Enhancing the Manufacturing Knowledge of Undergraduate Engineering Students: A Case Study of a Design-Build-Test Challenge Involving Folding Bicycles

Many engineers currently in professional practice will have gained a degree level qualification which involved studying a curriculum heavy with mathematics and engineering science. While this knowledge is vital to the engineering design process so also is manufacturing knowledge, if the resulting designs are to be both technically and commercially viable.
The methodology advanced by the CDIO Initiative aims to improve engineering education by teaching in the context of Conceiving, Designing, Implementing and Operating products, processes or systems. A key element of this approach is the use of Design-Built-Test (DBT) projects as the core of an integrated curriculum. This approach facilitates the development of professional skills as well as the application of technical knowledge and skills developed in other parts of the degree programme. This approach also changes the role of lecturer to that of facilitator / coach in an active learning environment in which students gain concrete experiences that support their development.
The case study herein describes Mechanical Engineering undergraduate student involvement in the manufacture and assembly of concept and functional prototypes of a folding bicycle.

Engineering Innovative Products: A Practical Experience

Engineering Innovative Products: A Practical Experience is a pioneering book that will be of key use to senior undergraduate and graduate engineering students who are being encouraged to explore innovation and commercialization as part of their courses. The book will teach the essential skills of entrepreneurship and address the fundamental requirements needed to establish a successful technology company.

A-level Mathematics Module Choice and Subsequent Performance in First Year of an Engineering Degree

The A-level Mathematics qualification is based on a compulsory set of pure maths modules and a selection of applied maths modules. The flexibility in choice of applied modules has led to concerns that many students would proceed to study engineering at university with little background in mechanics. A survey of aerospace and mechanical engineering students in our university revealed that a combination of mechanics and statistics (the basic module in both) was by far the most popular choice of optional modules in A-level Mathematics, meaning that only about one-quarter of the class had studied mechanics beyond the basic module within school mathematics. Investigation of student performance in two core, first-year engineering courses, which build on a mechanics foundation, indicated that any benefits for students who studied the extra mechanics at school were small. These results give concern about the depth of understanding in mechanics gained during A-level Mathematics.

Factors affecting transition to second year of an engineering degree

Much research has focused on students’ transition from secondary school to university. Less is known about the transition from first to second year of a university degree programme. Given the difficulties that many students face at this stage of their education, research into the relevant factors is required. Through questionnaires and focus groups, views of second- and third-year aerospace and mechanical engineering students in our university have been gathered. A large majority believed that both the volume and difficulty of work increased in second year. Many stated that first year was slightly too trivial and could have been made more challenging to prepare them better for second year. Different teaching and assessment styles in second year were considered to affect attendance and performance. The survey revealed that students were generally very well settled into university life by the end of first year and were happy with their choice of course and only 23% reported that financial responsibilities have had a negative effect on their academic performance. Differences were observed between male and female students. Male students believed that transition was helped by having regular assessments and by worked examples in lectures. Females found the teaching staff were the most helpful factor for a successful transition. The results indicate that males require more structure and guidance whereas females are more independent and settle in better.

GiveMe Shelter: a people-centred design process for promoting independent inquiry-led learning in engineering

It has become increasingly common for tasks traditionally carried out by engineers to be undertaken by technicians and technologist with access to sophisticated computers and software that can often perform complex calculations that were previously the responsibility of engineers. Not surprisingly, this development raises serious questions about the future role of engineers and the education needed to address these changes in technology as well as emerging priorities from societal to environmental challenges. In response to these challenges, a new design module was created for undergraduate engineering students to design and build temporary shelters for a wide variety of end users from refugees, to the homeless and children. Even though the module provided guidance on principles of design thinking and methods for observing users needs through field studies, the students found it difficult to respond to needs of specific end users but instead focused more on purely technical issues.

Group Design-Build-Test Projects as the Core of an Integrated Curriculum in Product Design and Development

The School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Queen’s University Belfast introduced a new degree programme in Product Design and Development (PDD) in 2004. As well as setting out to meet all UK-SPEC requirements, the entirely new curriculum was developed in line with the syllabus and standards defined by the CDIO Initiative, an international collaboration of universities aiming to improve the education of engineering students. The CDIO ethos is that students are taught in the context of conceiving, designing, implementing and operating a product or system. Fundamental to this is an integrated curriculum with multiple Design-Build-Test (DBT) experiences at the core. Unlike most traditional engineering courses the PDD degree features group DBT projects in all years of the programme. The projects increase in complexity and challenge in a staged manner, with learning outcomes guided by Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains. The integrated course structure enables the immediate application of disciplinary knowledge, gained from other modules, as well as development of professional skills and attributes in the context of the DBT activity. This has a positive impact on student engagement and the embedding of these relevant skills, identified from a stakeholder survey, has also been shown to better prepare students for professional practice. This paper will detail the methodology used in the development of the curriculum, refinements that have been made during the first five years of operation and discuss the resource and staffing issues raised in facilitating such a learning environment.

Does flexibility in secondary level mathematics curriculum affect degree performance?

