Advanced Materials Research Vol. 367 (2012) pp 601-610 © (2012) Trans Tech Publications, Switzerland doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.367.601
Tracking Design Elements in a Mechanical Engineering Curriculum M. Tunde Oladiran1,a, Jacek Uziak2, b and Venkata P. Kommula3, c 1, 2, 3
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Botswana P/Bag 0061, Gaborone, Botswana
a
[email protected] (corresponding author),
[email protected],
[email protected]
Keywords: Design, Mechanical engineering, Accreditation, Mapping, Curriculum
Abstract: Design activity is core to modern engineering practice. Some design experience is demanded by professional bodies that accredit degree engineering programmes (e.g. ABET and ECSA). The purpose of this paper is to track design related topics through the curriculum of the mechanical engineering degree programme at the University of Botswana. A questionnaire was designed and administered to staff teaching on the programme. The responses were used to map design components in the curriculum and assess the design experience of students. The results showed that design topics were delivered in various courses and the knowledge gained by students increased steadily from Year 3 to Year 5. Some observed deficiencies in the teaching of design included lack of industry recommended projects, negligible application of design software, and the use of only single discipline based problems (i.e. no multi disciplinary teaching approach). It was concluded that a programme review is needed to improve the pedagogy of design and enhance programme robustness. It is envisaged that the study will help in designing a new mechanical engineering curriculum to satisfy accreditation requirements. Introduction Design is “the process of devising a system, component, or process to meet desired needs” [1]. It is widely considered to be the most important and rewarding engineering activity; it is the heart of engineering profession. The engineering design process, whether directly or indirectly, is central to the practice of engineering and should therefore be core to engineering education. The importance of design is highlighted by the requirements set by accrediting bodies of engineering programmes such as the American Board of Engineering and Technology (ABET) in the USA [1], the Engineering Council of South Africa (ECSA) in South Africa [2], or indeed any other professional body. Due to these requirements design has been enhanced in the engineering curricula over the past years [3]. The engineering accreditation authorities require proper integration of design experience across the curriculum. However, it is still a common practice in many engineering programmes to view mechanical design as just a regular, stand-alone course [4]. Typical activities, processes and learning outcomes that may be included in a design course are to: • use creative problem solving techniques which require formulation of the problem statement and detail analysis; • apply an iterative process to obtain a sound deliberate decision based on engineering principles; • select materials fit for purpose in terms of safety, durability, cost, functionality and disposal after use; • produce a system, component, or process to meet specific requirements; • work efficiently in a team and communicate the results effectively and professionally. Is it possible to achieve all of the above outcomes effectively in a single course? The answer to that question is quite obvious to all professional engineers. Design is behaviour; the ability to design is a competence that must be mastered over a period of time where the students can experience growth and development that is not achievable in one course [5]. Therefore design should be considered as cumulative knowledge acquired across the curriculum [6]. All rights reserved. No part of contents of this paper may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the written permission of TTP, www.ttp.net. (ID: 41.136.103.11-29/09/11,16:01:05)
602
Advances in Materials and Systems Technologies III
Accreditation Requirements on Design Component Historically, engineering curricula have been based largely on an “engineering science” model, in which engineering is taught only after a solid background in science and mathematics [7]. The first year of engineering curriculum is normally dedicated to basic physical sciences which is then followed, in later years of study, by engineering science and ultimately by some elements of synthesis or design. A final year project (called “capstone design course” in the US) seems to be the most important course in most engineering curricula [8]. Since design is central to engineering practice it plays a major role in the accreditation requirements. It is to ensure that professional competence in design related activities is introduced in the educational objectives of engineering programmes. ABET in its Criterion 3, category “c” demands that each graduate has the “ability to design system, component, or process to meet desired needs” [1]. Engineering curricula must also include certain features related to design, such as: • development of student creativity; • use of open-ended problems; • development and use of modern design theory and methodology; • formulation of design problem statements and specifications; • consideration of alternative solutions; • feasibility considerations; • production processes; • concurrent engineering design; and • detailed system descriptions. ABET also indicates that design experience should: • •
• • •
include a variety of realistic constraints, such as economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, environmental, ethics, and social impact; be a meaningful, major engineering design experience that builds upon the fundamental concepts of mathematics, basic sciences, the humanities and social sciences, engineering topics, and communication skills; be taught in small classes to allow interaction between teacher and student; be an experience that must grow with the student’s development; and focus the student on professional practice and be based on previous course work.
