Creating New Design-Build-Test Experiences as Outputs of Undergraduate Design-Build-Test Projects

This paper describes a methodology of using individual engineering undergraduate student projects as a means of effectively and efficiently developing new Design-Build-Test (DBT) learning experiences and challenges.
A key aspect of the rationale for this approach is that it benefits all parties. The student undertaking the individual project gets an authentic experience of producing a functional artefact, which has been the result of a design process that addresses conception, design, implementation and operation. The supervising faculty member benefits from live prototyping of new curriculum content and resources with a student who is at a similar level of knowledge and experience as the intended end users of the DBT outputs. The multiple students who ultimately undertake the DBT experiences / challenges benefit from the enhanced nature of a learning experience which has been “road tested” and optimised.
To demonstrate the methodology the paper will describe a case study example of an individual project completed in 2015. This resulted in a DBT design challenge with a theme of designing a catapult for throwing table tennis balls, the device being made from components laser cut from medium density fibreboard (MDF). Further three different modes of operation will be described which use the same resource materials but operate over different timescales and with different learning outcomes, from an icebreaker exercise focused on developing team dynamics through to full DBT where students get an opportunity to experience the full impact of their design decisions by competing against other students with a catapult they have designed and built themselves.

An accelerated method of developing DBT projects using CDIO partner institutions as parallel processors

The cycle of the academic year impacts on efforts to refine and improve major group design-build-test (DBT) projects since the time to run and evaluate projects is generally a full calendar year. By definition these major projects have a high degree of complexity since they act as the vehicle for the application of a range of technical knowledge and skills. There is also often an extensive list of desired learning outcomes which extends to include professional skills and attributes such as communication and team working. It is contended that student project definition and operation, like any other designed product, requires a number of iterations to achieve optimisation. The problem however is that if this cycle takes four or more years then by the time a project’s operational structure is fine tuned it is quite possible that the project theme is no longer relevant. The majority of the students will also inevitably experience a sub-optimal project experience over the 5 year development period. It would be much better if the ratio were flipped so that in 1 year an optimised project definition could be achieved which had sufficient longevity that it could run in the same efficient manner for 4 further years. An increased number of parallel investigators would also enable more varied and adventurous project concepts to be examined than a single institution could undertake alone in the same time frame.
This work-in-progress paper describes a parallel processing methodology for the accelerated definition of new student DBT project concepts. This methodology has been devised and implemented by a number of CDIO partner institutions in the UK & Ireland region. An agreed project theme was operated in parallel in one academic year with the objective of replacing a multi-year iterative cycle. Additionally the close collaboration and peer learning derived from the interaction between the coordinating academics facilitated the development of faculty teaching skills in line with CDIO standard 10.

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.

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.

Design-Build Experiences and Student Safety

Design-build experiences (DBEs) are an essential element of any programme based on the CDIO methodology. They enable students to develop practical hands-on skills, they enable the learning of theory by stealth and they provide a forum for developing professional skills such as team working and project management. The hands-on aspect of certain DBEs has significant risk associated with it, which must be addressed through the formal evaluation of risks and the development of a methodology for controlling them. This paper considers the aspects of design-build experiences that may impact on student safety. In particular, it examines the risk associated with each of the four stages of CDIO and gives examples of risks which may commonly apply across engineering disciplines. A system for assessing and controlling the risks in any particular DBE is presented and the paper finishes by discussing the significance of health and safety in the educational environment.

Peer Rating for Feedback in Group Projects

The National Student Survey (NSS) in the UK has since 2005 questioned final year
undergraduate students on a broad range of issues relating to their university experience.
Across disciplines and universities students have expressed least satisfaction in the areas of
assessment and feedback. In response to these results many educational practitioners have
reviewed and revised their procedures and the UK Higher Education Academy (HEA) has
produced guidelines of best practice to assist academics in improving these specific areas.
The Product Design and Development (PDD) degree at Queen’s University Belfast is
structured with an integrated curriculum with group Design Build Test (DBT) projects as the
core of each year of the undergraduate programme. Based on the CDIO syllabus and
standards the overall learning outcomes for the programme are defined and developed in a
staged manner, guided by Bloom’s taxonomy of learning domains.
Feedback in group DBT projects, especially in relation to the development of personal and
professional skills, represents a different challenge to that of individual assignment feedback.
A review of best practice was carried out to establish techniques which could be applied to
the particular context of the PDD degree without modification and also to identify areas
where a different approach would need to be applied.
A revised procedure was then developed which utilised the structure of the PDD degree to
provide a mechanism for enhanced feedback in group project work, while at the same time
increasing student development of self and peer evaluation skills. Key to this improvement
was the separation of peer ratings from assessment in the perception of the students and the
introduction of more frequent face to face feedback interviews.
This paper details the new procedures developed and additional issues which have been
raised and addressed, with reference to the published literature, during 3 years of operation.

The efficacy of a CDIO based integrated curriculum as preparation for professional practice in product design and development

The School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Queen’s University Belfast started BEng and MEng degree programmes in Product Design and Development (PDD) in 2004. Intended from the outset to be significantly different from the existing programmes within the School the PDD degrees used the syllabus and standards defined by the CDIO Initiative as the basis for an integrated curriculum. Students are taught in the context of conceiving, designing, implementing and operating a product. Fundamental to this approach is a core sequence of Design-Build-Test (DBT) experiences which facilitates the development of a range of professional skills as well as the immediate application of technical knowledge gained in strategically aligned supporting modules.
The key objective of the degree programmes is to better prepare students for professional practice. PDD graduates were surveyed using a questionnaire developed by the CDIO founders and interviewed to examine the efficacy of these degree programmes, particularly in this key objective. Graduate employment rates, self assessment of graduate attributes and examples of work produced by MEng graduates provided positive evidence that their capabilities met the requirements of the profession. The 24% questionnaire response rate from the 96 graduates to date did not however facilitate statistically significant conclusions to be drawn and particularly not for BEng graduates who were under represented in the response group. While not providing proof of efficacy the investigation did provide a good amount of useful data for consideration as part of a continuous improvement process.

The Evolution of 'Design Build Fly' Led Teaching in Aerospace Engineering

This paper describes the evolution of a ‘Design - Build-Fly’ (DBF) approach to the delivery and assessment of a Stage Three Aircraft Design module. It focuses on the primary learning outcomes around the design and manufacturing functions associated with the development of a remotely controlled aircraft. The work covers a six year period from 2011 to present mapping the transformation of the module from report based assessment to a more hands on approach resulting in a fully functioning remotely controlled aircraft. Results show that both the staff and student experience improved across key performance metrics including student feedback, learning and competency development. Challenges still remain in methods of placing students within teams and maintaining technical rigour in reporting as students develop vocational skills and more reflective writing styles.

A Proposed Framework for Simulation Based Learning of Inheritance

Different types of serious games have been used in elucidating computer science areas such as computer games, mobile games, Lego-based games, virtual worlds and webbased games. Different evaluation techniques have been conducted like questionnaires, interviews, discussions and tests. Simulation have been widely used in computer science as a motivational and interactive learning tool. This paper aims to evaluate the possibility of successful implementation of simulation in computer programming modules. A framework is proposed to measure the impact of serious games on enhancing students understanding of key computer science concepts. Experiments will be held on the EEECS of Queen’s University Belfast students to test the framework and attain results.

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