knowledge and Understanding (Music Technology & Audio Syst. Design)

1. Basic mathematics to underpin electronic and audio engineering (E)

2. Basic Principles used in analogue/digital electronic circuits and systems in the communication and audio industries (E)

3. Technology supporting audio circuits and systems

4. Application of advanced and new technologies employed in the music industry

5. Business and management relevant to the music industry (E)

6. Engineering practice and regulatory frameworks applicable to the electronic, communication and music industries (E)

(B) Intellectual Skills (both programmes)

1. Apply engineering principles and analytical thinking to problems and determine effective solutions (E)

2. Select and develop appropriate technology (E)

3. Employ computer software for simulation and analysis of circuits and systems (E)

4. Design, develop and operate systems, products and processes and evaluate options (E)

5. Exercise professional judgement with respect to commercial and technical risks (E)

1. Use laboratory scientific equipment and instrumentation competently and safely in conducting experimental laboratory work and making measurements (E)

2. Demonstrate the use of computer key board skills (E)

3. Demonstrate the ability to configure computer programmes (E)

4. Demonstrate the process of prototype build, manufacture and testing (E)

5. Plan and execute project work including the preparation of descriptive and interpretative technical reports (E)

(D) Transferable Skills (both programmes)

1. Apply numerical skills in the collection, recording, interpreting and presentation of data in a variety of forms (E)

2. Utilise information and communication technology (ITC) in the preparation, process and presentation of information (E)

3. Demonstrate creativity in problem solving and design (E)

4. Utilise communication skills effectively in a variety of forms and for different audiences (E)

5. Manage own roles, responsibilities and time in achieving objectives, learning performance, new and changing situations and contexts (E)

6. Assume responsibility as an individual or as a member of a team in a variety of situations (E)

Table 3: Tracing Programme Outcomes to Module Level
Key (E) – Engineering Benchmark

Reflections on experiences

An internal verification process for module coursework and examination assessments has been in place for some time, but in the case of the project module requires revision because of the differing expectations of project tutors. All academic staff undertake the verification role and deal with projects from both full-time and part-time students studying primarily on HNC/D and BSc/BSc(Hons) programmes. Problems exist with respect to the module learning outcomes, level and notional learning time. In formal assessment it is important that a consistent approach is taken to ensuring outcomes are in fact achievable by students and in measuring success/failure. There needs to be a process to check that for each project the student learning experience matches the intended outcomes. Module outcomes in many cases give a hint as to the level but in the case of the project they could be equally appropriate at levels 5, 6 and even 7. It can therefore be quite difficult to ensure that the appropriate level is set. The notional learning time for all undergraduate projects is 300 hours, and again it is necessary to ensure that the work demands the required effort whilst remaining manageable. Part-time projects are quite difficult to assess in all of these respects due to the fact that they are often group-based in nature.

A full achievement model is used in the project module as in all others. Outcomes-based models can sometimes be over complex, with too many hurdles for students leading to the need for compensation. The model used here is simple to employ and easily understood by academic staff and students alike, though there has been some criticism from students of over- assessment. The model differs from the traditional two-component approach - examination and coursework – as there are three or four assessments in each module with a greater weighting towards coursework. In the case of the project module the requirement to complete four assessments, each carrying one learning outcome, ensures that students engage fully in all parts of the work. Despite input to students on assessment during the induction week there have been a small number of cases where students have been referred, typically for not satisfactorily completing a logbook or failing to undertake the viva/presentation, expecting instead to pass with a good report and compensation. Other cases involve failure in the project proposal. If such a failure is formally recorded then under the University’s regulations the student is required to wait for formal ratification at the Assessment Board before being offered a referral opportunity.

Referral is clearly not possible in the case of the project module, as it would prevent engagement with the rest of the work. Students in this category are asked to re-submit and are given a lower grade as a result of not meeting the time requirement. Since the assessments utilise criterion-based referencing, the stated criteria for each assessment represent the threshold to achieve the learning outcome warranting the minimum pass grade. For each assessment performance indicators are given for bands, from the lowest fail to the highest pass grade. Despite this mechanism second marking of the project work, and particularly the report, has thrown up a few cases showing wide variation in the recommended mark to be awarded. This finding suggests the need for more rigorous inspection of all project reports at a particular level. To achieve this goal efficiently where a large number of projects are involved is never easy, but it is a challenge that must be met to ensure the integrity of the grading process.

2.4 Fostering Progressive Learning Through Scenario-Based Assessment

Author(s) Norton Farrow and Dr Colin Fryer

Institution University of Derby

Faculty / School Computing and Technology

Department Design, Technology and the Built Environment

Programme(s) BSc(Hons) Architectural Technology, BSc(Hons) Construction Management, HNC/D Civil Engineering, HNC/D Construction, HNC Architectural Studies

Title of Module(s) Scenario 1: Computer Aided Design I, Construction Technology I, Environmental Design, Design Studio I, Organisation and Procedures, Principles of Structural Behaviour, Project Planning and Control, Soil Mechanic 1, Structural Design, Surveying I

Scenario 2: Business Environment, Construction Engineering Principles and Practice, Construction Services, Construction Technology II, Highway Design and Construction, Management of the Construction Process, Project Management, Refurbishment and Future Use, Strategic Management, Traffic Engineering

Award(s) BSc(Hons), HNC/D Year(s) of study 1, 2 and 3

Module Credits 15 % project assessment 20 – 30% depending on programme

Assessment Outputs Reports, presentations, portfolios, design calculations, working drawings, fieldwork

Industrial/ Professional Participation No

Group Project: Mixed Group Size: 3 to 5 Group Selection: Tutor/self selected

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

This case study describes a project-based learning strategy, fostering the integration of the curriculum and encouraging students to appreciate the holistic nature of the construction environment. The use of two scenarios is discussed, one for first year students and the other for students at years two and three. While experience has shown that a project-based learning strategy requires a greater reliance on a team-focused concept approach, the benefits gained through students being able to progressively develop their knowledge and relate this to the working environment are significant.

Integrating the curriculum

As knowledge is not discrete, subject areas within a discipline need to be harnessed to enable students to develop an integrative approach to their studies. It is necessary to encourage a problem solving approach to reflect experiences in the working environment. However, the structure and design of the assignments have to be carefully considered so that an appropriate assessment strategy can be developed to foster a progressive learning environment. This relies on a team approach to ensure that all pieces of the assessment ‘jigsaw’ are in place at the outset.

It is important for students to realise that the processes connected with their current or future job function in the construction industry are based on decision making, self-awareness, self-criticism, sound judgement and the ability to adapt technical information. The assimilation of new information and experience, with sufficient thoroughness to permit purposeful use is essential. Central to this concept is the importance of students developing their problem solving skills from an early stage so that they are capable of enhancing their knowledge as their studies progress. To facilitate this, students have to be exposed to an assessment strategy that not only carefully considers the inter-relationship between the curriculum at each level, but also explores mechanisms for promoting this so that students become increasingly aware of subject integration. Project-based learning can be used to develop this approach.

In the mid-1990s, construction staff at the University recognised that the teaching, learning and assessment strategy was fragmented and that a new methodology was required that would enable students to develop a much deeper, more integrated understanding of the built environment. After considering a number of options, it was agreed that an enhanced student experience could only be developed through a team approach to learning. This would encourage a cross-fertilisation of ideas and promote a collective ownership by the team of the curriculum at each level of study.

Project-based learning through scenario-based assessment

In re-designing the strategy, the team took as their starting point the notion that students need to develop an integrated approach to problem solving from the commencement of their studies. Hitherto, it was only at the final stage of a programme that students were required to engage with a problem solving, group-based integrated project that drew together the knowledge gained from other modules. Using the integrated project as a springboard, the team considered that students’ knowledge and learning experience could be substantially enhanced by adopting an incremental approach to problem solving commencing in the first year of their study.

Using project-based learning as the central focus, it was decided that wherever possible module assignments would utilise a common scenario for each level of study. In this way, students would be able to link the majority of their assignments to this scenario, thus providing the opportunity for a range of subject related problems to be tackled. While the assignments for each module are self-contained so that they are accessible to students studying individual modules, links and references to other modules may be included in such a way that thematic threads can be developed. For example, a structural analysis assignment may require a student to determine the forces in one or more structural elements identified in a scenario. To achieve this, the student has to consider the construction of the building so as to identify the load paths and determine the loads from first principles. In parallel, other conceptual ideas can be introduced that link with associated modules, for example structural design. Conversely, the assignments set for structural design can be developed in such a way as to extend those topics explored in the structural analysis module. Throughout this process the scenario acts as the focal point around which project-based assignments are positioned and connected by their subject associations.

The project-based assignments integrate the subject areas within a programme and illustrate realistic construction problems. In developing projects around the scenarios the following core themes were considered:

o Encouraging students’ awareness of construction and its impact on the environment

o Developing students’ design skills

o Promoting students’ ability to recognise their role as members of a team

o Encouraging students’ to develop a systems thinking approach

o Improving students’ ability to collect and critically analyse information in order to make sound judgements

In addition to these core themes, the project-based learning approach was developed in such a way as to promote, via the assignments, the acquisition of individual programme learning outcomes. These outcomes, which are articulated in terms of knowledge and understanding, intellectual skills, practical and subject-specific skills and transferable skills, are well suited to being promoted through project-based learning.

The scenarios

Two scenarios were developed as the assessment vehicle for use across the undergraduate and BTEC programme portfolio. First year modules are intended to introduce students to concepts and principles that underpin their later studies, and as such there would be merit in providing an introductory scenario designed to enable students from diverse backgrounds to assimilate knowledge to achieve the required learning outcomes. To encourage ownership of the scenario by students, it was decided this should focus on a site within the University campus that would be easily accessible to the students. To foster awareness in students that modules studied in the second and third year of a programme are increasingly inter-related, it was considered that there would be merit in designing a single scenario that would act as a vehicle for this.

Scenario One provides students with comprehensive information for the construction of a two-storey maintenance workshop. The sketch design provided enables students to develop a basic understanding of the fundamental concepts, principles and techniques of subjects in the first year and apply them through a project-based learning environment to practical problems in varying degrees of complexity. Students are then able to acquire knowledge, skills and competencies on an incremental basis and apply them to a broad range of subject areas including construction technology, environmental science, structural analysis and design, surveying, soil mechanics and project planning. At the same time they are able to develop and apply key skills at an early stage.

In contrast, Scenario Two is used for more complex projects in years two and three. It incorporates the development of a large urban site for a variety of uses including commercial, industrial, residential and leisure. In addition to technical data, students are provided with a topographical survey, detailed site investigation and typical outline planning approval. This scenario is designed to enable students to enhance their learning by applying the principles and concepts contextually, using the tests of feasibility, suitability and acceptability, to a range of options. Students are encouraged to carry out option appraisal and cost benefit analysis. In Year 2, the projects are designed to develop a substantial body of knowledge and extend the student’s experience as an independent learner. In Year 3, the projects are designed to be intellectually stimulating, challenging and demanding so that students can develop their imaginative, creative and analytical skills, fostering the development of a more critical, creative and innovative approach to their studies.

While scenario-based assessment is the main vehicle for coursework, there are instances when this approach is inappropriate and other methods of assessment are used - for example, field studies, laboratory exercises, etc. To date, these scenarios have not been used for assessment by examination, but it would be possible to extend the current arrangements. At postgraduate level, for instance, pre-seen scenarios are used for all modules subject to examination.

Designing the assignments

Experience has shown that for project-based learning to be successful, it is essential for all assignments to conform to a standard template that includes:

1. The submission date.

2. An overview of the assignment, locating it within the subject area and defining its relationship with other topics within the module and the programme as a whole.

3. Those learning outcomes to be achieved on completion of the assignment.

4. A brief specifying the nature and content of the assignment.

5. A clear statement of what the student is required to undertake in order to complete the assignment.

6. Recommended reference material that may be helpful as a starting point when undertaking the assignment.

7. Performance criteria specifying what is expected at the different levels of performance. For example, at final stage honours degree performance criteria were specified for first class, upper second, lower second, third, pass and fail.

8. The assessment weighting.

To assist staff in designing their assignments, samples were prepared for each year of study and circulated to the team. In parallel with these developments, additional student support material was prepared including detailed Module Study Packs for each programme, and guidance notes on report writing, making presentations and undertaking laboratory work. The scenarios and the support material were given to students at induction to encourage them to begin the process of planning their studies and taking greater ownership of the management of their learning at the earliest opportunity.