Similarly, other professional bodies also emphasize design in their accreditation requirements. For instance ECSA requires a considerable amount of course delivery time to be spent on design issues [2]. ECSA identifies Engineering Design as a Learning Outcome (Exit Level Outcome 3): “Demonstrate competence to perform creative, procedural and non-procedural design and synthesis of components, systems, engineering works, products or processes” In order to completely assess design it is required that: A major design problem should be used to provide evidence. The problem would be typical of that which the graduate would participate in a typical employment situation shortly after graduation [2]. ECSA also has some Associated Assessment Criteria for the design process which would encompass the following: • Identifies and formulates the design problem to satisfy user needs, applicable standards, codes of practice and legislation; • Plans and manages the design process: focuses on important issues, recognises and deals with constraints; • Acquires and evaluates the requisite knowledge, information and resources: applies correct principles, evaluates and uses design tools;
Advanced Materials Research Vol. 367
• • • •
603
Performs design tasks including analysis, quantitative modelling and optimisation; Evaluates alternatives and preferred solution: exercises judgment, tests implementation criteria and performs techno-economic analyses; Assesses impacts and benefits of the design: social, legal, health, safety, and environmental; Communicates the design logic and information.
In ECSA specifications design appears also in outcome on “Investigations, experiments and data analysis” (Exit Level Outcome 4) which requires not only to conduct investigations and experiments but also to design such activity. Finally design appears in outcome on “Engineering Professionalism” (Exit Level Outcome 10) which expects the graduate to be able to: “Display judgment in decision making during problem solving and design” and to “Discern boundaries of competence in problem solving and design” [2]. Examining Design Experience There are many aspects which need to be addressed when discussing the teaching of design. The major one is that design should be holistically embodied in the engineering curriculum. It stems from the fact that design is ‘behaviour’ [5], something the engineer does but which does not constitute a single, isolated behaviour but a large group of activities that are interrelated. The design experience for students in engineering programme should also develop critical and creative thinking abilities. As engineering design involves a process that engages people in creative effort towards producing a product (item, process, or system) that meets stated requirements it is important that students develop their creative skills. As there is no single lecture on “how to be creative” that aspect has to be embedded in the design activities (e.g. projects, design assignments) [4]. Another important aspect of design is decision making which is also a process of creating a successful design [9]. Design is an iterative process which requires successive steps or actions to improve the final outcome. However, it is important to decide when to start and finish that process. Finally, engineering design is incomplete until the results of the work are communicated effectively to both technical and non-technical audiences [10]. A different aspect of engineering design which is becoming increasingly important is its multidisciplinary nature. Design across disciplines and not mono discipline-based should be emphasized and applied in engineering curricula [11]. Design Thread in the Curriculum The engineering programme at the University of Botswana starts at Year 2 (of a 5-year degree programme) after the students have done Year 1 of general courses at the Faculty of Science or after they have successfully completed a Diploma programme [12]. Since students have varied experiences before enrolling for the engineering programmes there is need to provide them with some basic technical instruction to ensure that they possess enough knowledge and skills to embark on a design experience. Hence, Year 2 of the curriculum is common for all engineering students and contains fundamental courses in Mathematics, engineering science (e.g. Statics, Dynamics, and Electrical Principles), drawing (Manual Drawing, Computer Aided Drafting) and general education. These courses do not contain design exercises but it is possible to experience ‘open-ended’ questions or problems in some courses. The design experience for mechanical engineering students starts at Year 3. In order to explore design elements in the BEng (Mechanical) degree curriculum at the University of Botswana a questionnaire was administered to the staff teaching courses in the programme. The final year project courses were not included in the survey because the primary objective of the study was to assess design experiences in other courses of the programme which ultimately contribute to the
604
Advances in Materials and Systems Technologies III
