Engineering Design Projects

2.3.4.1. What Makes Engineering Design Difficult to Teach?

Problem solving and design are the heart and core of engineering, but how we learn those skills is still a question not yet answered (Grose, 2006). The reasons for the difficulty in design teaching can be generalized from two aspects:

First, from the aspect of the complex nature of design itself

Cross (2004) made an overview of the research on the expertise in design between novice and expert designers, and argued that in design education, “there is still precious little real understanding of the differences between novice and expert performance in design, and how to help students move from one to the other.” Therefore, “we still need a much better understanding of what constitutes expertise in design, and how we might assist novice students to gain that expertise”. And he further argued that one of the research focuses should be to find out if certain educational methods assist the transition more effectively or efficiently.

Dym et al. (2005) analyzed the reason why design is hard to learn and even harder to teach from the perspective of design thinking. They argued that design process is itself a complex cognitive process, and that design thinking relates to how designers think and learn, which is an important reason that design is difficult to teach. There are many informative approaches to characterizing design thinking, and those characterizations highlighting the skills often associated with good designers include the ability to:

" Tolerate ambiguity that shows up in viewing design as inquiry or as an iterative loop of divergent-convergent thinking;

" Maintain sight of the big picture by including systems thinking and systems design; " Handle uncertainty;

" Make decisions;

" Think as part of a team in a social process; and

These characterizations were listed in more detail by Sheppard and Jenison (1997), which are, to a great extent, comparable with the requirements of the accreditation criteria, as shown in Figure 2.4 below:

Second, from the aspect of the nature of design projects

The typical design project does not seek a single correct answer; there are usually many acceptable design solutions to a design problem, so uniqueness does not apply (Dym, 1994). The student is invited to make propositions which are often speculative and exploratory in nature. The students’ responses are likely to be unique and individualistic and may owe more to subjective, tentative and exploratory interpretation and intuition than to a logical and formulaic process and the application of a rational body of knowledge (Schön, 1983). In many cases the response to the brief is the development of a further set of questions or issues that the students need to address. The learning process is therefore inherently iterative, nonlinear and unpredictable. In some cases the problems identified may never be resolved and thus the student design work remain open ended and uncertain. The design project is not about solving problems,

1 Communicate, negotiate, persuade 2 Work effectively in a team

3. Engage in self-evaluation and reflection 6 Find information and use a variety of resources

7 Identify critical technology & approaches, stay abreast of change in professional practice 4 Utilize graphical and visual representations and thinking

5 exercise creative and intuitive instincts 8 use analysis in support of synthesis

9. Appropriately model the physical world with mathematics 10.Consider economic, social and environmental aspects of a problem 11.Think with a systems orientation

12.Define and formulate an open-ended and/or under-defined problem, including specifications

13.Generate and evaluate alternative solutions

14. Use a systematic, modern, step-by-step problem solving approach. Recognize the need for and implement iteration

15 build up real hardware to prototype ideas 16 Trouble-shoot and test hardware

Design process & Design thinking

Transferable skills

Application of Domain knowledge

but rather is about making propositions, refining and, to some extent, testing them (Roberts, 2004).

2.3.4.2. Variety of Engineering Design Teaching and Learning

RAE (2005) summarized the variety of design projects and their implementation. Design projects can tackle a simulated or real task, can be undertaken individually or by a team, be paper-based or involve building and testing a model or prototype, and can focus on one discipline or be multi-disciplinary. Simulated design projects are frequently used during the first two years as the teaching and the resources can be carefully planned and matched to a specific aspect of the design process and to the knowledge of the students. In the final two years of a course, when the students have developed design and analysis skills and built up sufficient technological repertoire, real projects can be tackled, often in collaboration with industry or a university research project.

Dutson et al. (1997) reviewed the teaching of project-oriented capstone courses in the U.S. through a literature search over 100 papers relating to engineering design courses. Their review showed great variety in the capstone design project teaching in the respect of course content, project type and sources, faculty and industry involvement, features of students’ team and finally, the evaluation of the design project courses.

Similar variety also exists in freshman design courses, or cornerstone courses. The freshman design courses are similar to many senior design courses, but differ markedly in their tendency to focus more heavily on conceptual design methods and less on discipline-specific artifacts (Dym et al., 2005).

For example, Sheppard and Jenison (1997) summarized an organizational framework for freshman design courses including the following quadrants: A) individual-content centric (most traditional lecture-based courses; B) Tem-content centric (many traditional lab-based courses); C) Individual-process centric (many studio art courses) D) Team-process centric (most senior-level capstone courses) They argued that ideally a student’s four years in an engineering

program would contain design courses in each of the quadrants.