To provide an effective assessment strategy, a scrutiny panel was established to review the assignments prior to commencement of the academic year, in order to ensure validity, appropriateness of level and consistency in terms of style and layout. While a core team of experienced lecturers is involved in the review, the meetings are open to all staff and their input is welcomed. This process is very successful, albeit demanding, with team members exchanging views and contributing ideas to each other’s assignments. Areas of overlap are identified and some assignments are modified in light of the review. An added bonus is the increased awareness of colleagues’ subject areas, that in some cases results in a realignment of responsibility for delivering certain topics and an adjustment in lecture plans to improve the continuity and flow of the curriculum.

Learning and teaching

Experience of project-based learning has led to the need to review the learning and teaching. More emphasis is now placed on tutorials, seminars and workshops to enable students, particularly at Years 2 and 3, to become more responsible for their own learning. For example, in the modules Highway Design and Construction, and Construction Engineering Principles and Practice, the tutor acts as facilitator providing support and advice to students as they progress through the assignment. The modules are studio-based to simulate a design office environment. Encouragement is given to students to expand their knowledge through greater use of independent study and lateral thinking. This approach allows students to develop key milestones and to manage their own learning within a set time frame.

The success of project-based learning is dependent on a team approach and forward planning. One of the tangible benefits to emerge is that staff are far more aware of how the whole curriculum is being delivered, and when key topics are to be taught, allowing them to cross-reference and cite other examples when covering similar aspects. This reinforces for students the integrated nature of the curriculum, and emphasises the academic team’s approach to the management of learning.

2.5 Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria

Author(s) Dr Warren Houghton

Institution University of Exeter

Faculty / School Engineering and Computer Science

Department Engineering

Title of Programme(s) Electronic/Civil/Mechanical Engineering and
Engineering & Management

Title of Module(s) Group Project

Award(s) MEng Year(s) of study 4

Module Credits 60 % project assessment 60%

Assessment Outputs Individual report / evidence of learning for 20 credit Independent learning section, final group and individual

reports, log books, minute book, supervisor’s and examiner’s observation of weekly meetings, peer assessment, group presentation and individual viva.

Industrial/ Professional Participation YES (where possible)

Group Project: YES Group Size 7-10 Group Selection: Tutor/ student

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

Projects offer an important means of addressing a wide variety of learning outcomes, many of which are very difficult to develop and assess in conventionally taught modules. In this case study, a wide range of programme Intended Learning Outcomes (ILOs) are addressed in a group project module. This 60-credit final year MEng group project is seen as the culmination of the whole degree programme and, as will be shown, its ILOs correspond very closely to those of the degree programme as a whole as expressed in the programme specification. The 60 credits of project is split 20/40 between an individual research/ independent study element and a 40-credit group element. Detailed assessment criteria for the group project element have been developed by drawing together inputs from all staff and these are given to students for guidance. ILOs and assessment criteria have been developed through different routes and are yet to be fully aligned with each other.

The following table shows the programme ILOs, taken from the programme specification, and the project ILOs alongside for comparison

Programme ILOs (from Programme Specification)

Project ILOs

On successfully completing the programme, a graduate will be able to demonstrate:

A Subject knowledge and understanding of:

1. mathematical and computational methods and their use for modelling, analysis, design and communication in engineering.

2. a broad base of scientific principles underpinning electronic, mechanical and civil engineering.

3. the characteristics and uses of a broad range of engineering materials and components.

4. a broad range of principles and design methods relating to the chosen engineering discipline in general, with knowledge and understanding in several specialist areas at the forefront of the discipline.

5. management and business practices, including finance, law, marketing, personnel and quality.

6. ethical and social issues related to engineering and professional responsibilities.

B Intellectual (thinking) skills – able to:

1. demonstrate an analytical, systematic and creative approach to problem solving

2. select and apply appropriate mathematical methods, scientific principles and computer based methods for the modelling and analysis of engineering problems, and apply them creatively and realistically in practical situations.

3. create a complete design, product or service to meet a customer need, starting from negotiation of specifications, to a professional standard, showing creativity and justifying all decisions.

4. take a holistic approach to design and problem solving.

5. assess and manage a wide range of risks (e.g.: commercial, safety, environmental etc.).

6. take personal responsibility for acting in a professional and ethical manner.

C Practical skills – able to:

1. select and use appropriate ICT based tools for analysis, design and communication of designs.

2. select and use laboratory instrumentation appropriately and correctly

3. construct prototype products, systems, experimental apparatus etc.

4. work safely in laboratory, workshop environments etc., and promote safe practice.

D Personal and key skills – able to:

1. communicate effectively using the full range of currently available methods.

2. manage resources and time.

3. work in a team, which may be multi-disciplinary, adopting any required role within that team, including leadership.

4. evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of other team members and help them to contribute effectively

5. learn independently, identifying own personal development needs and goals, reflecting on own performance and manage own personal development

6. obtain and process information from a wide range of sources, analyse it critically and apply this information in engineering applications

7. sort, manipulate and present data in a way that facilitates effective analysis and decision making

1. Subject Specific Skills. At the end of this module the students should:

(a) demonstrate knowledge and understanding in the subject area of the project, at the forefront of the chosen discipline.

(b) have used formal project planning methods to plan and manage the progress of a substantial (400 hours work) engineering group project

2. Core Academic Skills. At the end of this module the students should:

as appropriate to the project chosen:

(d) have selected and applied appropriate mathematical methods, scientific principles or computer based methods for the modelling and analysis of an engineering problem and applied them creatively and realistically in a practical application.

(e) have created a complete design, product or service to meet a customer need, starting from negotiation of specifications, to a professional standard, showing creativity and justifying all decisions.

(f) have taken a holistic approach to design and problem solving (cost, life cycle, sustainability issues, etc.)

(g) have assessed and managed all relevant risks

(h) have taken personal responsibility for acting in a professional and ethical manner

(i) have selected and used appropriate ICT based tools for analysis, design and communication of designs.

(j) have selected and used laboratory instrumentation appropriately and correctly

(k) have constructed prototypes or experimental apparatus to design specifications

(l) have worked safely in laboratory, workshop environments etc., and promoted safe practice

3. Personal and Key skills. At the end of this module the students should:

(m) have acquired extensive experience of working in a team from a major (400-hour) group project

(n) have adopted different roles within a team including leadership

(o) have demonstrated an ability to work constructively and supportively with others, taking and giving constructive feedback, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of others and helping them to contribute to a team effort

(p) have taken part in formal, professional style, project management meetings, in roles including those of chair and secretary

(q) have developed written communication skills to the extent of producing substantial formal reports of various types and length which conform to specified formats and communicate the outcomes of 600 hours of work effectively and accurately.

(r) have contributed to formal team presentations of a professional standard

(s) have managed resources and time with little need for advice

(t) have learnt independently, acquiring skills at the forefront of current knowledge unaided, identifying own personal development needs and goals, reflecting on own performance and managing own personal development.

(u) have obtained and processed information from a wide range of sources, which may have been conflicting, analysed it critically and applied this information in an a practical engineering application.

(v) have sorted, manipulated and presented data in a way that facilitated effective analysis and decision making.

As can be seen from the previous table, the project ILOs have been derived largely from those in the programme specification, particularly those relating to intellectual (thinking) skills, practical skills and personal and key skills. This close alignment between project and programme ILOs might suggest that there is little need for students to demonstrate achievement of programme ILOs through other assessments. It should be noted, however, that outcomes are selected as appropriate to the specified project. Projects vary enormously, requiring different things from students, and it is almost inconceivable that any given project, even within this framework, would succeed in fully encompassing the full range of programme learning outcomes. Thus it is necessary to assess at least some of the programme ILOs through other pieces of assessed work.

Below is a further extract from the internal project module description, describing how the project is managed and assessed.

LEARNING / TEACHING METHODS

All the learning is by independent study carried out in part individually and in part within a group. The individual component will comprise one third of the work and will be carried out and assessed entirely as an individual. The group component will comprise two thirds of the work in which the assessment will be of the individual contribution to the group achievement. The whole module extends over 2 semesters, but the individual component will be completed in the first semester.

The final goal will be the completion of a group project, producing a product, design or service to an agreed specification, normally for a genuine industrial sponsor/customer.

After an initial meeting of the whole student group with academic supervisors and industrial sponsor/customer, the expertise required to complete the project will be identified and the required learning apportioned to group members. Individual students will then negotiate an independent learning and assessment contract with the project supervisor or, if more appropriate, other members of teaching staff. This learning must not have any significant overlap with other modules. An internal review panel will moderate all learning contracts to ensure that the work and assessment are appropriate for 20 credits at masters level, and learning contracts will subsequently be sent to external examiners. Individual students will then undertake the agreed programme of independent learning, amounting nominally to 200 hours work, aimed at acquiring an expertise in the subject which is significantly broader than that simply required to contribute towards completion of the group project and at the forefront of the chosen discipline. This learning will normally be supported by weekly meetings with a supervisor and assessed by portfolio/dissertation and viva with two examiners, at the end of the first semester. The portfolio/dissertation and examiners’ notes from the viva will, of course, be made available to external examiners.

Alongside the above, during the first semester, the group will meet regularly and formally with academic staff and as appropriate with the industrial sponsor/customer, the meetings being chaired and minuted by members of the group. By the end of the first semester specifications, an outline design and a detailed project plan will have been agreed and will be presented in a progress report. At this stage members of the group will also complete peer and self-assessment forms. Throughout the second semester the practical group project work will continue, with weekly formal progress meetings. Each individual is expected to give approximately 400 hours to this group project part of the module. Students are expected to work as a group, supporting each other, and taking personal responsibility for completion of the project to the agreed specifications, with the academic supervisors acting as expert advisors. A wide range of support facilities are available, in the form of both physical resources and advice, which will be familiar to the students from previous project work, and the students are expected to negotiate and manage the use of these facilities themselves.

ASSESSMENT

33.33% - Individual component: assessment of individual independent learning carried out in preparation for the project, based on portfolio/dissertation and viva (with two examiners)

66.67% - Group component: based on logbooks, records (minutes) of weekly meetings, progress reports, interim peer and self assessment forms, final report, final group presentation, final peer and self-assessment forms

Assessment of the group component is undertaken by two project supervisors and a moderator, based on continual observation of work throughout the project, formal reports submitted by students independently and as a group, and taking peer and self assessment into account. Each student is assessed individually on the contribution made to group achievement. For this project examiners are looking for a high level of professionalism in the execution of all aspects of the work. The examiners consider a number of criteria, set out in detail in the Department’s ‘Project Assessment Criteria’.

Note: The assessment of the individual component is of learning carried out in preparation for the project, based on portfolio/dissertation and viva (with two examiners). The assessment is of the student’s general knowledge and understanding of the chosen subject, not the specific use to which this expertise is applied in the project. Conversely, the assessment of the group component (i.e. of the individual contribution to group achievement) includes the use to which this expertise is put, but not the original broader knowledge and understanding, as this is then considered to be prior learning.

The assessment criteria for the project are presented below. These were developed by merging the contributions from many staff, drawing on their years of experience in supervising projects, and it would be foolish to throw this experience away. The programme ILOs were also developed using input from the same staff as well as from the Subject Benchmark Statement, SARTOR etc. But, having been developed through two separate processes, the alignment between ILOs and assessment criteria is not clear. It has been very valuable to look at the project from two angles, but at present, the message given to students is mixed. The essential next step is to look closely at both to resolve any differences and rewrite/rephrase as necessary to ensure full alignment.

Project Assessment Criteria. The following is a description of the attributes to be expected of projects being awarded particular ranges of marks. It provides a guide to the completion of the assessment table on the Supervisor’s Report Form. The phrases offered are intended to cover a wide range of different styles of project, and will not all apply.

