A PROJECT-BASED CAPSTONE ENGINEERING DESIGN COURSE FOR ASSOCIATE DEGREE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY STUDENTS

Assessment in capstone engineering design courses is vital to engineering education programs. The capstone design course is the climax of design education and often the context for much of the assessment done in engineering degree programs. Capstone design course instructors’ admittedly low confidence for assessing student performance in these courses poses a crucial obstacle to the assessment process. A key issue is a lack of clear outcomes definition for engineering design and sound, defensible assessments for these outcomes. This paper draws from findings in design literature and from engineering design education experience to construct a conceptual model of engineering design that guides development of associated design learning outcomes and assessment of student achievements in design. A conceptual model of design is vital to design education, because it is one of three essential cornerstones— model, observation, and interpretation— for constructing assessments. In the context of an engineering classroom, design performance produces two different and complementary types of outcomes: learner development and solution development. Further, design is: open-ended, iterative, creative, collaborative, goal-driven, process-intensive, productfocused, customer-oriented, value-added, and constrained by society. Learner and solution development usually progresses from a state of students’ fragmented understanding and ideas to a more mature state of integrated understanding and design solutions. The proposed conceptual model for engineering design identifies four areas of performance that describe design: (1) personal capacity, (2) team processes, (3) solution requirements, and (4) solution assets. The first two characterize learner development and the latter two characterize solution development. Personal capacity is the designer’s development of skills which support technically sound and responsible design. Team processes address a team’s behaviors and productivity in design activities. Solution requirements address the team’s understanding of stakeholder needs and concerns. Solution assets encompass the value added, practicality, and impact of the design solution. These four performance areas are essential to design. They identify performances that develop over time, contribute to the success of design outcomes, and stimulate growth in one another for integrated enhancement of design performance. They also provide the basis for a versatile, comprehensive definition of engineering design performance that can guide instruction and can focus assessments in capstone engineering design courses.

This paper describes a novel format for a proposed Capstone engineering design course that combines industrial experience with international collaboration and uses distance learning as a pedagogical tool. The course is designed for programs in the Industrial Engineering Departments at the University of Pittsburgh and the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) in Monterrey. The team for the design project has two students from each institution and is conducted at an industrial concern whose location alternates between Mexico and the US each year. Project responsibilities are divided between the two sets of students and a faculty supervisor at each institution works with the two groups which stay in close contact with each other by means of electronic mail, the Internet and distance learning technologies. During the last week of the term, the members of the team at the remote location join their teammates to put the finishing touches on the project and to make the final presentation to the faculty and the industrial client. This paper explains the proposed program in detail.

This paper describes the development of a comprehensive assessment instrument to examine the multiple outcomes of entrepreneurship education for engineering students. It is targeted at senior-level students enrolled in capstone engineering design courses and is part of a larger study intended to clarify the relationship between faculty beliefs and practices, program characteristics, and student outcomes. The assessment draws on survey items used within the investigators' own engineering and entrepreneurship programs as well as others identified in the literature. Items fall into six categories including: 1) attitudes, 2) behaviors, 3) knowledge and skills, 4) self-efficacy, 5) perceptions of programs and faculty, and 6) demographic data. The paper provides an overview of the assessment instruments that were considered by the research team and the methodology used to create the final student survey. It discusses challenges encountered during development and administration including identifying validated assessments in the field, selecting response scales, survey length, and student and faculty participation. Preliminary results from year one of data collection across multiple institutions are discussed.

Professional skills are often emphasized in a capstone engineering design course, especially in relation to addressing ABET Engineering Criteria. Learning of these skills is typically a product of the project management approach followed by design teams. The principles behind agile development and the features of the Scrum methodology match up well with the expected outcomes of a major engineering design experience and preparation needed by students for engineering practice. This paper presents a case study on design team use of an agile process for the successful development and release on the Google Play store of an Android app for a client during the span of a two-semester senior design course in electrical and computer engineering. The agile project management used in the case study was found to be beneficial to all involved (students, mentors, and clients). It emphasizes behaviors that lead to greater satisfaction and higher quality results with the senior design experience. Student learning opportunities related to professional skills are examined. This work adds to emerging literature promoting agile development as a model for capstone projects.