design experience in the final year project. The survey did not also include optional courses because they are not usually taken by all the students. Therefore, the analysis in the paper does not cover the whole curriculum as final year projects constitute a major source of developing design competencies and some optional courses may contain design elements. The analysis is based on 21 out of 26 courses delivered by 14 members of staff and they all responded to the survey. The questionnaire consisted of 15 items related to the teaching of design. There was also an open-ended part requesting lecturers to list design elements/projects covered in their courses. Table 1 which outlines a student’s experience in different courses shows the preliminary thread of design experience in the curriculum. Level
Year 3
Year 4
Year 5
Table 1 Engineering Design elements in the B.Eng. curriculum Course Name Design Elements Solid Mechanics No design exercises but open-ended questions. Materials Material selection for specific design and application. Mechanics of Simple 2D mechanism design using engineering software. Machines Design of a simple dynamics experiment. Measurement and Design involving PLCs and control elements(e.g. PLC’s Ladder Instrumentation Diagram design) Machine Component Simple machine component design projects; individual or 2Design student team (e.g. belt drive design) Thermodynamics I None Fluid Mechanics Design of pump system and pipe network Manufacturing Design and manufacturing of test specimens for destructive testing. Advanced Design of a manufacturing process plan for various mechanical Manufacturing components (e.g. shafts, couplings, etc). Machine & Industrial Intermediate machine elements design team projects (e.g. power Design screw garage lifting platform, vertical conveyer belt device, gear weight lifting device) Systems and Control Design of control systems (e.g. 3-term PID controller design) Engineering I Engineering Design of systems related to management (e.g. design of Management elements of financial control system) Thermodynamics II Open ended questions/problems. Pneumatics and Design of pneumatics and hydraulic systems using FESTO Hydraulics educational Plant Engineering None Manufacturing Design of manufacturing systems (e.g. FMS, cellular, group Systems technology) Energy Conversion Group Mini project on Renewable Energy systems Refrigeration and Air None Conditioning Building and Factory Design of HVAC/AC building elements (e.g. duct and pipe Services sizing, selection of HVAC motors, selection of compressor motor etc) Production and Design of elements of a management system (e.g. forecasting Operational system for a power plant, maintenance plan for manufacturing Management company, etc). Thermal/Fluid Design of power plant to meet both electrical demand and Systems Design process steam.
Advanced Materials Research Vol. 367
605
Assessing Design Component in the Curriculum The analysis of the survey reported in this section covers 78% of all courses (26) from Year 3 to Year 5 of the curriculum during the last 2 years ( academic years 2008/09 and 2009/10). The majority of lecturers confirmed that their courses had design topics in the syllabus; 17 out of 21 courses (Figure 1). There were almost equal number of courses considered to be “design” (10) and “not design” (9), with one neutral answer. The majority of staff are of the opinion that implementing design elements in teaching takes more time than regular way of teaching (13 out of 21). The majority thinks that it is better to make students work in groups (15 of 21). There is no clear picture whether staff is satisfied with the students’ background to perform design exercises; 7 are in agreement with that statement, 8 in disagreement and 5 are neutral. However, the response of disagreement reduces for students in the senior years of the programme.
At the end of the course students have enough knowledge to perform design exercises. Steps in the design process were clearly explained. The students have enough previous background to perform design exercises in the course.
Strongly Disagree
It is better to make students work in teams than as individuals
Disagree Neutral
Implementing design elements in this course takes more time than teaching it in a regular way
Agree Strongly Agree
It is a “design course”? There are design topics in the syllabus of the course 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Number of Courses
Figure 1 Responses on different aspects of design elements in the courses
606
Advances in Materials and Systems Technologies III
8 Number of Courses
Number of Courses
10 8 6 4 2 0
6 4 2 0
Figure 2 Responses on explaining steps in design
Figure 3 Responses on having enough background in design
The majority of staff indicated that they explained the design process and steps in design to the students (18 of 21). Interestingly, that introductory design elements were delivered in courses at all levels, even in Year 5 (Figure 2). Staff’s positive opinion on students’ background to perform design exercises was understandably growing with students’ progression, being the highest in Year 5 (Figure 3). Lecturers are in principle satisfied with the students’ performance in design exercises and they agreed that the students would be able to perform design (14 of 21) after completing the course (Figure 1). Innovations Safety Aspect Professionalism Design Ethics
Total
Creativity
Year 5
Communication
Year 4
Teamwork
Year 3
Design Processes 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Number of Entries
Figure 4 Responses on enhancing different design domains in the courses Staff considered design processes (13 of 55 entries) and teamwork (12 of 55) as the most enhanced design domains followed by communication (8), safety aspect (6), professionalism (5), creativity (4), innovations (4) and design ethics (3) (Figure 4).