Mark out of 10:	0-3	3-4	4-5	5-6	6-7	7-8		8-9		9-10
General	Completely unsatisfactory. Almost nothing to show for any work that has been put in.	Unsatisfactory. Aims not met. No evidence of any real progress. Nothing worthwhile produced, although evidence of some work, albeit unsuccessful.	Satisfactory. Progress towards meeting most aims. No evidence of independent thought or much initiative. Could readily be completed by any student.	Good. Aims mostly met. A competent technician could have done most of the work.	Very good. Reasonably ambitious aims met fully or less ambitious aims exceeded. Required both ability and application to complete.	Excellent. Only a few students could have completed. Contains “something extra”. Ambitious aims met fully or reasonably ambitious aims exceeded.		Outstanding. A member of staff could be proud of this work. No student could reasonably be expected to achieve much more or present it better with the time and resources available.
General								In the top 5% of projects.		Clear candidate for best project of the year.
Preliminary report, preparation and literature review (progress report for group projects)	Unsatisfactory report		Satisfactory report			Good report
	Little or no evidence of any research whatsoever.	One or two sources (probably books or magazine articles) read.	Several sources of information used, but research not systematic.	Systematic literature survey attempted, but incomplete or inconsistent.	Competent literature survey carried out.	Comprehensive literature survey, sound base for project and further work.		Literature survey very systematic and comprehensive, student able to talk with confidence about other work in the field.
Project management, contact with supervisor(s) and progress, financial awareness.	Complete failure in relationship between student and supervisor, likely that the student has effectively dropped out of the course. Shows no financial awareness whatsoever.	Contact with supervisor sporadic. Despite best efforts of supervisor to encourage student, amount of work insufficient. Supervisor has given very clear guidance but student has failed to follow it. Only vaguely aware of costs.	Contact maintained with supervisor, but generally not worked as hard as required. Student needed very clear guidance from supervisor, and has taken advantage of most, but not all, of this guidance. Shows some awareness of cost.	Fairly regular contact maintained with supervisor. Student worked hard. Clear guidance from the supervisor necessary for progress to be made. Could be relied on to keep track of costs.	Regular contact with supervisor. Needed some advice, but worked hard, and demonstrated ability to manage own work. Maintained sound financial record and provided realistic estimate of total development cost.	Maintained regular contact with the supervisor, but needed very little guidance (except in overcoming unusually difficult problems), worked very hard, almost totally self- motivating and self-managing. Meetings with the supervisor very productive and involved a two-way exchange of ideas. Rigorous record of all costs maintained, carefully justified estimate of total development costs provided and, where appropriate, a realistic prediction of further development costs, production costs, product retail price etc.
Theoretical understanding shown and analytical content	Little or no understanding demonstrated.	Shows little understanding, and cannot relate any of the work to underpinning theory.	Shows understanding of some aspects, at a fairly superficial depth. Unable to present theoretical basis for work, though may, in interview, be able to identify some relation between the work and underpinning theory.	Shows understanding of what has been done, though may not be able to give comprehensive answers to more searching equations. Theory applied but report fails to demonstrate understanding of theory.	Good understanding of what has been done, and can describe theoretical basis, albeit with understanding of theory limited to that used directly.	Thorough understanding of the subject and can apply this understanding to the solution of unfamiliar problems.	Deep and comprehensive understanding of the subject, can answer all questions put accurately and with confidence and apply understanding to the solution of unfamiliar and difficult problems.		The student has evident mastery of difficult material, is able to explain it fluently, and has demonstrated significant original thought.
Design Requirements analysis, specification, consideration of possible designs, detailed design, verification that specs met, etc.	Little or no evidence of any design whatsoever.	No evidence that the design process is understood.	Design carried out in a way that makes sense, but process has many flaws.	Logical design process followed, but design decisions not justified.	Clear understanding of the design process shown. Proceeded in a logical manner and justified most decisions.	Clear understanding of the design process shown. Proceeded in a logical manner and justified all decisions. Design shows flair and innovation.	Very clear understanding of the design process shown. Proceeded in a logical manner, considering all options and fully justifying all decisions. Design shows considerable flair and innovation.
Experimental work including experimental design, procedure, recording and presentation of results/data, error analysis, data analysis.	Little or no evidence of any experiments (where experiments were required).	No evidence of any data from experiments.	Some appropriate experiments carried out, but with very poor results. Almost no attempt to analyse the results.	Some success with experiments, but reliability uncertain and little attempt to account for errors. Problems, that could have been solved, not overcome.	Work properly planned, carried out carefully and fully documented. Data reliable or unreliability discussed adequately. New techniques applied. Problems overcome by developing equipment or method.	Experiments replicated and errors estimated. Theory developed and applied. Experimental data compared with theory and deviations examined and explained.	As 7-8 plus: experiments very carefully designed, and ingenuity demonstrated in this design. Every reasonable step has been taken to verify the results, and a thorough error analysis has been completed. Results may be publishable.
Software development, including design and coding.	Little or no functioning software has been produced.	Some code produced and it does do something but does not work properly and there is no documentation or evidence of any thought given to a proper design process.	Some working code produced but poorly documented, not particularly reliable and a proper design process has not been followed. User interface difficult to understand and use.	Working code produced and documented. It does most of what it is supposed to do most of the time. Some evidence of a proper design process. User interface can be used with just a little guidance from the student.	Working code produced and thoroughly documented. It meets most specifications reliably. A proper design process has been clearly followed and documented. User interface usable without help from the student.	Working code produced and thoroughly documented. It meets all specs reliably. Proper design process rigorously followed and fully documented. Issues of maintainability, portability etc. addressed. User interface user friendly.		A good example of software engineering carried out properly. A rigorous design process has preceded the writing of an impressive piece of software that is robust and reliable and fully meets or exceeds demanding specifications. Full documentation, issues of maintainability, portability etc. fully addressed and the user interface is very clear and easy to use.
Software development, including design and coding.	Little or no functioning software has been produced.							In the top 5% of projects.		Clear candidate for best project of the year.
Practical (construction)	Little or nothing recognisable has been made.	If the project involves making something, it may be recognisable but it doesn’t work.	If the project involves making something, it is unlikely to work very well.	If the project involves making something, it works satisfactorily.	If the project involves making something, it works well.	If the project involves making something, it works well/perfectly and shows real care and craftsmanship.
Presentation of Final report: adherence to regulations, structure, grammar, spelling, typographical correctness, presentation of graphs, tables, etc., references, clarity of exposition etc.	Little or nothing handed in which could be accepted as representing a report.	Quality is low, with little or no structure. Reads like an expanded poor second-year lab report. Report is a rewrite of earlier reports without additional material.	Required components present in recognisable form. Possible to see what has been done from the report. Flawed, but has some results, some explanations and description of work which indicates that, with some additional application something worthwhile could be produced.	The report is properly structured and the required components are properly presented, but there are significant flaws. E.g.: references, diagrams, and calculations show errors or omissions.	The layout of the report follows the guidance given strictly. It is easy to read with few grammatical or spelling mistakes and gives a clear account of the project.	The report is coherent, follows the guidance given strictly, well structured, easy to read, and few corrections are required. It gives a very clear account of the work that has been done and sets this in the context of other work.		The report is excellent in every way. It needs no corrections, or only a few very minor corrections and in some cases could be of publishable quality.
Logbook	Little or no evidence that one has been kept.	The presented “logbook” shows no evidence of being used properly.	A “logbook” has been kept, but inconsistently and has many omissions.	The student is developing a professional approach to keeping a logbook.	The logbook has been kept in a systematic way and represents a true and useful record of the work carried out.
Group functioning (Group projects only) Group as a whole	No evidence of any communication between group members, or interactions entirely destructive.	Little evidence of communication between members of the group or attempts to work towards any common aim.	Clear evidence of communication, albeit poor, between members and of work being directed roughly in the direction of some commonly perceived aim.	Regular communication between group members. Work directed towards a commonly defined aim, though group planning may be inconsistent. Some systematic and appropriate division of roles and responsibilities.	Group worked together well. Few minor problems. Meetings organised with all members of the group contributing. Sense of a team effort rather than a collection of individual efforts, and a clear common aim established.	Group worked together well/extremely well. Meetings were well organised and purposeful. All members of the group contributed and supported the others; they had clearly defined roles but also showed a clear and constant understanding of the overall aims of the project and of the needs of the other group members. Very clear sense of team effort rather than just a collection of individual efforts. All members of the team working to the same plan, and same aims.
Individual contribution to Group functioning (Group projects only)	No evidence of any communication with other members of the group, or behaviour towards rest of group entirely destructive	Little evidence of communication with other members of the group, or little positive contribution to group discussions	Some positive contribution to group discussions, and vaguely aware of fulfilling a specific role within the group.	Some understanding of own group role adopted within the. Some evidence of conscious support given to other group members, though this may be technical rather than personal.	Clear understanding of own group role, and aware of own strengths and weaknesses. Aware of the group roles taken by other members. Evidence of conscious support given to other group members. Can talk sensibly about the group dynamics.	Deep understanding and self-assessment of own group role. Can describe the group roles of other group members and assess performance. Consciously modifies own behaviour to support other group members in order to maintain or improve group function.		A deep understanding of the group roles, strengths and weaknesses of all group members including self. Can use this analysis to modify own behaviour appropriately and support all other group members so as optimise both their performance and that of the group as a whole. Aware of the personal development of other group members and can give them constructive guidance.
	0-3	3-4	4-5	5-6	6-7	7-8		8-9		9-10
	(< 30 %)	(30 – 40%)	(40 – 50%)	(50 – 60%)	(60 – 70%)	(70 – 80%)		(80 – 90%)		(> 90%)

2.6 Running Team Projects in Co-operation with Industry

Author(s) Dr Peter Willmot

Institution Loughborough University

Faculty Engineering

Department/ School Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

Programme(s) Mechanical Engineering.

Title of Module(s) Application of Engineering Design (year 2)

Project Engineering (year 4)

Award(s) M.Eng (DIS) Year(s) of study 4 (or 5)

Module Credits 15 of 120 (2^nd year) % project assessment 100%

30 of 120 (4^th year M.Eng) % project assessment 100%

Assessment Outputs 2^nd year: Written Reports (2) Oral Presentation

4^th year . Written Reports (3) Individual assignment, Conference Presentation, Exhibition,

Industrial/ Professional Participation Yes

Group Project: Yes Group Size 2^nd year - 4 Group Selection: Seeded

Group Project: Yes Group Size 4^th year - 5 Group Selection Tutor

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

The Loughborough Teaching Contract is a scheme that guarantees industrially based projects to all mechanical engineering students at Loughborough University. The scheme has developed over a period of twenty years and currently offers the benefits of close cooperation between the university and fourteen engineering enterprises.

Small teams of students tackle real problems set by the companies through the academic year and engage in a number of factory visits and progress meetings. The companies pay a small fee to cover expenses and are presented with a full report of the students’ findings. The industrialists take part in tutoring and assessing the project work as it develops and can exert influence on the practices and procedures used. Companies report frequent positive outcomes and generally welcome the opportunity to work with prospective placement students and graduate recruits.

The students benefit by developing an understanding of working in industry, gain context to their degree programme and improving their process and communication skills.

Introduction

This case study describes how we have embedded a significant industrial input into a Mechanical Engineering degree programme through a formal scheme known as the "Teaching Contract". SARTOR3(1) and Institutional accrediting panels place a greater emphasis than ever on the provision of industrial liaison in academia and the benefits are widely accepted but difficult to quantify. The QAA(2) require engineering students to have an “ability to operate in commerce and industry in a variety of situations”: how is this to be achieved if not through working with industry?

Clearly, all institutions set and supervise project work and in many cases, industrially derived projects are set on an ad hoc basis through a lecturer’s personal contact or by speculative approaches from industry. While this all very positive and those students who happen to land an interesting industry-based project are often well served, it was realised that a more formal arrangement was needed if we were to guarantee a similar quality of experience to all students and generate a robust and adequately moderated assessment regime.

The Loughborough Teaching Contract

The Teaching Contract is a consortium of companies who agree to provide projects for a number of students and give continuity of industrial support at the heart of the curriculum. The scheme guarantees industrially based project work for all our second year students (B.Eng/M.Eng) and final year masters students. We recently extended the scope to include Product design finalists. In 2002/3 there are approximately 200 students taking part. The conduct of the projects and the administration of the system is constantly monitored and improved by an annual advisory meeting of the consortium. The companies pay a small fee to the university that allows us to fund the necessary industrial visits, hospitality, cover basic project costs and maintain a high standard of report presentation. Over the years the scheme has involved a large number of engineering companies: currently there are fourteen companies involved that range from major household names to small local enterprises.

Recruiting the Industry Partners

The primary task of the Teaching Contract Director is to ensure that there is sufficient capacity within the scheme for the student numbers. There is a natural turnover of companies and an effort must be made to recruit new companies at every opportunity. Industrialists are usually keen to talk about working with a university but less eager to make a time commitment. An information pack is sent to interested parties but face-to-face discussions are undoubtedly the most effective recruiting tool. We also invite any company managers who express interest during the year to the summer exhibition of students work. Much of the recruiting activity takes place during the summer vacation. When a company joins the scheme, it agrees to the conditions and a modus operandi set out in an agreement document. Fortunately, to a certain extent, the scheme is self-perpetuating.

Setting up projects with industry

Considerable prior planning is involved. Companies express a preference for working with either second year students or finalists. Some prefer second year because of the reduced commitment and the possibility of recruiting future sandwich placement students while other prefer the more advanced level of the final year work. A batch of between fifteen and twenty students are allocated to each participant company; we find few companies will accept more than this. We also select an academic tutor to work with each company.