In this paper we explore the use of text processing technology for on-line assessment in an engineering design project class. We present results from a 5-week classroom study in a capstone engineering design course in which we explore the potential benefits of such technology for student learning in this context. Furthermore, we present results from ongoing work assessing student productivity based on features extracted from their conversational behavior in the course discussion board. While we found that typical shallow productivity measures such as number of posts, length of posts, or number of files committed have no correlation with an instructor assigned grade, we can achieve a substantial improvement using simple linguistic patterns extracted from on-line conversational behavior.

This paper draws on research in both technical communication and education to describe a problem-based learning approach to engineering design courses that more authentically engages students in the practice of communicating with specific audiences for specific purposes. By developing a learner-centered classroom in which faculty serve as mentor-managers rather than repositories of knowledge, instructors can develop communication tasks that more closely reflect the way texts function in the workplace. In doing so, they can better prepare students for role that texts play in professional practice and enable them to make decisions accordingly. The author includes results from pilot sections of capstone engineering design courses to describe the implementation and evaluate the effectiveness of the approach.

BackgroundEngineering education traditionally emphasizes technical skills, sometimes at the cost of under‐preparing graduates for the real‐world engineering context. In recent decades, attempts to address this issue include increasing project‐based assignments and engineering design courses in curricula; however, a skills gap between education and industry remains.Purpose/HypothesisThis study aims to understand how undergraduate engineering students perceive product design before and after an upper‐level project‐based design course, as measured through concept maps. The purpose is to measure whether and how students account for the technical and nontechnical elements of design, as well as how a third‐year design course influences these design perceptions.Design/MethodConcept maps about product design were collected from 105 third‐year engineering students at the beginning and end of a design course. Each concept map's content and structure were quantitatively analyzed to evaluate the students' conceptual understandings and compare them across disciplines in the before and after conditions.ResultsThe analyses report on how student conceptions differ by discipline at the outset and how they changed after taking the course. Mechanical Engineering students showed a decrease in business‐related content and an increased focus on societal content, while students in the Engineering Management and Industrial and Systems Engineering programs showed an increase in business topics, specifically market‐related content.ConclusionThis study reveals how undergraduate students conceptualize product design, and specifically to what extent they consider engineering, business, and societal factors. The design courses were shown to significantly shape student conceptualizations of product design, and they did so in a way that mirrored the topics in the course syllabi. The findings offer insights into the education‐practice skills gap and may help future educators to better prepare engineering students to meet industry needs.

1 INTRODUCTION Design education usually employs project-based learning, in which students learn to research, plan, design and reflect on the creation of technological projects [1], [2]. Student experience issues may influence students' design process, as well as their perception of professional knowledge development. Studies have pointed out students are ill-informed about design education when entering university [3]. In the field of design, although there have been student surveys to analyze design thinking skills and for assessing design literacy. However, these studies are primarily assessment tools, and do not investigate students’ attitudes or experiences of their design courses. While several studies focus on measuring students’ cognitive knowledge, assessments of affective variables, such as attitude, are far fewer in number. The objective of this study was to investigate student experiences, specifically the issues and challenges faced by students in three foundational design courses – focusing on introductory design, architectural design and engineering design – at the . We investigate issues such as how do students experience various instruction modes such as lectures and studio; and their experience of working individually or as teams in the three foundational design courses. 2 METHOD We conducted a survey in three foundational design courses, in both online and paper format. The survey comprised quantitative and qualitative components. Respondents consisted of 248 students from the introductory design course, 48 students from the introductory architectural design course and 71 students from the engineering design course. Respondents rated their perceptions on 23 items in two types of questions: Likert, semantic differential. Additionally, they provided their input in two open-ended questions. 3 RESULTS A principal component analysis conducted on the data revealed five factors that primarily contributed to students’ perception of foundational design courses: (1) the fun aspects of design, (2) the stressful aspects of design, (3) Course Pressures, (4) Student temperament issues, (5) Teamwork experience. Performance pressures majorly affected student experience in all three courses. The architectural design course was seen to be the most enjoyable for students, as fun scores were higher than the stress scores, and low course pressures. The engineering design course was observed to be very stressful for students, with low scores for fun. 4 SIGNIFICANCE Student perception of foundational design courses is important because it can be used to drive forward changes in curriculum and pedagogy. While this study uses data from one university, the issues reported here are generic and relevant for instructors developing design courses across different parts of the world. Research in student experience and perspectives is crucial to develop design education and propel it into the future. REFERENCES [1] Y. Doppelt, “Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2009, [2] N. Lee, “Project methods as the vehicle for learning in undergraduate design education: a typology,” Design Studies, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 541–560, Sep. 2009, [3] A. B. Gencosmanoglu, “Learning, teaching and administration in design education: DESIGNtrain Project: Training tools for developing design education,” in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010.

