Practice based learning approaches in collaborative design and engineering education:a case study investigation into the benefits of a crossdisciplinary practice based learning strategy

This study explores the ongoing pedagogical development of a number of undergraduate design and engineering programmes in the United Kingdom. Observations and data have been collected over several cohorts to bring a valuable perspective to the approaches piloted across two similar university departments while trialling a number of innovative learning strategies. In addition to the concurrent institutional studies the work explores curriculum design that applies the principles of Co-Design, multidisciplinary and trans disciplinary learning, with both engineering and product design students working alongside each other through a practical problem solving learning approach known as the CDIO learning initiative (Conceive, Design Implement and Operate) [1]. The study builds on previous work presented at the 2010 EPDE conference: The Effect of Personality on the Design Team: Lessons from Industry for Design Education [2]. The subsequent work presented in this paper applies the findings to mixed design and engineering team based learning, building on the insight gained through a number of industrial process case studies carried out in current design practice. Developments in delivery also aligning the CDIO principles of learning through doing into a practice based, collaborative learning experience and include elements of the TRIZ creative problem solving technique [3]. The paper will outline case studies involving a number of mixed engineering and design student projects that highlight the CDIO principles, combined with an external industrial design brief. It will compare and contrast the learning experience with that of a KTP derived student project, to examine an industry based model for student projects. In addition key areas of best practice will be presented, and student work from each mode will be discussed at the conference.

How do engineering students develop practical competencies during a period of industrial placement? - Students' perceptions

This paper explores engineering students' perceptions of developing practical competencies as experienced in their industrial placements. In addition, it discusses the criticisms in the literature on Problem Based Learning, Project Based Learning and Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate in relation to the evaluation of effective learning and teaching during placements. The paper goes on to discuss a study which examines how undergraduate engineering students develop practical competencies during their industrial placements. A phenomenological research approach is adopted using in-depth interviews and document analysis. The research findings from this PhD study will contribute to the knowledge, theory and practice for the students, the industries and the institutions of higher education as students' practical competencies are developed and graduate employability rises. In conclusion, this study explores students' experiences of developing practical competencies during industrial placements. Hence, the study should be able to contribute to a set of evidence-based guidelines for higher education institutions and industry.

Practice based learning for automotive engineering design students

The automotive industry combines a multitude of professionals to develop a modern car successfully. Within the design and development teams the collaboration and interface between Engineers and Designers is critical to ensure design intent is communicated and maintained throughout the development process. This study highlights recent industry practice with the emergence of Concept Engineers in design teams at Jaguar Land Rover Automotive group. The role of the Concept Engineer emphasises the importance of the Engineering and Design/Styling interface with the Concept engineer able to interact and understand the challenges and specific languages of each specialist area, hence improving efficiency and communication within the design team. Automotive education tends to approach design from two distinct directions, that of engineering design through BSc courses or a more styling design approach through BA and BDes routes. The educational challenge for both types of course is to develop engineers and stylist's who have greater understanding and experience of each other's specialist perspective of design and development. The study gives examples of two such courses in the UK who are developing programmes to help students widen their understanding of the engineering and design spectrum. Initial results suggest the practical approach has been well received by students and encouraged by industry as they seek graduates with specialist knowledge but also a wider appreciation of their role within the design process.

An evaluation of pharmacy education and pre-registration training

This thesis covers two major aspects of pharmacy education; undergraduate education and pre-registration training. A cohort of pharmacy graduates were surveyed over a period of four years, on issues related to undergraduate education, pre-registration training and continuing education. These graduates were the first-ever to sit the pre-registration examination. In addition, the opinions of pre-registration tutors were obtained on pre-registration training, during the year that competence-based assessment was introduced. It was concluded that although the undergraduate course provided a broad base of knowledge suitable for graduates in all branches of pharmacy, several issues were identified which would require attention in future developments of the course. These were: 1. the strong support for the expansion of clinical, social and practice-based teaching. 2. the strong support to retain the scientific content to the same extent as in the three-year course. 3. a greater use of problem-based learning methods. The graduates supported the provision of a pre-registration continuing education course to help prepare for the examination and in areas inadequately covered in the undergraduate course. There was also support for the introduction of some form of split branch training. There was no strong evidence to suggest that the training had been an application of undergraduate education. In general, competence-based training was well regarded by tutors as an appropriate and effective method of skill assessment. However, community tutors felt it was difficult to carry out effectively due to day-to-day time constraints. The assistant tutors in hospital pharmacy were found to have a very important role in provision of training, and should be adequately trained and supported. The study recommends the introduction of uniform training and a quality assurance mechanism for all tutors and assistants undertaking this role.