The companies prepare an initial statement of their project ideas. For finalist we insist on a different topic for each team but for second years it works just as well when student teams compete on the same topic. In some cases, this is more rewarding for the company as they get a better breadth of concepts and investigations. Tutors visit their company during the summer vacation to discuss the suitability of the ideas and offer advice on how the task should be set. We prefer that students are not provided with a detailed written brief as the first task is for the team to get to grips with the problem and generate their own detailed specification. Tutors also arrange an initial factory visit during the early weeks of term and provide advance notice of meeting dates etc.

Suitable project topics

The subject of the project may be almost any aspect of mechanical or manufacturing engineering, provided there is scope for some original conceptual work.

At second year level, the project is an open ended problem set by the company and the students work as consultants with the support of the academic tutor, a student-mentor (see Case Study 9) and an Industrial Tutor. The primary intention of these projects is to develop team working, creativity, commercial awareness, project planning and associated transferable skills rather than completely detailed designs. Working in teams of four, students are encouraged to research the field of study, present a number of well considered ideas or schemes, and develop the most promising of them into a design scheme together with a full evaluation of its merits. This often involves laboratory testing, modelling or simulation. A formal written report is prepared together with a formal oral presentation to the company and the peer group.

In final year, the topics a naturally more complex and studied to a greater depth but are similarly open-ended. Having already gained experience of team working with a company in their second year, finalists become effective much quicker and are ready to take a project from initial research through to a detailed solution that often includes a demonstration model or prototype. These students are also ready to tackle more advanced methodologies such as risk and failure mode analysis with maturity. Once again, students are introduced to the projects at the factory site and an academic supervisor works with all the teams allocated to any one company. Finalists work in teams of five and have a number of substantive assessment tasks.

Examples of Past Project Titles

o Developing a method to measure the crunchiness of a popular confectionery

o Non Destructive Testing (NDT) for rust in lagged pipes on the continental shelf

o A device to check for leakage in the seals on polythene milk bottles on the production line

o Rail Carriage conversion for freight

o A Supermarket checkout design for the disabled.

o In situ strength testing of corroded pipe flange bolts

o Hydraulic digger functionality improvements

o Intelligent pipeline pig

o Variable power steering

o An Improved hand-pump manufacturing cell

o A hydrodynamic bearing test cell

o Testing the longevity of pipe joints in a vehicle air conditioning system

o Measuring torque on a racing motorcycle

Typical Project Schedule

The module leader generates the project schedule. The outline schedule remains unchanged from year-to-year with all activities related to the module happening on a fixed half -day every week. The projects run from mid October to early May with a break during the examination period in January. When the university first introduced the semester system, we compacted the second year project into a single semester with similar time allocations but this was unpopular and the resulted in a distinct drop in the quality of student’s work.

A generic lecture programme dealing with design processes, methods, researching and reporting methods supports the second year work. Finalists take a parallel module in engineering design management.

Example schedule (Final Year)

Week 1 Introduction to the scheme, team and company allocation

Week 2 Factory Visits

Week 3-5 Tutorials with academic supervisor

Week 6 Progress Meeting with company tutor

Week 7-11 Tutorials with academic supervisor

Week 12 Intermediate report handed in

Week 13-15 Examination Period

Week 16 Progress Meeting with company tutor

Weeks 17-24 Tutorials with academic supervisor

Week 25 Hand in Final Report

Week 26 Preparations for week 27

Week 27 Conference (am) and Exhibition (pm) with industrialists, also Teaching Contract AGM

Student - Industry Interaction Through the Project

Students have an early visit to the factory to see the environment at first hand. This means we need to arrange up to eight busses on the allocated visit days and we are happy to travel up to about 150 miles. The staff tutors accompany their teams but always allows the company to introduce the problems to be studied. Where more than one topic is on offer we allow teams to take their choice. This visit, that normally includes a tour of the site is crucial for the students to understand the context of the project and is a considerable motivator.

There are a number of essential follow-up visits to the university by the Industrial Tutor and the teams maintain additional contact throughout by email and telephone. We require students to generate their own agenda and chair these progress meetings where they report progress and seek further advice and direction. The primary purpose of the first university meeting is to agree the specification for the’ contract’.

Quite apart from meeting with students, the visits offer the opportunity for industrialists to share their experiences with university staff and with other company representatives. We consider this a valuable networking opportunity and several developments such as research contracts have arisen directly from this interaction. To encourage this we arrange to meet together over lunch.

Finalists typically make one further visit to the factory or other associated industry by arrangement with their tutor. This is usually unaccompanied but we pay travelling expenses through the scheme. Secondary visits are less common for second year students. We encourage all students to contact other organisations in connection with their project work and we reward initiative. Students, for example, sometimes arrange for sales representatives to visit the university and demonstrate their products.

Space Needs

An important consideration in setting up such a scheme is the need to provide meeting space for a large number of teams at the same time. We provide a large studio with separate project areas and have a number of small study rooms for team meetings. Motivation is soon lost if suitable accommodation is not available. Coping with this demand has proved difficult however the income from the scheme has enabled us to gradually bring in additional presentation equipment etc.

Assessment

Assessment is conducted by the academic supervisor through staged reporting and the projects finish with a formal presentation at the University to the peer group. Individual finalists are allocated an additional assignment within the scope of the project and the oral presentations take the form of a conference followed by a large exhibition to which industrialists, academic staff and fellow students are invited. Students prepare copies of all reports and drawings for the company to keep and industrialists assist and countersign each stage of the assessment process. We use a series of pro-forma marking sheets with objective marking criteria to moderate each assessment stage. Finally, we apply a peer assessment routine to reward individuals appropriately.

Benefits

For students

o Knowledge and understanding of specialist engineering topics.

o Awareness of industry and commercial realism.

o Research techniques, teamworking and communication skills, problem solving, written and oral presentational skills.

o Prototyping and model making.

o Structured project management practice.

o Motivation.

o Enhanced employment prospects (students report that these experiences usually form the centrepiece of subsequent job interviews).

For industry partners

o Many of the ideas put forward by the students that have been taken up and developed by the participating companies.

o Many more companies have told how they benefit from the unrestrained basic research done with fresh and open minds and how this often leads to novel and otherwise ignored conceptual solutions to longstanding problems.

o Allows companies to tackle problems which the company would like to solve but which are perhaps not critical to daily production and which they would not usually resource.

o Access to university research using tools not available in the company.

o Excellent publicity for the company.

o Access to placement students and potential employees.

o Potential access to more extensive research projects.

o Industry staff involved usually enjoy the experience, that is considered as a diversion.

For the university

o Good industry links enhance a department’s reputation with potential students

o A positive and powerful feature at professional accreditation.

o Contact with industry keeps staff up-to-date.

o Small income stream covers expenses.

Conclusions

Industry projects offer a wide range of benefits to all three parties involved in them. Above all, students are seen to noticeably develop in confidence and professional stature through this work. They begin rather slowly and hesitantly when faced with an unfamiliar open-ended problem at year 2 but end the scheme with confidence and commitment.

Industry projects provide an excellent vehicle to apply engineering science in context and practice key transferable skills that are so valuable to employers. Furthermore, industrial companies appear keener than ever to work with universities who they consider will provide them a source of high calibre graduate employees. Universities involved in engineering can only gain from such liaisons but they must weigh the benefits against the administrative complexity and the considerable time and space demands.

References

1. Engineering Council, Standards & Routes to Registration, 3^rd Edition,1999

2. Academic Standards – Engineering, Benchmark Statement, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2000.

2.7 Widening the Project Based Learning Experience with Student Mentors

Author(s) Dr Peter Willmot

Institution Loughborough University

Faculty Engineering

Department/ School Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering

Programme(s) M.Eng Mechanical Engineering.

Title of Module(s) Project Engineering

Award(s) M.Eng (DIS) Year(s) of study 4

(or 5-sandwich version)

Module Credits 10 of 120 % project assessment – 100% Coursework

Assessment Outputs Individual assessments: Mentoring Report 40%, Tutor Appraisal 20%, Project Management Essay 20%

Team assessment: Case Study 20%.

Industrial/ Professional Participation Yes (indirect)

This is an individual activity that supports a 2^nd year team project

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

This case study describes the arrangements and procedures for a successful final year student experience in project supervision. Fourth year M.Eng students are appointed ‘mentors’ to a team of second year students undertaking a year long project module. The mentors gain practical experience of aspects of project management and leadership in a controlled environment, and are encouraged to reflect and build on their performance through an appraisal procedure similar to that used by the professional engineering institutions.

Introduction

Surveys show that engineering employers seek virtues such as willingness, drive and self-determination, along with strong commercial and communication skills, ahead of traditional technical expertise. In short, companies look for young graduates with potential, who can perform from day one. This study describes how the introduction of the degree of Master of Engineering provided the inspiration to further develop an existing university/industry project scheme known as the ‘Teaching Contract’ to enhance the leadership and entrepreneurial potential of high-flying students: preparing them better for the world of work.

Finalist M.Eng students are appointed as mentors to a team of four younger students engaged in an industry based research and design project. Through this, they gain first-hand experience of project management and leadership. The experience is built into a module offering practical support and opportunities for self-reflection.

The Teaching Contract

For a full description of this project scheme please refer to Case Study 6 (p 2-41).

Rationale for introducing student-mentors

The widespread introduction of the degree of Master of Engineering (M.Eng) in the late 1990’s required institutions to add breadth and depth to degree programmes. Along with this came a requirement to consider the professional competences of graduates and key transferable skills appropriate at master’s level. The IMechE state that the degree should “enable the M.Eng graduate to progress rapidly to a position of responsibility.” The aim of extending our Teaching Contract was to prepare our most able students more specifically for leadership and entrepreneurial roles.

How student-mentoring works

Early in the year, all our second year (level 2) students are introduced to an industrially derived problem from within the Teaching Contract consortium and a finalist works as ‘mentor’ to each team of four. Each consortium company sets problems to four or five teams (16-20 students in all) and an academic supervisor takes charge of the activities of the company group. In 2002/3 there are eight company groups operating. Projects run from mid October to early May on one afternoon per week, with a four week break during the mid year examination period.

The mentoring experience forms the major part of a final year module ‘Project Leadership’. This is a 10 credit module that, crucially, takes place at the same time as the mentors are themselves participating in a level 4 (30 credit) industry based team project, hence there are opportunities for the role of team-player to inform the task of leading a team through a smaller but similar style project. Students are encouraged, for example, to pass on their final year level experience at project planning and control to the second year team they are mentoring.

The module leader draws up a schedule of events for the duration of the project that includes weekly team meetings, observed team meetings where the supervisor sits in and two progress reports where the industrial sponsor is also present.

The mentor is expected to chair team meetings that last about an hour; (s)he must produce an agenda in advance and work to it. Teams record their meetings through minutes that are copied to the supervisor via email. The mentor must ensure this is done but may choose precisely how. They most commonly rotate the secretarial duties amongst the team members, though some mentors prefer to prepare their own minutes.

Monitoring and Appraisal

Roughly every third week the supervisors observe team meetings and conduct an appraisal of the mentor’s performance using a reporting technique based upon the Engineering Council’s Monitored Professional Development Scheme (MPDS). At the same time (s)he checks the progress of the project team but only intervenes if problems or difficulties are apparent. The supervisor and mentor meet in private shortly afterwards to discuss the appraisal, with the purpose of identifying the mentor’s strengths and weaknesses. Both supervisor and mentor sign the appraisal record.

Once each semester, supervisors host an informal management meeting with all the mentors in their company group. Mentors are encouraged to exchange ideas on what they perceive as being effective and what has not worked so well for them. They identify problems and discuss how best to tackle them. These sessions are particularly useful and universally welcomed by the mentors.

In recognising the usefulness of an appraisal system, we also incorporate intermediate feedback on the mentors’ performance by the mentees. We wrote a simple anonymous questionnaire for this purpose that mentors distribute amongst their teams. Information received through this does not directly affect module marks but helps the mentors identify their strengths and weaknesses.

Roles and Responsibilities

The mentor’s primary role is that of project manager, who deals with project planning, gives advice and guidance, allocates duties to team members and encourages effective progress. While it is perfectly permissible for mentors to assist with the promotion and development of ideas, and to offer sound assistance with analysis and evaluation, they are asked to refrain from directly generating solutions or actually performing the technical tasks. Mentors are also required to give leadership and encouragement through which they quickly learn the effects of different styles of working with teams.

The academic supervisor is ultimately responsible for the mentor and the student teams within his/her company group, and for assessment of the performance of both.