Advanced Materials Research Vol. 367
607
Design exercises in this course
Design elements in the course: More than…
None
30%-40%
Other Minor Design Assgnm
20%-30%
Major Design Assgnm 10%-20%
Minor Project
Less than 10%
Major Project 0
2 4 Number of Courses
0 5 Number of Courses
6
10
Figure 5 Design elements and exercises in the courses The percentage (from ‘less than 10%’ to ‘more than 40%’) of design elements seems to be uniformly distributed in the courses – Figure 5a. Lecturers provided different types of design exercises in the courses, majority are minor projects or minor design assignments; there are only 2 courses without any design exercises (Figure 5b). There was no course in the programme with more than 2 design projects whether individually or group based. However there were more individual projects (20 = 12 + 4x2) than group projects (10 = 8 + 1x2) – Figure 6. This implies that more group work should be introduced in the courses to develop teamwork and enhance communication among students. Number of group design projects in the course
Number of individual design projects in the course 2 projects
2 projects
1 project
1 project
None
None 0
5
10
Number of Courses
15
0
5
10
15
Number of Courses
Relative Ranking
Figure 6 Design projects in the courses
20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Total
Figure 7 Ranking design components in the course
608
Advances in Materials and Systems Technologies III
One of the questions in the survey requested lecturers to rank design components which were addressed in their courses. In order to compare the responses, the ranking was calculated by assigning 3, 2 and 1 points for rank no. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. Results in Fig. showed that System Design was ranked the highest (18 points of Relative Ranking System), followed by Design Methodology (11 points) and Mechanics, Manufacturing and Thermofluids – each with 9 points, and Instrumentation & Control with 8 points. It can also be deduced from Fig. 7 that a programme review should increase design exercises in the area of machine parts and mechatronics. Students should be required to write reports and make presentations to promote communication and drawing skills and competencies. Year 3 Year 4
35
Year 5
Relative Ranking
30
Total
25 20 15 10 5 0 Lack of Size of the proper class is too environment big
Lecturers do Limited Students Lack of not have course time willingness to students' enough time spend time knowledge on design
Figure 8 Possible difficulties in having design projects in the course Lecturers claimed that lack of proper environment was the major difficulty in conducting design projects (Figure 8); followed by lack of time for the lecturers and limited time allocated for the course which was pronounced for Year 3 courses. Students’ lack of willingness to spend time on design and the size of the class were not considered to be major issues. Interestingly lecturers did not consider lack of students’ knowledge as a major problem to design. Such a problem did not exist at all for Year 5 courses and surprisingly was observed more in Year 4 than in Year 3 courses. From the interviews with staff it appeared that lecturers had higher expectations of students in Year 4 than those in Year 3, and hence, the lecturers were not disappointed with the performances of Year 3 students. Summary and Conclusions Design related topics were tracked through the curriculum of a mechanical engineering degree programme. The study showed that there are a lot of elements of design in the curriculum and that design was being introduced to students at different years of study. However it was also found that design was included in the curriculum rather informally. For example, the majority of lecturers claimed that they introduced and explained steps in design (in 16 of 21 courses) throughout the programme. That continued from Year 3 (5 courses) through Year 4 (5 courses) up to Year 5 (6 courses). Also, there was lack of planning in covering professional and ethical issues related to design. Design ethics was covered at all levels of study, whereas professionalism was not covered at all in Year 5. Some proper planning through a programme review would be required to introduce and deliver design in a continuous progressive manner.