technology [4] to a course management system of ED education as it has become a major technology which supports multimedia content publishing and sharing over the Internet. The authors proposed a concept of a new Web 2.0 course management system of ED education as the first step to complete the proposed system. Kanazawa Institute of Technology is a pioneering university in Japan that began its Engineering Design education in 1996. Our Engineering Design courses are characterized by project-based learning in groups. The current web-based information systems for Engineering Design education at KIT are composed of the following independent systems: a course website, an e-Learning system, an oral-presentation review system, and a report-submitting system. The systems are causing unnecessary confusion to both instructors and students, because it is composed of a variety of independent software and their human interfaces are not unified. 2. Learning activities of Engineering Design education A total of 1,700 engineering students from all fourteen engineering divisions must take ED courses. Fifty ED classes are offered in each year. A class consisting of approximately 34 students is divided into seven teams. Each team consists of 4 to 5 students. In order to maintain a high level of quality in the course management, a learning manual for students as well as a course management manual for instructors have been published and revised every year. The students must conduct two hours of in-class instructed learning as well as four hours of outside-class learning activities in teams per week for ten weeks. In our ED education, the Engineering Design Process (EDP) is defined as the process by which the following activities (stages) are performed. The authors analyzed students' learning activities in Engineering Design courses and then designed a new Web 2.0 course management system of Engineering Education in order to help students' learning. The paper shows the first stages of our research efforts toward the completion of a new Web 2.0 course management system of Engineering Education.

As a follow-up to our previous paper on the successes and limitations of using Rube Goldberg machines in a first year engineering design course, in this paper, we outline how we addressed some of the limitations from our first attempt to use Rube Goldberg machines in our course.As pointed out in our previous paper, the first year engineering curriculums of many engineering programs are heavily loaded with science classes and have very little exposure to engineering.Engineering schools must find ways to introduce students to engineering in a fun, engaging fashion.For the past two years, we have been using Rube Goldberg machines to help achieve this goal.Our first year design and communications course attempts to engage students by challenging them to design and build a working Rube Goldberg machine as part of a group project.By working to achieve specific design goals that are subject to constraints, students get to work on a miniengineering project that is fun, creative, and challenging.The long-term goal of the Rube Goldberg Experiment is twofold: (1) to give first year engineering students a positive engineering design experience in their very first semester and (2) to develop a culture of anticipation in Grade 12 students who might be considering an engineering education at the University of Regina.In this paper, we outline changes made to our approach that address shortcomings identified from our first semester and provide results from student feedback, which demonstrate a positive response to the project.