Evaluating and developing project-based learning:an empirical approach to evaluating CDIO

As a global profession, engineering is integral to the maintenance and further development of society. Indeed, contemporary social problems requiring engineering solutions are not only a consequence of natural and ‘manmade’ disasters (such as the Japanese earthquake or the oil leakage in the Gulf of Mexico) but also encapsulate 21st Century dilemmas around sustainability, poverty and pollution [2,6,7]. Given the complexity of such problems and the constant need for innovation, the demand for engineering education to provide a ready supply of suitably qualified engineering graduates, able to make innovative decisions has never been higher [3,5]. Bearing this in mind, and taking account problems of attrition in engineering education [1,6,4] innovation in the way in which the curriculum is developed and delivered is crucial. CDIO [Conceive, Design, Implement, Operate] provides a potentially ground-breaking solution to such dilemmas. Aimed at equipping students with practical engineering skills supported by the necessary theoretical background, CDIO could potentially change the way engineering is perceived and experienced within higher education. Aston University introduced CDIO into its Mechanical Engineering and Design programmes in October 2011. From its induction, engineering education researchers have ‘shadowed’ the staff responsible for developing and teaching the programme. Utilising an Action Research Design, and adopting a mixed methodological research design, the researchers have worked closely with the teaching team to critically reflect on the processes involved in introducing CDIO into the curriculum. Concurrently, research has been conducted to capture students’ perspectives of CDIO. In evaluating the introduction of CDIO at Aston, the researchers have developed a distinctive research strategy with which to evaluate CDIO. It is the emergent findings from this research that form the basis of this paper. Although early-on in its development CDIO is making a significant difference to engineering education at the University. The paper draws attention to pedagogical, practical and professional issues – discussing each one in turn and in doing so critically analysing the value of CDIO from academic, student and industrial perspectives. The paper concludes by noting that whilst CDIO represents a forwardthinking approach to engineering education, the need for constant innovation in learning and teaching should not be forgotten. Indeed, engineering education needs to put itself at the forefront of pedagogic practice. Providing all-rounded engineers, ready to take on the challenges of the 21st Century!

Exploring supply chain related graduate programmes in the UK:a view on their structure, content and approaches

Research in skill requirements needed by supply chain/logistics (SCL) managers has been published since the early nineties, however, research on what is really taught (e.g. curriculum, learning philosophies) by universities is scant. This paper's aim is to fill in this gap by analysing SCL graduate teaching in the UK. Data from 50 SCL MSc programmes were collected from 43 universities. Findings indicate that there seems to be a gap emerging between industry's needs and the content of the programmes being offered. This gap concerns employability, problem based learning, international business and the acquisition of softer interpersonal and problem solving skills.

The UK MPharm (1) - are we over reliant on traditional teaching methods?

Introduction-The design of the UK MPharm curriculum is driven by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB) accreditation process and the EU directive (85/432/EEC).[1] Although the RPSGB is informed about teaching activity in UK Schools of Pharmacy (SOPs), there is no database which aggregates information to provide the whole picture of pharmacy education within the UK. The aim of the teaching, learning and assessment study [2] was to document and map current programmes in the 16 established SOPs. Recent developments in programme delivery have resulted in a focus on deep learning (for example, through problem based learning approaches) and on being more student centred and less didactic through lectures. The specific objectives of this part of the study were (a) to quantify the content and modes of delivery of material as described in course documentation and (b) having categorised the range of teaching methods, ask students to rate how important they perceived each one for their own learning (using a three point Likert scale: very important, fairly important or not important). Material and methods-The study design compared three datasets: (1) quantitative course document review, (2) qualitative staff interview and (3) quantitative student self completion survey. All 16 SOPs provided a set of their undergraduate course documentation for the year 2003/4. The documentation variables were entered into Excel tables. A self-completion questionnaire was administered to all year four undergraduates, using a pragmatic mixture of methods, (n=1847) in 15 SOPs within Great Britain. The survey data were analysed (n=741) using SPSS, excluding non-UK students who may have undertaken part of their studies within a non-UK university. Results and discussion-Interviews showed that individual teachers and course module leaders determine the choice of teaching methods used. Content review of the documentary evidence showed that 51% of the taught element of the course was delivered using lectures, 31% using practicals (includes computer aided learning) and 18% small group or interactive teaching. There was high uniformity across the schools for the first three years; variation in the final year was due to the project. The average number of hours per year across 15 schools (data for one school were not available) was: year 1: 408 hours; year 2: 401 hours; year 3: 387 hours; year 4: 401 hours. The survey showed that students perceived lectures to be the most important method of teaching after dispensing or clinical practicals. Taking the very important rating only: 94% (n=694) dispensing or clinical practicals; 75% (n=558) lectures; 52% (n=386) workshops, 50% (n=369) tutorials, 43% (n=318) directed study. Scientific laboratory practices were rated very important by only 31% (n=227). The study shows that teaching of pharmacy to undergraduates in the UK is still essentially didactic through a high proportion of formal lectures and with high levels of staff-student contact. Schools consider lectures still to be the most cost effective means of delivering the core syllabus to large cohorts of students. However, this does limit the scope for any optionality within teaching, the scope for small group work is reduced as is the opportunity to develop multi-professional learning or practice placements. Although novel teaching and learning techniques such as e-learning have expanded considerably over the past decade, schools of pharmacy have concentrated on lectures as the best way of coping with the huge expansion in student numbers. References [1] Council Directive. Concerning the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy. Official Journal of the European Communities 1985;85/432/EEC. [2] Wilson K, Jesson J, Langley C, Clarke L, Hatfield K. MPharm Programmes: Where are we now? Report commissioned by the Pharmacy Practice Research Trust., 2005.