Student Support and Context

The mentoring activity is, of course, central to this module, but if level 4 students are to realise the maximum benefit from it they should take time to reflect on their actions and the reactions of their subordinates: engineers are not noted for their sociological prowess.

The taught element of the module has three functions.

1. To support the mentoring activities.

2. We deliver a number of lectures and training workshops on subjects like project planning, team building, motivation and leadership, and how to conduct and record meetings.

3. To place the mentoring activity in an appropriate context.

4. We remind students of contemporary project management theory (studied in depth at level 3). In particular, we look at team dynamics and psychometric testing, and how personality factors influence the effectiveness of different management and leadership styles.

5. To consider, through case study, different types of projects, large and small, and tease out the common skills and expertise needed by those who lead them.

At first, we tried to teach these topics through conventional lectures but soon realised that the relatively small group size and the seniority of these high calibre students lends itself to participative workshop style teaching. Some of the material we employ was intended originally for staff development.

Module Assessment

Assessment is by coursework only and comprises three elements. The project supervisors mark assignment 1 against pre-defined criteria but assignments 2 & 3 are marked by the module leader.

1. Mentors write up their experiences including a reflective critique of their performance and the responses of their mentees. The report is informed by the appraisal system that identifies strengths, weaknesses and growth from the perspective of both supervisor and subordinates. Students must report how they reacted to the issues raised. The appraisal forms are appended to the reports and their numerical scores (staff appraisal only) contribute a small percentage of the report mark.

2. A short essay based on a reading assignment is set midway through the year to encourage students to research project management techniques for themselves.

3. A two-week case study assignment, delivered by a company director, widens the scope of the module by challenging students to consider how they might initiate and manage a major venture capital project. This interactive team exercise uses role-play to demonstrate the different views of interested parties and considers the obstacles to overcome. Assessment is part oral, part written.

Benefits

This module is quite a departure from our usual diet of engineering science, laboratory investigations and lecture-based tuition. The potential benefits in the students’ personal development, however, are obvious. The leadership scheme is a self-building experience: mentors recall their own experiences in year 2 and this, added to the experience many have gained in industry during our optional sandwich placement year, seems to make the whole experience come to life. What is most noticeable is the mature attitude the finalists invariably bring to this work. The motivation not to let their charges down is very high, but the acquired responsibility of mentoring a team also influences the attitude to the parallel final year project work where we now see an unprecedented degree of professionalism.

It is particularly pleasing when we contrast this with the initial approach of the level 2 project students. Here, we often find the mark-driven, minimalist effort that is so common in early years work. Many would argue that the introduction of peer mentors improves this situation through the course of the year as the influence of the mentor is injected into the teams. It appears that students respond more readily and attentively to instructions and suggestions from peer mentors than from academic staff. Perhaps they relate in a manner that seems more relevant.

When compared with directly supervised level 2 projects the main benefit for supervisory staff is the reduced number of tutorial meetings that they need to attend; many of the weekly meetings are now taken by the mentor. Weighed against this, however, is the additional marking (mentoring reports and appraisal), management meetings with mentors and the obligation to monitor and take responsibility for project teams at arms length. On balance, there is no real time saving for staff.

Reflections

A lot of administrative work goes into providing the leadership experience for students but the result is a stimulating experience. We have not yet attempted any scientific analysis of the outcomes but module feedback is consistently good. Occasional comments like “the most useful module I did at Loughborough” are gratifying and show that at least some students gain from it. A number of finalists also reported that they discussed this experience during job interviews and that employers were keen to hear more. Their signed appraisal record is used to provide evidence.

The professionalism and maturity, referred to earlier, is probably the product of finalist mentors working ‘with’ academic staff rather than ‘for’ them to assist and motivate their project teams. Team leadership comes more easily to some than to others and some candidates are surprisingly ill at ease in this situation in the first instance. They are usually self-critical when asked (more critical, in fact, than their appraisers) and noticeably improve as they gain experience.

This module represents a modern and novel approach to appropriate vocational training.

2.8 Teaching Engineering through Problem Based Learning

Author(s) Barry Lennox

Institution University of Manchester

Faculty / School Faculty of Science and Engineering

Department School of Engineering

Title of Programme(s) BEng (Hons) and MEng (Hons) in Mechanical Engineering, Aerospace Engineering and Avionics

Title of Module(s) The majority of first and second year modules

Award(s) BEng and MEng Years of study 1st and 2nd

Module Credits 60 in Yr 1 and 80 in Yr 2 % project assessment 50-100%

Assessment Outputs Reports, presentations, posters, tests, demonstrations

Industrial/ Professional Participation No

Group Project: YES Group Size 5 to 8 Group Selection: Tutor

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

In September 2001, Problem based learning (PBL) was introduced as the primary teaching method for undergraduate engineering programmes at the University of Manchester. The introduction of PBL has brought with it many benefits and rewards for staff and students and has also raised a number of challenges and issues. Whilst it is premature to declare the overall initiative a success, an initial review of the programmes, conducted by an independent analyst, are encouraging. In addition, observations from staff indicate that after completing the first year of PBL, the students are more confident of their own abilities, better able to work in a team, keener to learn and have a greater understanding of the practical aspects of engineering. We also found that there were decreased re-sits and end of year failures, that is likely to have a positive impact on retention rates.

Many of the benefits and lessons learned from implementing a problem based approach are also applicable, within traditional engineering courses, to projects consisting of a problem based scenario. For example, the benefit of using learning logs, the initial resistance of staff, and the subsequent motivation and satisfaction of students and staff in undertaking engineering problem solving activities.

Background

It was recognised for a number of years that there was a need to conduct a thorough review of the content and delivery of the engineering programmes offered by the University of Manchester. The necessity to review the programmes was driven by two principal factors. The first is that the changing nature of 6^th form education means school leavers are increasingly mismatched with the traditional requirements of undergraduate engineering programmes, particularly in mathematics. The second factor reflects the changing needs of industry, who look for graduate students who not only possess a solid understanding of the fundamental science of engineering, but also have a practical and confident approach to problem solving, can function well in a team and have excellent communication skills.

To address these factors, the decision was made in 1998 that the Manchester School of Engineering (MSE) would create a series of new undergraduate engineering programmes that would adopt PBL as the primary method of learning and teaching.

Programme Development

In 1998 a team of four people were assigned to develop the structure and content of the PBL based programmes with the intention that the programmes should take their first cohort of students in the academic year beginning September 2001. The early stages in this development involved identifying how PBL should be integrated into the undergraduate programme, what form PBL should take and the amount of PBL that should be contained within the programme.

There have been many PBL methods proposed for undergraduate education and the one adopted by MSE involved dividing the class into groups of eight and having each group work on a problem for 1-2 weeks (this PBL implementation could be analogous to an intensive project implemented in a traditional course). A problem scenario is handed out to each group, the make up of which is selected at random at the beginning of each semester, on a Monday morning. Over the next 1-2 weeks, the students are encouraged to follow a set procedure that involves the recalling of knowledge, formulation of questions, discussion of what has been learnt and finally reflection. To ensure that this happens, each group is assigned a member of staff who facilitates for two 1-hour periods on Monday and Thursday mornings.

Continual self-evaluation is encouraged throughout the programmes, and the students keep a reflective log known as a learning journal as part of their Personal and Academic Development Plan (PADP). For the duration of the PBL exercise, the student keeps a record of his/her own notes, teaching materials received from other group members, and a reflective commentary on his/her own progress. This commentary includes personal skills acquired through team working and may also include the roles played by individuals in the group, how well the group stuck to the task, time management, and how the group resolved differences.

Assessment is managed using a range of group and individual tasks. These include tests, presentations, web page design, report writing and demonstrations (see later for credit ratings).

Before each PBL activity was introduced into the programme it was piloted extensively with the help of school children and third and fourth year students. This testing phase proved invaluable as the test students would often focus on unexpected aspects of the problem, rather than the desired engineering topics. Significant changes were made to the problem scenarios at this stage to ensure that the correct learning outcomes could be achieved.

A major problem facing the programme development team was that there was significant resistance from many academic staff to the transfer to a PBL based programme. To encourage staff to support the transition to PBL, a series of away-days and training courses were scheduled between 1998 and 2001. These courses proved very valuable and did change the opinions of some academic staff, although others remained very much against the change, citing increased workload as their primary concern.

Programme Structure

It was decided at an early stage in the planning that PBL would be used extensively in years 1 and 2 with the format of year 3 and 4 units being left to the discretion of unit leaders. The reason for this is that the students tended to be well motivated in years 3 and 4 of the traditional programmes at MSE and were happy with the structure and content of these years. This decision was later found to have a significant benefit with the engineering institutions, who have now given provisional accreditation to the programmes. The Institutes were encouraged by the PBL approach, but at the same time were pleased to see that years 3 and 4 were comparable with those offered at other universities.

The initial plan for year 1 (which both Mechanical and Aerospace engineers take jointly) was that PBL would be used as the only method of delivery of course material. Unfortunately it quickly became apparent that this would not be suitable as there was insufficient time available in the year for the students to complete the necessary number of problems that would ensure that the first year syllabus was covered. It was therefore decided that year 1 would be split between PBL activities and taught courses. The PBL activities would cover the majority of the core engineering science with the taught courses providing theoretical underpinning and filling in any gaps in the syllabus not covered in the PBL activities. A further benefit of the taught courses was that they provided some risk limitation for students and staff. Although PBL has been implemented in engineering programmes elsewhere in the world, the scale of its integration in the programmes offered by MSE far exceeds any of these implementations. There was therefore some concern that on such a large scale, PBL would be unsuitable in an engineering programme. Care was taken to ensure that the taught courses did not take the form of traditional lectures, as this did not exploit the skills that the students were learning through PBL and was seen as the primary cause for students becoming disengaged with engineering in the past. Consequently the taught courses took the form of 2-4 hour sessions, during which the students would receive several short 15 minute presentations, interspersed with several individual and group based problem solving activities.

The basic structure of year 1 is that the year is divided into 12 two-week blocks. In each two-week block the students undertake PBL activities in the morning and engage in more structured teaching in the afternoons. There is an exception to this structure for the first 5 weeks of the programme when the students complete a series of 1-week PBL activities. The purpose of these sessions is for the students to get to know the other members of their group and to learn about PBL and to discover how to get the most out of it.

The theme for year 2 is Design as an Integrator and the content of the year was such that the engineering science was introduced in the context of its purpose in the design aspects of engineering. Year 2 is the first year in which the engineering disciplines are divided into degree specific streams, Aerospace Engineering and Mechanical Engineering.

The second year is divided into four, 6-week periods. In each of these periods the course focuses on particular aspects of the degree programme, for Mechanical Engineering students these are ‘Statics and Dynamics’, ‘Thermofluids’, ‘Instrumentation and Control’ and an ‘Integrating Module’. The purpose of the integrating module is to bring all the various engineering sciences together to solve a particular problem, in this case the re-design of a reciprocating compressor. This approach equates to the 'integrating projects' which are sometimes adopted in traditional programmes.

As with year 1 the teaching methods employed in year 2 comprise a mixture of PBL and taught courses. However, unlike year 1 where there is only a loose relationship between the PBL and taught courses, the two teaching methods are closely linked in year 2.

Credit Ratings

Years 1 and 2 of the programme are structured as follows:

Year 1 modules		Assessment
	Credits	Exam %	Unit tests %	Coursework % (individual & group)
PBL taught modules
Mechatronics	10	60	20	20
Statics and Dynamics	10	60	20	20
Thermofluids	10	60	20	20
Design	10	0	0	100
Professional Engineer	10	0	0	100
Mathematics	10	60	20	20
PBL modules
Group Work	20			100
Personal Studies	20		100
Personal Development	20			100

Year 2 modules		Assessment
	Credits	Exam %	Unit tests %	Coursework % (individual & group)
Taught modules
Design 2	10	80	0	20
Materials	10	80	0	20
Accounting and Law	10	80	0	20
Management	10	80	0	20
PBL taught modules
Taught PBL 1	10	80	0	20
Taught PBL 2	10	80	0	20
Taught PBL 3	10	80	0	20
Taught PBL 4	10	80	0	20
PBL modules
Group Work	20			100
Personal Studies	10		100
Personal Development	10			100

In years 1 and 2 the 'Group Work' mark is based upon the group based reports, presentations etc, that are completed. The 'Personal Studies' mark is an average of all the tests that are undertaken during each PBL activity. The 'Personal Development' mark is an accumulation of the personal and academic development plan report marks that are assessed by the tutors. In year 2 the management and design are more traditional in structure.