This work reviews best practices in first-year engineering design courses at 40 universities across Canada and the United States. The authors reviewed the subject matter and instructional methods of these engineering design courses. University selection was based on prominence, level of engineering design content, and availability of data. The authors narrowed the scope of the study to seven Canadian programs and eight American programs for further investigation: University of British Columbia, University of Calgary, University of Manitoba, Queen’s University, University of Sherbrooke, University of Toronto, University of Western Ontario, University of Colorado, Franklin W. Olin Engineering College, Harvey Mudd College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Stanford University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The authors then identified six reoccurring themes in the methods of engineering design instruction: full-scale project, small-scale project, case study analysis, reverse engineering project, design tools and methods instruction, and integration. These themes are then discussed from the point of view of educators looking to develop first-year engineering design courses.

In undergraduate engineering programs, recent emphasis has been placed on a more holistic, interdisciplinary approach to engineering education. Some programs now teach product design within the context of the market, extending the curriculum to topics outside of scientific labs and computational analysis. However, it is unknown to what extent engineering students already understand the systems and contextual factors associated with product design, and also what characteristics or experiences have led students to these ways of thinking. This study analyzes survey and concept map data collected from 154 students in a third-year engineering design course. The aim is to understand how student backgrounds and experiences influence their mental models of product design. Data were gathered from surveys on student backgrounds and experiences, along with concept maps that were generated by the students at the beginning of a product design course. The concept maps were analyzed in a quantitative manner for structural and thematic elements. The findings show that several background attributes influence student conceptions of product design. Academic major appeared to have the largest impact on a variety of variables. Additionally, prior work experience, enrollment in a master’s program, and the presence of an engineering role model at home all showed significant impacts on design conceptions. By analyzing and understanding how the unique backgrounds of students lead to differences in thought, educators can adjust their curricula to more effectively teach design concepts to students of various backgrounds and experiences.

In 1990, the A. James Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland at College Park initiated a reevaluation of the introductory design course in order to increase design in the classroom and to recruit, retain, and graduate more women and underrepresented minorities. The resulting course, ENES 100, has been highly successful. A High School Teacher-in-Residence program was initiated in 1995. Sue Schwartz, a Physics teacher from Montgomery County's Paint Branch High School began a residency at the School of Engineering to learn and be a partner in the first year Introduction to Engineering Design course. Throughout the two semesters she actively participated in 4 sections of the course and interacted with all aspects of the freshman program. A major outcome of the interaction was a well defined, detailed, year-long high school curriculum in engineering design. That curriculum has had a pilot test throughout the 1996-97 academic year. The high school curriculum in engineering design and the results of the pilot study is the focus of the presentation.

First year engineering design courses arenow common across Canadian engineering schools.These courses can be challenging to develop and deliver.They are often stuck in the chicken versus egg problem.Can I teach design with no engineering? Can I teachengineering with no design? How does one introducefour years of engineering education and an engineeringcareer in one course? How to do so across many or allengineering disciplines? How to do so in a foundationalmanner? Can it be done in a meaningful way? Can it beengaging and fun? A Teddy Bear Wheel Chair (TBWC)design project is the focal point of Guelph’s first yearengineering design course. The TBWC integratescomputers, mechanics, biomechanics (Teddy Bear style),environment, safety, sustainability, materials, costing,hands-on, perseverance, ethics and DESIGN. The TBWCparticipates in curling, sprinting and scoring goals. Theresult is a challenging and fun competition thatintroduces all of Guelph’s engineering students to theirengineering design careers. This paper and presentationwill share one instructor’s efforts to make all of this work.

A description is given of a workshop intended to help engineering faculty explore methods of structuring both projects and specific task assignments for engineering design courses. Emphasis is on the needs of students in the second and third years. The workshop will include a mix of short presentations, group exercises, and discussions. The presenters plan to address the workshop primarily to the needs of engineering faculty who began their teaching careers with assignments to analytical courses, but who now, because of the retirement of older colleagues, must step into design classes. The workshop will focus on three major topics: defining and incorporating objectives for design courses on behavioral terms; ways in which individual students differ in personality and learning style, and why this should be reflected in a variety of design activities and challenges; and selected techniques from design theory and quality control that design instructors may find useful as classroom techniques.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>