Advanced Materials Research Vol. 367
609
The lecturers observed that there was a clear progression in students’ design knowledge. However majority complained about lack of such background in Year 3 (6), the positive responses increased from Year 4 (3 positive responses) to Year 5 (4 positive responses). The observation indicated that design was covered as a cumulative and progressive body of knowledge. Despite the positive responses to the number of courses which have design elements and the number of design exercises covered in the curriculum certain deficiencies were apparent from the survey, such as: • Interdisciplinary approach - there was no element of design across disciplines; all design components, although indeed working as building blocks, were all discipline-based. • Problem (or project) based learning - No course was reported as using this method of teaching design. It is generally agreed that problem (or project) based learning seems to be an effective strategy for teaching design [3, 13]. • Industry projects - none of the lecturers received projects from industry. Such projects would normally enhance faculty and industry collaboration and would also make students address some practical challenges faced by industry. • Communication skills - it is not clear from the survey how communication skills, to both technical and non-technical audiences were tested and improved. Although lecturers reported that such domain was addressed but there was no formal uniform approach to developing the competence. • Engineering software - it is quite apparent from both the survey and also interviews with staff that application of engineering software was limited. In particular, no software, apart from AutoCAD, was used in machine design courses. Use of engineering software will increase students’ skills in application of modern Information Communication Technology (ICT) and eventually improve their knowledge and understanding of the courses. In conclusion a more formal and structured approach to teaching of design is required in order to provide students with a robust and complete experience in an activity that is very important to engineering practice. It is recommended that a series of departmental seminars involving all members of staff be organised in order to share the approach, methodology and indeed elements of design covered in different courses. A programme review is essential and inevitable to achieve continuity, progression, consolidation, ‘successive approximation’ and cumulative knowledge of design in the mechanical engineering curriculum. References [1]
ABET: Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Retrieved May 3, 2010, from http://www.abet.org/Linked%20Documents-UPDATE/Criteria%20and%20PP/E001%201011%20EAC%20Criteria%201-27-10.pdf, . (2009).
[2]
ECSA: ECSA - Whole Qualification Standard for Bachelor of Science in Engineering BSc(Eng))/Bachelors of Engineering (BEng). Retrieved April 20, 2009, from http://www.ecsa.co.za/documents/040726_E-02-PE_Whole_Qualification_Standard.pdf. (2004).
[3]
C. L. Dym, A.M. Agogino, E. Ozgur, D. D. Frey and L. Leifer: Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education , 94 (1), 2005, 103120.
[4]
Y. L. Hsu: Teaching Mechanical Design to a Large Class: A Report From Taiwan. Journal of Engineering Education , 87 (1), 1998, 47-51.
[5]
B. V. Koen: Toward a Strategy for Teaching Engineering Design. Journal of Engineering Education, 83 (3), 1994, 193-201.
610
Advances in Materials and Systems Technologies III
[6]
S. G. Bilén, R. F. Devon and G.E. Okudan: Cumulative Knowledge and the Teaching of Engineering Design Processes. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, (2002).
[7]
C. L. Dym: Design, Systems, and Engineering Education. International Journal of Engineering Education , 20 (3), 2004, 305–312.
[8]
A. J. Dutson, R. H. Todd, S. P. Magleby and C. D. Sorensen: A Review of Literature on Teaching Design Through Project-Oriented Capstone Courses. Journal of Engineering Education , 76 (1), 1997, 17-28.
[9]
C. J. Atman, R. S. Adams, M. E. Cardella, J. Turns, S. Mosborg and J. Saleem: Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education , 96 (4), 2007, 359-379.
[10]
C. J. Atman, D. Kilgore and A. McKenna: Characterizing Design Learning: A MixedMethods Study of Engineering Designers’ Use of Language. Journal of Engineering Education , 97 (3), 2008, 309-326.
[11]
D. F. Ollis: Basic Elements of Multidisciplinary Design Courses and Projects. International Journal of Engineering Education , 20 (3), 2004, 391-397.
[12]
University of Botswana: Academic Calendar, 2006/07, (2006).
[13]
I. S. Gibson: Group Project Work in Engineering Design - Learning Goals and their Assessment. International Journal of Engineering Education , 17 (3), 2001, 261-266.