Passenger Problem and Peer Review

The single, largest problem that has been encountered with the PBL programme is that associated with ‘passengers’. Each group contains 1 or 2 students that provide little or no contribution. In the first year that the programme ran, this problem was, perhaps naively, unexpected and students who had failed to contribute to the PBL activities continued to receive high group marks. This caused major resentment with hard working students, both towards PBL and their peers. To address the problem a peer review scheme has now been introduced. At the end of each PBL activity the students provide a grade, out of 5, for the contribution that each member of the group has made. These figures are then processed and the group work mark for each student is moderated accordingly. Students can appeal if they believe that they have been unfairly treated by their peers but must provide factual evidence to confirm that they have contributed. This evidence typically takes the form of minutes and attendance from the meetings that are routinely held during the PBL activities. Although there have been some practical problems with the peer review system, these are beginning to be ironed out and the students are becoming appeased with the procedure.

Reflection

Following the completion of the first year of the programme an independent analysis was conducted. This analysis questioned, through interviews and feedback forms 79 students and 17 staff. The main conclusions from this analysis were that:

1. Desirable learning outcomes can be successfully achieved through PBL.

2. A group size of 5-8 works well.

3. Whilst initially there was some resistance from members of staff to PBL, those that have been acting as facilitators during the first year have found the experience rewarding, despite a slight increase in their work-load.

4. PBL motivates the majority of students to attend and engage, however there are still some problems with passengers and non-attendance which needs to be addressed.

5. The taught courses have been particularly successful with many students surprisingly rating Mathematics as their favourite unit.

6. The number of students who were required to re-sit units reduced from 40% in 2001 to 27% following the introduction of PBL and the number of students failing the year dropped from 30% to 16%. The reason for these reductions is believed to be because the students are enjoying the course more than in previous years and through PBL facilitation, members of staff have much closer contact with students during the year. This closer contact means that it is possible for members of staff to identify and respond to at risk students.

2.9 Learning Through Competition

Author(s) Dave Easterbrook (Colin Southcombe and Ken Bird)

Institution University of Plymouth

Faculty / School Faculty of Technology

Department School of Civil and Structural Engineering

Programme BEng / MEng Civil Engineering

Title of Module(s) Design Option

Award(s) BEng / MEng Year(s) of study 3

Module Credits 20 % project assessment 50%

Assessment Outputs: Project philosophy, poster display, project submission

Industrial/ Professional Participation YES, Industrialists

Group Project YES Group Size 4 or 5 Group Selection: student

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

This case study describes how undergraduate design projects forming 50% of a 20 credit module are integrated with National Steelwork Design competitions run by the Steel Construction Institute and sponsored by CORUS.

Currently there are three competitions run each year by the Steel Construction Institute (SCI) and each participating university may enter a team (or even an individual) for all three competitions. High quality competition briefs are developed by a team of industry professionals and academics. The briefs contain real world problems that ensure that the students are stretched to their limits to come up with an appropriate design.

At Plymouth we also involve industrialists in judging the design projects. They are involved in attending student presentations and in determining which of the designs will go forward to the national competitions. The competition is between each other as well as with other UK universitites.

Staff, students and industrialists want the teams to perform well, are motivated by the competitive element, and are excited by the difficult briefs set. The competitions have clear criteria for judging covering the key elements of good design, as a result the competition criteria align well with module specification, learning outcomes and assessment methods for the design module.

Background to the competition

The Steel Construction Institute started running design competitions for undergraduates in 1995, and these have been run to cover four steel construction areas: Structural Steelwork Design, Steel Bridge Design, Tubular Steelwork Design and Steel Piling Design Awards, sponsored by Corus Construction Centre

The competition design briefs are set by a panel of industrialists and academics. The industrialists often provide a real design problem that is based on examples from their own design experiences. The design problem is then discussed at a panel meeting in order to produce a design brief which the academics feel is challenging but achievable and which the industrialists feel is a good test of structural engineering. As the problems are real this usually means that for the students to come up with solutions they must use and extend their structural engineering knowledge to larger and more innovative structures. The problems encourage students to really look at structures and explore new ideas and concepts.

Each University may only submit one team per competition, so there is also competition between the teams within each institution to be the team selected. This ensures a focussed approach to the competition which drives the students to succeed.

The brief is compiled by a panel of academics and industry professionals and is then assessed by a 2^nd panel of academics and industry professionals. The only common membership of these panels is the Chairperson and a representative from both CORUS and SCI.

All of the teams selected from each university for the national design project receive a £250 prize and the winners of each competition receive prizes totalling £2,500

The group size for the competition entry is also determined by each university. In the past there have been winners with group sizes from 5 to 2 and even individuals winning prizes.

The competition briefs are available at the start of each academic year with a submission date in June the following year. This allows for each university to embed the competition into its own academic structure and unique learning and teaching methodology.

The SCI hosts a web site for the competition with a facility for students to post questions regarding the design brief, the answers to which are available for all competitors.

The entries to the National Design Competition are judged at the SCI Headquarters in Ascot, by a separate judging panel as described above. The judging takes place over one full day and involves healthy debate based around the design brief but particularly with respect to each judges own appreciation of the students final design. The competition culminates in a national award ceremony held at a location within the UK. All entrants, both staff and students, are invited to attend, and are able to view other competitors submissions which are on display at the location. This enables the best students from each University to learn from/judge each others’ work.

The project is intended to engender competition but it is primarily a learning process albeit a sharp, focussed experience. The ceremony is very professionally organised and includes a formal lunch, following which the awards are announced. Despite the fierce competition which exists between the universities, both students and staff are generous in their appreciation of the winners.

Running the competition at the University of Plymouth

The students compete up to three times within the module:

1. to select an initial brief - within the university

2. against each other to go forward within the competition

3. the final competition - national

The design briefs are presented to the students at the start of their final year on the BEng/MEng (Hons) degree programme. The students then form into teams based on the design brief which interests them and an association from previous project work. This selection is indicative of the design team creation in industry and is often focussed on winning.

At Plymouth the students put in “bids” to determine which of the competitions they will enter. They produce sketch outlines for two of the competition briefs which they would like to undertake. The students submit their proposals, stating which is their preferred option of the two. The allocation of the project titles is determined by the quality of the submission and is intended to ensure an even distribution of teams for each project. This “bidding” for project titles ensures that a competitive spirit is created within the groups.

It is up to each University entering the competition as to how the project work is timetabled. At Plymouth, this is typically three hours contact time per week for 10 weeks in the second semester, largely delivered in an informal group based tutorial format with the module leader acting as a mentor to each team, asking more questions of the team rather than just giving answers.

In order to determine which group will be submitted to the national competition, students are requested to produce a presentation of their design work to industrialists and academics. The presentations are assessed by an equal number of industrialists and academics, to determine which projects will be put forward to the final national competition. There is often healthy debate between industrialists and academics over which project should be put forward. When the students present their work to the industrialists they also receive feedback which allows them to fine tune their design before submission to the National Competition (1 week later).

The presentations take the form of a poster display, computer based images and discussion. The students explain their design proposals to both the industrialists and academics who then question them much in the same as one would in practice. Other groups are encouraged to listen and learn from each “grilling”, as the process proceeds.

The competition is also an important element for the Industrialists involved at an institutional level. They are keen to see the teams progress and perform well in the competition and enjoy the judging process. This is usually arranged between 5-8 pm in the evening to make it easy for them to attend after work (food is provided).

The use of the competition design brief provides academics with an appropriate pre-written brief. Students and staff are all motivated by the competition and the Industrialists are very keen to learn of success in the competition.

There has been a good distribution of winners nationally from the competing Universities over the years that the competition has been run. For example at Plymouth they have won first prize in the tubular steelwork design competition three times, first prize in the steel plates design competition once and first prize in the steel piling design competition once, collecting a total of 7 prizes, including second and third place, since the start of the competition in 1995. This helps motivate the students as they want to out perform the previous year.

Integrating the competition with the module

The work that is carried out is undertaken both for the design competition and assessment in the module. The work counts for 35% of the module marks. As the competition briefs are written by both professionals from industry and academics the outcomes align appropriately to core module objectives.

The design brief is never prescriptive and has a broad range of solutions, which encourages the students to ‘think out of the box’ and to be creative in their design.

As the marking scheme is not prescriptive and cannot be prescriptive for such an open brief, the students are not so assessment driven and get their motivation from the competition.

The module is intended to introduce the students to real large and innovative structures. The students find the module daunting at the start but it becomes increasingly popular as they become more involved in the SCI competition in the second semester.

The competition integrates all of the knowledge, which can be expected from an undergraduate. It encourages aspects of structural design, buildability, maintenance, sustainability, economics and other aspects of a sound engineering degree course. This is the main reason why students initially find the module daunting. However with the realisation of the knowledge that they possess, which is generated by such a demanding brief they become increasingly more confident and “professional” in their approach.

The student design work is assessed based upon a criteria based marking scheme, relating to the key aspects of good design which naturally align with the competition judging criteria, e.g. that it must be elegant, safe, economic, well communicated and comply with the brief.

Benefits

The whole competition is run very professionally. The design brief is well constructed, there is a good panel and it is judged to appropriate criteria. The competition provides the industry with the opportunity to demonstrate the versatility and best use of steelwork in construction and to develop links with undergraduates.

There are a number of benefits from adopting a competition within a design project:

- The design brief is varied open and taxing

- The design brief is very professional as it is developed by an experienced team

- It is motivating for students:

- Financial reward

- Kudos and good evidence of success

- Motivating of staff and local industrialists, who want their students to be well represented

- Staff can’t wait for the new design briefs for the year to come out

- Pride for the students in reaching the final of the competition and being awarded a National prize and satisfaction for staff in seeing these students developing into the designers of the future.

For more information on these competitions see:

http://www.steel-sci.org/education/competitions.shtm

2.10 Enhancing Teamwork in Group Projects through
Pre-project Training Exercises

Author Dr Colin Smith

Institution University of Sheffield

Faculty / School Engineering

Department Civil and Structural Engineering

Programme(s) M.Eng in Civil Engineering, M.Eng in Civil and Structural Engineering, M.Eng in Civil Engineering with a Modern Language, M.Eng in Civil Engineering with Architecture

Title of Module(s) Stadium Design Project

Award(s) M.Eng Year of study 3

Module Credits 10 % project assessment 100

Assessment Outputs Group Presentation, Critical Session, Management of Meetings, Enterprise, Participation in Group Skills Workshop and Debrief:

Industrial/ Professional Participation Yes

Group Project: Yes Group Size: 8 Group Selection: Tutor

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

Students are often expected to work effectively as teams in group projects without any formal guidance. This case study describes an approach where explicit team training was integrated closely with an existing engineering design group project. Three main aspects of the project are discussed: modification of the existing project structure to enhance the teamworking element, incorporation of an upfront team training session and incorporation of a final debriefing and reflection session. Student enthusiasm for this approach has been very positive.

Background

The ability to teamwork effectively is widely seen as an important skill in industry. Even before graduation, such a skill should assist students to gain more out of project work. Students may be introduced to teamworking in a variety of ways, for example through short stand alone teamworking courses, perhaps with an outward bound element. This case study presents an alternative approach that integrates the teaching of teamworking skills directly with an existing credit bearing engineering design project. This gives the teamworking training an immediate relevance, which is often a key issue in getting students to engage with the material.

An existing third year group design project, bearing 10 out of 120 credits for the year, was chosen as a suitable vehicle for this approach. The project had worked well in previous years, but had scope for restructuring to maximise the teamworking element, while retaining the original learning objectives. This case study describes how teamworking training and practice was built into the project as an integral component. A brief overview of the actual project is also given to set the context.

Project Development Rationale

The existing group project had, in previous years, run continuously through the first part of the Semester in parallel with conventional lecture courses. While this approach permitted students to get well immersed in the technicalities of the project, it did in many cases lead to students devoting too much of their time to it.

The timetable was subsequently revised to block the project into a concentrated intensive 2 week period on its own. As well as limiting the time spent on the project by students, this requires students to work efficiently as teams, and to manage their time wisely. There is no 'spare' time for inefficiencies in the project work, as the students are constantly under time pressure.

Rather than expect students to develop team skills indirectly as part of the process of working in a group, it was felt that they would get more from the exercise if they were given some initial teamworking training. Mistakes made in the training could be learnt from, enabling students to approach their project more confidently and see the direct benefit of the skills that they had learnt.

To give the project a clear high profile end, each team is required to make a presentation to industry participants. The project then finishes with a debriefing session covering both the technical and teamworking aspects of the work.