Table 2.4 below summarizes the existing varieties adapted from Dutson et al. (1997) and other related research papers (Dym, 1994; Little and Cardenas, 2001; Oaks et al., 2000; Pimmel, 2001; Sheppard, 1997; Thigpen et al., 2004):

Table 2.4. Varieties of the types of design projects. Variety categories Types of design projects

Project sources hypothetical projects / industrial projects /non-profit client or service

learning projects / students’ own projects / university’s projects / project

competitions

Project length From one quarter of a semester to two semesters

Design phases & complexity conceptual design / detail design /total design /integrated design/

multidisciplinary design

Design environments lab /design studio/inside/outside classroom

Ways of teaching design projects

different proportion with lectures, problems, tutorials

different ways of team formation

different ways of intervention

different involvement of technology, eg: multi media; simulation software,

etc.

different involvement of teaching staff and industrial professionals

different ways of assessment

different combination with other disciplines, eg: technical writing

(Northwestern University), graphics (Penn State University and Iowa State

University), statics and strength of materials courses (University of

Maryland and North Carolina State University), short design exercises

such as Delta Design in a laboratory section in parallel with the more

2.3.4.3. The Effectiveness Issue of Design Projects in Teaching and Learning Process

Design projects are universally believed to be a vehicle to motivate and integrate learning by providing students with the hands-on, practical opportunity. First year design projects are also seen as a means to enhance students’ motivation and their retention in engineering (Dym et al., 2005). In addition, project-based design teaching reflects the ideas of current learning theories such as Kolb’s experiential learning cycles and cognitive psychology such as constructivism (Prince and Felder, 2006; Eastman, 2001), and thus has the potential to develop students’ knowledge and skills in a way that traditional approach fails to do, such as the deep learning of knowledge, transferable skills, development of different learning styles, etc. As can be seen in the pervious session, however, the effectiveness of project/problem-based learning is yet to be testified.

About the evaluation of the capstone design courses, most benefits fall into following two categories (RAE, 2005):

1) Engineering and Design knowledge: Enhance understanding of engineering; Increase their technical repertoire;

Appreciate the integration of design and analysis; Appreciate the importance of professional responsibility

2) Transferable skills

Learn how to work in multi-disciplinary teams

Develop leadership, management and communication skills; Become motivated towards their engineering studies.

Similar findings can be found in individual case studies. For example, Schultz and Christensen (2004) replaced the ways of teaching in interaction design courses traditionally taught by lectures and exercises in the first half of the semester and then project work in the second half of the semester. They applied an adapted seven-step problem-based learning procedure proposed

by Schmidt (1983) together with short active learning lectures and found that students achieved developments in the aspects of responsibility for their own learning, inter-personal and intra-personal design teamwork skills and a deep approach to learning.

Dutson et al. (1997) found that the literature is filled with positive comments from students, instructors and industrial sponsors who have been participated in capstone design courses, and that the vast majority of participants feel that the course benefits all involved. However, one problem in the design project research is that the nature of design courses often leads to a purely subjective evaluation with little or no “hard evidence” of actual benefits (Dutson et al., 1997). This is a challenge in the research of the effectiveness of design project teaching and learning.

In addition, despite the effective learning outcomes of design project teaching, they are not without problems. In the design project learning process, students often have difficulties in cognitive aspect and transferable skills aspect (Dym et al., 2005; Emkin, 1995).

These problems can be found more frequently in the freshman design project teaching, where the results included both positive and negative aspects.

Schimidt et al. (1999) made an assessment of the effectiveness of a project-driven introductory level freshman design course. The course used a five-design cycle in the teaching process, that is, the five projects were used on a repeated cyclical basis. Three highest scores indicating the best learning outcomes were found: 1) knowledge of engineering principles and practice; 2) ability to function effectively as part of a team; and 3) ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired need. (These outcomes are measured based on the ABET 2000 criteria)

However, in Edward’s (2004) evaluation of three case studies of the use of design activities in the first and second years of engineering courses, he found that general student response was favorable, but a minority of students expressed a preference for conventionally taught approach. The author suggested that design and problem-based approach can be employed to advantage in early years, but intensive support and guidance are necessary to build students’ confidence and

to facilitate both subject and process skill learning.

Ernst et al. (2006) investigated the effects of three hands-on courses, model- analysis-driven textbook design projects, dissection projects and service learning projects, on the development of first year student design process knowledge. They used a pre-post course evaluation and results showed no differences between the three course models.

Okudan et al. (2006) further investigated the appropriateness of industrial based design projects in first year students and found that the lack of relatedness of design project to the engineering disciplines choice for the students lead to the worst experience of the students; also domain of the task may favor one gender or the other. Beneficial effects of higher tolerance for ambiguity are evident.

2.3.4.4 The Effective Ways of Implementation in Design Project Teaching and Learning In the engineering field, what are the best ways to teach engineering and how effective they are is still an issue (Prism, 2006).

To overcome the difficulties and challenges of design project teaching and learning, some researchers and educators tried to improve its effectiveness by establishing a good framework for design project teaching and learning.