The authors have much experience in developing mathematics skills of first-year engineering students and attempting to ensure a smooth transition from secondary school to university. Concerns exist due to there being flexibility in the choice of modules needed to obtain a secondary level (A-level) mathematics qualification. This qualification is based on some core (pure maths) modules and a selection from mechanics and statistics modules. A survey of aerospace and mechanical engineering students in Queen’s University Belfast revealed that a combination of both mechanics and statistics (the basic module in both) was by far the most popular choice and therefore only about one quarter of this cohort had studied mechanics beyond the basic module within school maths. Those students who studied the extra mechanics and who achieved top grades at school subsequently did better in two core, first-year engineering courses. However, students with a lower grade from school did not seem to gain any significant advantage in the first-year engineering courses despite having the extra mechanics background. This investigation ties in with ongoing and wider concerns with secondary level mathematics provision in the UK.

Interpreting A-level Mathematics grades – as easy as A, B, C?

Many concerns have been expressed that students’ basic mathematical skills have deteriorated during the 1990s and there has been disquiet that current A-level grading does not distinguish adequately between the more able students. This study reports the author’s experiences of teaching maths to large classes of first-year engineering students and aims to enhance understanding of levels of mathematical competence in more recent years. Over the last four years, the classes have consisted of a very large proportion of highly qualified students – about 91% of them had at least grade B in A-level Mathematics. With a small group of students having followed a non-traditional route to university (no A-level maths) and another group having benefitted through taking A-level Further Mathematics at school, the classes have contained a very wide range of mathematical backgrounds. Despite the introductory maths course at university involving mainly repetition of A-level material, students’ marks were spread over a very wide range – for example, A-level Mathematics grade B students have scored across the range 16 – 97%. Analytical integration is the topic which produced the largest variation in performance across the class but, in contrast, the A-level students generally performed well in differentiation. Initial analysis suggests some stability in recent years in the mathematical proficiency of students with a particular A-level Mathematics grade. Allowing choice of applied maths modules as part of the A-level maths qualification increases the variety of students’ mathematical backgrounds and their selection from mechanics, statistics or decision maths is not clear from the final qualification.

Time Efficient Assessment and Feedback Methods for Large Computer-Aided-Design Cohorts

Timely and individualized feedback on coursework is desirable from a student perspective as it facilitates formative development and encourages reflective learning practice. Faculty however are faced with a significant and potentially time consuming challenge when teaching larger cohorts if they are to provide feedback which is timely, individualized and detailed. Additionally, for subjects which assess non-traditional submissions, such as Computer-Aided-Design (CAD), the methods for assessment and feedback tend not to be so well developed or optimized. Issues can also arise over the consistency of the feedback provided. Evaluations of Computer-Assisted feedback in other disciplines (Denton et al, 2008), (Croft et al, 2001) have shown students prefer this method of feedback to traditional “red pen” marking and also that such methods can be more time efficient for faculty.
Herein, approaches are described which make use of technology and additional software tools to speed up, simplify and automate assessment and the provision of feedback for large cohorts of first and second year engineering students studying modules where CAD files are submitted electronically. A range of automated methods are described and compared with more “manual” approaches. Specifically one method uses an application programming interface (API) to interrogate SolidWorks models and extract information into an Excel spreadsheet, which is then used to automatically send feedback emails. Another method describes the use of audio recordings made during model interrogation which reduces the amount of time while increasing the level of detail provided as feedback.
Limitations found with these methods and problems encountered are discussed along with a quantified assessment of time saving efficiencies made.

A Transition Study to Support Curriculum Reform

This paper presents details of a project to support the transition from school to university for engineering students in the UK. The initial phases have already been disseminated by the project collaborators. The background, rationale, objectives and outcomes of this latter phase of the project are presented and specific data from a web-based transition diagnostic is discussed which verifies specific learning issues amongst engineering students enrolling in their first year of study. This prompted further investigations into these specific learning issues, which produced relevant data pertinent to enhancing learning through curriculum reform with the ultimate goal of accommodating the transition from school to university, improving the learning experience and increasing retention.

Evaluation of creative problem solving abilities in undergraduate structural engineers through interdisciplinary problem based learning

For a structural engineer, effective communication and interaction with architects cannot be underestimated as a key skill to success throughout their professional career. Structural engineers and architects have to share a common language and understanding of each other in order to achieve the most desirable architectural and structural designs. This interaction and engagement develops during their professional career but needs to be nurtured during their undergraduate studies. The objective of this paper is to present the strategies employed to engage higher order thinking in structural engineering students in order to help them solve complex problem-based learning (PBL) design scenarios presented by architecture students. The strategies employed were applied in the experimental setting of an undergraduate module in structural engineering at Queen’s University Belfast in the UK. The strategies employed were active learning to engage with content knowledge, the use of physical conceptual structural models to reinforce key concepts and finally, reinforcing the need for hand sketching of ideas to promote higher order problem-solving. The strategies employed were evaluated through student survey, student feedback and module facilitator (this author) reflection. The strategies were qualitatively perceived by the tutor and quantitatively evaluated by students in a cross-sectional study to help interaction with the architecture students, aid interdisciplinary learning and help students creatively solve problems (through higher order thinking). The students clearly enjoyed this module and in particular interacting with structural engineering tutors and students from another discipline