Project Content and Structure

The project revolves around the design of a new football stadium for a local football club, with the brief to redevelop the existing site. The entire project, including the team training element, lasts two weeks. Teams are given a wealth of background technical data and, within a day of starting, are required to interview the club architect, the club commercial director and tour the existing site. All these activities are run in parallel to promote teamworking. Following a formal mid-project progress meeting, students have to present their designs to the commercial director and architect in a formal meeting at the project end. The timing, arrangement and nature of the activities are set to require a significant amount of planning, co-ordination, leadership, and time management on the part of the students.

Teamworking training

At the start of the project, students are told that they will be undertaking an intensive piece of work with short deadlines and will require good teamworking to get through it successfully. This sets the scene for the training. To be useful, it was felt that a one and a half day teambuilding course was required, consisting of eight exercises interspersed with short lectures. The repetition of exercises allows mistakes to be made and learnt from, and new skills applied again. Students tend to repeat some mistakes even after 3 or 4 exercises, so it is important to have sufficient rehearsal and opportunities for self-evaluation to allow the principles to be appreciated and absorbed.

Suitable materials and exercises are available from a variety of sources, commercial and non- commercial. For this project, material inspired by TRANSEND* was used. It is not within the scope of this case study to provide details of all the team exercises, but the overall format is set out below:

o Eight team exercises are run over one and half days, with each exercise taking ~30-60 minutes. Each exercise builds on the previous one.

o We use the same teams (of 8) as for the main exercise. The aim of the exercises is as much to promote teambuilding in preparation for the main project as to teaching teamworking skills. Each team has a staff or postgraduate tutor.

o Each student takes a turn at leading and also a turn at observing. It may be necessary for the tutor to steer the more challenging team exercises to the students who are most likely to cope best with them.

o Each exercise is preceded by a short presentation (15-20 minutes) from an industry speaker on teamworking and related topics.

o Each exercise is followed by a detailed debrief (10-15 minutes) facilitated by the team tutor, including comments from the student observer for that exercise. This is followed up by an overall class debrief (5-10 minutes). Key points are written up on flip charts.

The debriefing is not only a vital component of the teamworking training, but also works well in providing a model format for the final end of project debrief. Other useful pointers are listed below:

o It is important to define the learning objectives of the teamworking activities in the context of the main project and its overall learning objectives. In the project described here, the main objectives include teamworking, communication, time management and planning, introduction to leadership, and problem solving. These objectives need to be set at a suitable level for the students. It may be necessary to edit or simplify some teamworking activities where they assume significant prior experience, or cover advanced topics.

o A mix of generic and engineering based exercises can be used. The latter are often more challenging for the students, as they tend to become engrossed in the engineering aspects to the detriment of the overall task.

o It is useful to use a venue with which students are unfamiliar, and that is perhaps slightly more formal, to give the training a different atmosphere to their conventional teaching.

o Organisation and timing are critical - everything must be planned to the minute. It is advisable to run a training session for tutors before the main event, and to carry out a dry run of some or all of the material. To work well, it is essential that the tutors are clear on their role and have the aptitude for the debriefing sessions. In particular, this may involve dealing with students who tend to be reticent and reluctant to participate.

o Due to the intense nature of the project and the training exercises, there is little contingency either for the students or the academics. It thus requires academics to ensure that everything is guaranteed to work first time!

o Finally, external assistance with many aspects of the training can be invaluable, perhaps from the University's Staff Development Department.

Final debrief

The final project debrief is considered to be a vital component of the project. Following the final presentations to the 'client', the class debrief (with students sitting in their team groups) is carried out in two parts:

Academic debrief

This allows staff and industry participants to feed back on the technical aspect of the design work.

Skills debrief

Teams are asked first to discuss what individual skills they felt they had picked up during the project. This can link into PDP (Personal Development Planning) issues. They are then asked to consider how they had worked and developed as a team during the main project. Finally, they are asked to consider how their team functioned in the context of Belbin's classifications. Prior to the project students are given some input on teamworking and asked to complete a Belbin questionnaire. The questionnaire results are held back until the debrief stage. Comparison of their pre-project responses to Belbin with post-project discussions on how things went in practice can lead to some interesting insights, in particular on how the way students operate in a team depends very much on the context.

The skills debriefing is run in a similar format to the teamworking training, setting the activities as mini team exercises, with tutors facilitating the discussions. At this final stage, there was some concern that students would be too fatigued to participate. However, this has proved not to be the case. They seem to enjoy the debrief as a way to wind down after the project - and the provision of some prizes at the end also assists!

Resources

The resource implications for a project such as this are significant over a short period, but not necessarily large when averaged out. The team training and final debriefing requires substantial staff time, with one member of staff per group for a total of 2 days. However, suitably skilled postgraduates or research assistants can also be used. The upside for staff is that tutoring on the training exercises is both enjoyable and a valuable opportunity to get to know the students better.

The financial outlay required will vary depending on the nature of the materials required for the teambuilding exercises. The ability to run the project as an intensive 2 week exercise is important to its success, but does require careful negotiation over timetabling.

Student Response

The project has run in this format for one year. Overall, the project received very positive student feedback and the team training was extremely well regarded. Based on the end of project debrief, students felt that they had improved a range of skills. The skills most improved (among a large list) were delivering presentations, time management, teamworking and problem solving. The development of presentation skills was an existing learning outcome of the project.

A more detailed survey is currently in progress to investigate how well what was learnt in this project has been carried over into group projects later in years 3 and 4. At present, students are briefly reminded at the start of subsequent projects of what they have learnt, what they did well and what proved more difficult It may be that there is a need to incorporate more in depth revision and recapping to reinforce the message. Anecdotal evidence to date would indicate that teamworking skills significantly improved during the group project, and that these skills have been carried forwards into later project work.

* Acknowledgements to TRANSEND, and in particular Dr Dave Faraday and colleagues at the University of Surrey, for their help and advice. They have many years experience in running teamworking courses, which are scheduled as a precursor to a sandwich year in industry. The TRANSEND web site may be found at: http://transend.cpe.surrey.ac.uk

2.11 Introducing Business and Enterprise to Civil Engineering Students

Author(s) Dr Simon Tait

Institution University of Sheffield

Faculty / School Engineering

Department Civil and Structural Engineering

Programme(s) MEng in Civil Engineering, MEng in Civil and Structural Engineering, MEng in Civil Engineering with a Modern Language

Title of Module(s) Project Management Group Project

Award(s) Year(s) of study 4

Module Credits 20 % project assessment 100

Assessment Outputs Group Project Report (60%), 3 Assessed meetings (individual assessment, 30%), individual report on development of commercial enterprise (10%)

Industrial/ Professional Participation Yes

Group Project: Yes Group Size: 3-5 Group Selection: Tutor

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

This group design project has been developed to introduce civil engineering students to the concepts and skills required in commercial organisations to allow informed decisions to be made on the economic feasibility of large infrastructure investments. The project introduces concepts of economic evaluation, project planning to optimise resources utilisation, the role of the capital markets and the importance of marketing and sales for many commercial projects. It was recognised that these concepts, and the skills required to apply them, are of little interest to many civil engineering students. It was therefore considered essential that in order to teach these business concepts and skills, an environment would have to be created with a strong engineering content. The environment that was used was a group design project in which students play the role of consultants hired by a large European stainless steel manufacturer to evaluate the economic viability of the construction of a new stainless steel cold rolling mill in Sheffield.

Background

In 1997 the Engineering Council produced a report “Standards and Routes to Registration – SARTOR”. This report outlined the new standards required in the education and training of engineers wishing to achieve chartered status in the UK. The new guidelines stated that the MEng. degree would now become the “expected” route for delivery of the academic education for Chartered Engineers. They also stated that MEng. graduates will need “an understanding of the construction industry, its role in wealth creation, the social and political context within which engineering is practised, the role of civil engineering in shaping the physical and social environment and its diverse contribution to the quality of life including the profitable management of industrial and commercial enterprises”. For the first time there is a stated requirement that students must receive some teaching in commercial awareness and business skills in civil engineering degree courses.

This new environment has created a number of challenges for all Civil Engineering departments. Departments now need to provide teaching in the curriculum that will develop commercial skills in a meaningful way, so as to enhance employability or comply with the requirements of accreditation. This area of teaching is often seen as particularly troublesome for some Departments given the limited personal experience of staff of working in commercial environments. Students also tend to select civil engineering courses because of their personal interest in the technical aspects of construction, not because of the management challenges found in the construction industry. Hence student interest in subjects that are not purely technical can be extremely limited. It was therefore decided that any teaching would have to occur in an environment with a strong civil engineering context if students were to successfully develop the desired commercial and business skills. A structured group design project was chosen to meet this requirement.

This case study describes the development of such a project. Teaching materials were created, with the aid of industrial collaborators, to encourage students to challenge existing ideas, generate new ones and logically evaluate them in an environment that would reward innovation as well as the acquisition of knowledge and performance of individual skills. The project presented students with an identified potential commercial opportunity, they then had to collect and interpret the available background data, evaluate its commercial potential and then propose a realistic implementation plan. This was thought to be the most effective method of developing commercial skills and awareness amongst the students, given the need to make the learning as relevant as possible to the tasks within the design process inherent in any Civil Engineering project.

Project Development Rationale

In developing the content of the project it was the intention to give students the opportunity to experience a number of different commercial aspects common to many civil engineering projects. The aim was for the students to be given the opportunity to:

o Evaluate the desirability of a proposed scheme, its economic potential and the financial risks involved.

o Organise the resources required to exploit the proposed scheme in terms of the financial, managerial and technical resources required.

o Show an appreciation of the importance of creating value for society by large-scale commercial investments.

The project was only loosely based on an existing case study example. This was deliberately done so that there was never seen to be a “correct” solution. This can be a problem when using an existing project in design work. There is a tendency for students and tutors to tend towards the “conventional” accepted solution, that is the solution the industrial collaborator originally selected. The project constraints were framed so that the project was barely economically viable. This format was thought to give the students groups more opportunity and incentive to develop novel, more economically viable solutions.

Project Structure

The project involves student teams examining the feasibility of constructing a stainless steel rolling mill in the UK. The students act as consultants contracted to examine the feasibility of constructing a new cold rolling stainless steel plant in Sheffield. The clients have requested that the plant be able to roll 80000 tonnes per annum of a particular product mix (austenic/ferritic, different thickness and surface finishes). The project is split into three stages: outline plant design, project planning and implementation, and economic evaluation including studying the stainless steel market to discover whether the production mix of the plant could be altered to optimise investment returns (see table 1). The aim of this structure is to introduce students to the more engineering based elements of the project early on, in order to engage their interest and to persuade them of its relevance to Civil Engineering. The focus on the economic evaluation is introduced in the later part of the project, when the students are familiar with the engineering aspects of their solution and aware of the potential avenues they could explore to optimise the engineering performance of the plant or the construction phase to enhance economic value for their clients. This structure also has the advantage of leading students from detailed plant design first, then to construction planning and costing, then to the more generic ideas and techniques of economic project evaluation, and finally to concepts of enhancing value by consideration of the commercial market place for rolled stainless steel products.

At the end of each of these three stages the students attend an assessed meeting at which they present their ideas and their analysis of those ideas to the project tutors. The students are given feedback on their performance. This progressive type of assessment is considered to be very helpful in guiding students as to the performance expected of them in terms of the level and depth of ideas and analysis. At the end of the project the groups put together a final feasibility study report. This is a written document in which each group reports on the activities in each of the three stages.

Phase 1

Project Briefing – Introduce client requirements

Introduction to stainless steel manufacturing process and plant design

1^st Assessed meeting – Presentation of outline designs of plant layout and manufacturing capacity, selection of optimum building and plant layout

Phase 2

Project planning techniques workshop (provided by industrial collaborator)

Introduction to cost evaluation models

2^nd Assessed meeting – Construction implementation, programme and costs of recommended building and plant layout.

Phase 3

Marketing of stainless steel workshop (provided by industrial collaborator)

3^rd Assessed meeting – economic evaluation of recommended scheme, examination of options (e.g. product mix, new products and markets) to enhance profitability

Submission of group based feasibility study report

Table 1 – Programme of student teaching and assessment activities.