For example, Marin et al. (1999) analyzed the elements of an optimal capstone design project experience through a framework they developed including three areas: preparation, administration and execution, and assessment. They used departmental capstone survey to evaluate the course and found that the team ownership of a project, inspired by appropriate mentorship, is the most significant factor in providing students an optimal experience. Other key factors include selecting projects the students feel are important to the client and providing students the opportunity to meet with the client. The factors they identified fall into the category: student control/ownership in their learning and the construction of authentic learning

environment, which are essential elements of project-based learning. In this research, however, what developments students achieved in their learning was not studied.

Tucker and Rollo (2006) described their effort on establishing best-practice principles for the teaching of third-year and forth-year group designs through focusing on effective group structures and assemblage and fair assessment models. Their findings suggested that a successful andragogy for collaborative design project should include teaching collaborative team working skills and introduce into the curriculum project management techniques centered on research models of group formation. Students worked better collaboratively if they had a degree of control over teammate selection and the assessment of their work.

Griffin et al. (2003) further explored the impact of group size and duration of an industry-based capstone design projects on learning objectives for the student, value to industry sponsors, and faculty resources. Their findings suggested that, at the same difficulty level, the one-semester offering was preferred by both students and industry sponsors and required fewer resources; students preferred smaller group sizes, while sponsors do not have a definitive preference; although technical analysis is significantly correlated with dollar value to the sponsor, technical writing skills and presentation skills were not.

Resent research has also focused on facilitation of the gradual development in students’ learning process in design project courses

Aziz (2006) described a structured project-based learning in a senior Digital Design course. In contrast with open-ended projects used from the start, the structured approach uses very simple self-learning early projects by step-by-step project guides. The traditional weekly lecture format was avoided. Instead, students completed a number projects in the first half of semester before they attend a week of lectures. This way is to put more emphasis on the project-based learning approach and to promote self learning. Subsequent projects have progressively increasing levels of complexity and engage students with a much deeper level of learning and problem-solving. He argued that this approach was suitable for the students with diverse background in terms of

their prior knowledge and skills.

Patrick and Mary (2001) described a similar effort in an introductory design course through the implementation of three projects different in difficulty and duration in a studio environment: design exercises providing a basis for learning design tools, a dissection project and a main design project for an external client. The course also engaged in some mini-lectures on group dynamics and conflict management, and project management tools, and class discussions evaluating student work or role-playing in ethics. Their findings are generally positive.

Similarly, Raucent (2004) described two types of projects implemented in their engineering curriculum: result-oriented project which is to apply and synthesize knowledge acquired, and learning oriented project, called pre-project, which focuses on the acquisition of new knowledge and competencies. Such projects come before (or simultaneously with) the courses and are used to contextualize the concept. They argue that the two types of projects have different but complementary domains of application, and the pre-project may best find its place of application in the first year of an engineering curriculum.

Emami (2005) adopted a hybrid framework which allows a gradual transmission from content-based to project-based approach in a sophomore multidisciplinary design course. The constituents of the course include: design projects, design lectures, technical lectures, tutorials and preparatory assignments. The author observed students’ strong enthusiasm towards the course despite the heavy workload.

In contrast, however, Ehrlenspiel et al. (1997) recommended an approach in the systematic design which they considered to be essential in students’ learning: to work on problems first without and then with supervisions- and the comparison between the two processes by students themselves.

The variety of the implementation of design projects indicates that researchers and practitioners are actively exploring ways how to effectively implement the design project teaching. Also it

reflects the current concern in the engineering education field about improving our understanding of what is the best way to teach engineering (Grose, 2006).

Examining the above design project research closely, however, it can be found that most research has the problem as what was described by Eastman et al. (2001, p2): “Few of the reports conducted rigorous evaluations of learning which would have indicated whether the intervention have been successful, and that the suggested pedagogical strategies did not demonstrate grounding in the research conducted over the last two decades in cognitive science and educational psychology”. The problem is partly due to the fact that in the design project context, most of students’ learning is hidden behind the teamwork, which is hard for teachers to effectively facilitate, and even harder to evaluate. Thus, how to effectively facilitate students’ learning in the context of design projects and how to evaluate the effectiveness of the facilitation is a great challenge in engineering design education.

When discussing the different ways of teaching in higher education, Prosser and Trigwell (1999) also argued that “while this type of variation has been the focus of much student learning research in the last decade, similar research on teaching has been given little consideration in the improvement of both learning and teaching despite the fact that it would appear to have profound implications for that practice”.

Against the background of the global debate about the effectiveness of project/problem-based learning in higher education and the fact that project-based learning is a most favorable approach in the engineering design education field, how to effectively implement this approach and how to evaluate its effectiveness in the design project context is still a question unanswered.

2.4 CONCLUSIONS

A thorough literature review was made on project-based learning, engineering education, and engineering design respectively. In project-based learning, great attention was paid to its features, particularly to the features different from those of other similar constructivist approaches. Problems were found in the current PBL research in the aspect of chaotic

implementations, flawed research methods and complex learning process in engineering education as well as engineering design. Measurement of PBL effectiveness with rigorous research methodology is called for; as well as improved PBL implementation.