Teaching Materials

The teaching materials used fall into two groups; the first group contains materials with information specific to this project. Some of the documents are data-based, others are based on real documents supplied by our industrial collaborators but abridged for student use. It is the intention to supply the student design teams with too much data so that one set of skills they have to develop is that of data selection, interpretation and, if suitable data has not been supplied, data acquisition from external sources. The second group of documents is more generic in nature in that they provide students with information on skills (mainly commercial) that they need to develop in order to be able to complete the project. These skills - e.g. project planning, resource allocation and optimisation, and economic evaluation techniques (net present value, internal rate of return, return on capital) - are introduced during 2-hour workshops using examples relating to the project. Students are then expected to use the documents produced as reference materials as they try to apply the economic evaluation concepts using their design as a source of data. Each design team is expected to construct their own economic model of the proposed scheme (usually using Excel) so that various construction, manufacturing and marketing options can be investigated and subjectively compared. Most Civil Engineering students encounter concepts such as net present value and internal rate of return only in the formal lecture environment, and so have little experience in applying these economic evaluation methods to real data. Only when students have the opportunity to apply these techniques to realistic data do they start to appreciate the importance of such commercial methods in the decision making process. The opportunity to manipulate the input data to their economic model - e.g. plant layout/performance, construction sequences and product mix - clearly demonstrates to engineering students the impact of what seem to be purely “engineering” decisions on the commercial viability of a project.

One last aspect that enhances this appreciation is that the initial design criteria (80000tpa capacity, the performance of the available plant and anticipated costs and sales income) mean that the project is on the limit of economic viability. This is very useful as it emphasises the fact that all projects have to compete for capital resources, either internally within a large organisation or against other investment opportunities available on the open market. Students learn that detailed feasibility studies, even for a well-engineered solution, may not suffice to ensure that a project runs. Equally, more able students are also able to appreciate and demonstrate that engineers can, given some innovative ideas, turn a barely viable scheme into a much more financially robust project by changing their design solution to enhance income or cut costs.

Student Response

This project has been running for two years in its present format. In general most student teams have proved able to provide an economically viable solution, with many teams (over 70%) providing enhanced solutions examining the potential of different products or product mixes, and reducing manufacturing or construction costs to significantly enhance the economic viability of their schemes. All teams are able to collate and interpret the large amounts of data supplied, learn new engineering skills - e.g. basic rolling plant design - and build an economic model of their scheme so that objective economic decisions can be made.

Given the innovative nature of this project, structured questionnaires were completed anonymously by students in order to examine student attainment of skills and knowledge specifically related to the business learning aspects of the project. This data indicated significant increases in student awareness of business and enterprise and the role of “added value” to large engineering projects. Complex commercial skills also improved, with over 80% of students claiming they now had the confidence to commercially evaluate an engineering scheme and two thirds stating that they now had sufficient skills and knowledge to formulate a business plan and present it to potential investors. These were significant improvements on the pre-project data.

Outcomes

This project has shown it is possible to successfully teach commercial skills and business awareness to Civil Engineering students. However it is vital that these skills are taught in an environment that is clearly relevant to the students’ interests and motivation. It is also important that students are given the opportunity to continually use the taught commercial evaluation techniques with realistic data so that their relevance to the students is made very obvious. It must be remembered that to engineering students much economic analysis is analytically trivial, it is the importance of its application that needs to be demonstrated. If this is not done teaching commercial skills to engineers will be a thankless task.

2.12 An Innovative Design Class for First Year Mechanical Engineers

Author(s) Dr Andrew McLaren

Institution The University of Strathclyde, Glasgow

Faculty / School Faculty of Engineering

Department Department of Mechanical Engineering

Programme(s) Mechanical Engineering

Title of Module(s) 16187: Design and Engineering Applications

Award(s) B. Eng. , M.Eng Year(s) of study One

Module Credits Three % project assessment 100%

Assessment Outputs Group poster and oral presentation, group design portfolio

Industrial/ Professional Participation No

Group Project: Yes Group Size: 4 Group Selection: Tutor

______________________________________________________________________

Synopsis of Case Study

First year engineering students need support in the transition from school to university study. The new class “Design and Engineering Applications 1”, which accounts for 25% of the credit load for first year Mechanical Engineers, seeks to provide this support while giving an introduction to engineering design. The class aims to illustrate the relevance of the students’ engineering science classes to the design process, to build the students’ confidence in their own abilities and motivate them to research and discover things for themselves. Largely taught in groups of four, the students are also encouraged to develop group-working and presentational skills.

______________________________________________________________________

Introduction

The Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, has introduced a new class for all first year students. Entitled, “Design and Engineering Applications 1”, it replaces former taught credits in Engineering Materials, Mechanical Engineering Production and Engineering Applications. This class, which accounts for 25% of the students’ credits in first year, is innovative in approach, and relies heavily on group work, problem based and student centred learning.

Ethos and Context

The transition from school to university is often a large step for students, who must adapt quickly to the new learning environment and develop a whole range of skills while adjusting to unfamiliar surroundings. The first year study programme at the Department of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Strathclyde is designed to support students in making this transition, with four main goals:

1. To establish firmly and reinforce the basic concepts of mathematics and engineering science, that will form the foundation for study and learning in later years

2. To allow for differences in background between students

3. To build confidence, enthusiasm and responsibility

4. To nurture, support and encourage the students in their studies

Design and Engineering Applications 1 is an integral component of the first year curriculum, and subscribes to the basic goals listed above. The specific aims of the class are to give an introduction to the concepts and processes of engineering design, and to illustrate the relevance of the engineering science curriculum to the design process. In addition, the class strives to build the students’ confidence in their own abilities. The department is fortunate in having relatively high entry standards, and all the students have achieved good grades at school. This being the case, students are shown that their understanding of school level physics and maths is sufficient as a starting point for understanding the concepts of engineering design. They are encouraged to study and find things out for themselves, and to estimate, simplify and approximate. The class is largely taught and assessed in groups of four students, which develops team working and presentation skills.

Activities

The class, which currently numbers some 130 students, is divided into four teams, which cycle in sequence through four different activities, in blocks of either four or eight weeks throughout the year. The four activity blocks are as follows:

1. Design appreciation (8 weeks): Mechanical dissection of a motor car. Each student group selects and removes a component from the car. It is stripped and cleaned for analysis. The group’s task is to describe the function, service conditions, materials and manufacturing of the component, and their interrelation, by the production of a poster and oral presentation. After initial removal and cleaning, each group spends approximately one hour discussing the component with staff, who give guidance on what analysis is appropriate and expected. The specific aim is for the group to produce a convincing description of the factors that must be taken into consideration in the design process of their component. This should be quantitative, e.g. numerical estimates of forces, stresses, speeds, pressures, temperatures etc. should be produced. Specimens are selected for microstructural examination, to discover which materials and processing routes have been used in manufacture. The materials and processing choices are to be explained in the context of the service conditions expected, e.g. the magnitude and type of stresses, corrosion and temperature effects, wear resistance etc. The students are provided with initial input from staff, but must then research and read around the subject for themselves. After a few weeks, they produce a draft poster, which is discussed in detail with staff. At this time misunderstandings and mistakes can be ironed out, and areas that require deeper analysis can be identified. The posters are finally submitted at the end of the block, and oral presentations are made by each group to their peers and members of staff, with the opportunity for questions. This gives each group a view of issues that have been researched by other groups, which may not have been relevant to their component.

2. Design theory and practice (4 weeks): A series of exercises in group work, data gathering and communication, including an introduction to complex systems and their analysis. Examples of activities include group poster presentations of abstract ideas, literature searching on an engineering topic, analysis of the causes of a rail crash including technical failure and the human machine interface.

3. Design drawing and graphical communication (8 weeks): An introduction to the process of design including the use of sketching and drawing, presentation techniques, colour and data gathering. An individual design task based on a hand blender: this includes sourcing of components, ergonomics and aesthetics. A group design project on transportation including layout drawings, market research, advertisements and operating instructions.

4. Engineering applications laboratories (4 weeks): This fulfils the accreditation requirements for workshop appreciation training by giving each student practical experience of workshop processes (turning, drilling, milling), welding and metallographic preparation. The students attend five three hour labs and write up log books for each activity.

Teaching Learning and Assessment

The entire class is far from traditional in either teaching delivery or assessment. There are no formal lectures, and no examinations. The class (or part class) is occasionally addressed as a whole at the beginning of a set of activities, but the vast majority of staff input is through informal small group discussions. This has the great advantage that a relationship is built between staff and students based on support and shared learning. This can be challenging for staff, who act as partners in the learning process, and must be willing to admit to what they don’t know. However, this is in itself a useful lesson, since real engineering problem solving often involves working from a starting point with less than perfect information.

All assessment is on the basis of “pass” or “not passed yet”, with the opportunity to re-work and re-submit posters, coursework etc. until they meet the required standard. An important element in this loop is the effective feedback by staff to students and groups of what is still required for satisfactory completion. This requires significant staff time and patience, coupled with a good relationship with the students.

The high level of group working necessitates some checks and balances to ensure that all group members have contributed equally to the group effort. This is achieved by confidential peer marking exercises, which are completed by students during the course. Peer marking sheets require each student to award a share of some arbitrary quantity of marks to each group member, including themselves, with some words of justification. This method quickly reveals “passengers”, and also shows up possible personality conflicts within groups. In either case, single members, or each member of the group can be given a brief individual oral examination to explore the problem, and remedial coursework can be set if required.

Resources and Logistics

The resource implications of such a class are significant. The intensive discussions with small groups of students, and the variety of activities that are involved, require substantial staff time if they are to have the maximum benefit for the students. As an example, in the mechanical dissection class four members of academic staff are on hand for six hours per week over 20 teaching weeks, during which time each group of four students will have individual discussions with at least two staff for in excess of two hours. However, given the goals of the class, and the high level of technical engagement which has been achieved by first year engineering students, this level of resource is deemed justified.

The monetary costs of the class are very small. For instance, the total cost of the cars and consumable materials for the dissection class work out at less than £5 per student. Some initial set-up costs were incurred, e.g. the purchase of a set of tools and overalls for the car labs, and a new digital camera for the metallurgical microscope.

The logistics and organisation of a class of this nature should not be under estimated. Highly complex timetabling issues have to be addressed, which involve staff from two departments and activities taking place in six locations. The schedule of events has evolved over the four years that the class has been run, so that sufficient capacity is built into the timetable to allow groups or individuals to catch up in the event of difficulties or illness. Simplicity in timetabling is vital so that each student and group know exactly where they should be and what they are doing at all times. Clear deadlines for completion of each element are detailed in advance. All timetables and scheduling information are given on the departmental web pages for ease of reference.

Further Issues

Provision of space for a class of this nature is important. We are fortunate in having a spacious lab with level access to the street, in which the car dissection takes place. In addition, suitable teaching rooms with facilities for poster production have to be made available, and equipped if necessary.

One criticism levelled at the class in the planning stage was that students would be unable to cope with the engineering and materials parts of the car dissection class, because they had not yet covered the relevant subject matter in lectures. This has not been our experience. On the contrary, we are frequently amazed by the depth of information the students present in their posters, most of which they have never been formally “taught”. It is easy to under-estimate the ability of students to find out and understand things for themselves, and it is our belief that things learned in this way are understood at a much deeper level than in traditional lecture and exam classes, where doing enough to pass the exam can become the overriding goal.

The students have generally enjoyed the class, particularly the informal atmosphere. Group-work forges relationships that in many cases last for years and help the students settle in. Many of our students come from the Glasgow area, but many do not, so being part of a group helps with integration. The pass rate in the class is about 98% due to the fact that students have the opportunity to iterate their submissions until satisfactory standards have been reached.

Conclusion

The new design class has proved a success with students and staff, with high levels of student engagement and technical output. The opportunity to show the relevance of engineering science to the design process, and enhance confidence and self learning for the students, are major benefits.

November 2003

Section 1 Introduction

1.1 Purpose and projects

1.1.1 PBL – project-based and problem-based

1.2 The PBLE project

1.3 How this guide is organised

1.4 The overall package

1.5 Project team

1.6 Contact Information

Section 2 Case Studies

2.1 A Simulated Public Inquiry

2.3 Learning Outcomes and their Assessment in Independent Studies

P, A

A Knowledge and Understanding

B Intellectual Skills

2.4 Fostering Progressive Learning Through Scenario-Based Assessment

2.5 Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment Criteria

Programme ILOs (from Programme Specification)

ASSESSMENT

2.6 Running Team Projects in Co-operation with Industry

For students

For industry partners

For the university

2.7 Widening the Project Based Learning Experience with Student Mentors

2.8 Teaching Engineering through Problem Based Learning

2.9 Learning Through Competition

2.10 Enhancing Teamwork in Group Projects through
Pre-project Training Exercises

Academic debrief

Skills debrief

2.11 Introducing Business and Enterprise to Civil Engineering Students

2.12 An Innovative Design Class for First Year Mechanical Engineers

Section 3 Project Design

3.1 What can projects offer?

3.2 Individual/group projects

3.2.1 Individual projects