See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/345929965

Application Of Learning Models To The Engineering Design Pedagogy

Conference Paper · June 2009

DOI: 10.18260/1-2--5315

CITATIONS READS
3 5

1 author:

Reza Emami
University of Toronto
149 PUBLICATIONS 1,712 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Reza Emami on 18 April 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

AC 2009-1370: APPLICATION OF LEARNING MODELS TO THE ENGINEERING
DESIGN PEDAGOGY

M. Reza Emami, University of Toronto

Page 14.220.1

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2009

 APPLICATION OF LEARNING MODELS TO THE ENGINEERING DESIGN
PEDAGOGY

Abstract

This paper discusses the implementation of a hybrid framework for teaching cornerstone design
courses based on the behaviourist and constructivist learning models, which ensures adequate
instruction and scaffolding while students develop their design knowledge through hands-on
projects. The instructional design methodology is based on the Elaboration Theory that allows a
gradual transition from content-based instruction to project-based knowledge construction. The
practical steps are detailed for a full-year design course at the sophomore level.

1. Introduction

Design has changed status from a formal course to a flagship stream. There has been a clear
transition in the engineering curricula from the traditional approach to the alternative paradigm.
The former viewed design as a byproduct of engineering education that cannot occur without the
solid formation of engineering sciences1, whereas the latter argues that analytical knowledge is
not adequate for tackling real-life engineering problems, and that design can be viewed as a
means of learning engineering not a result of it. Capstone design courses are fruits of former
approach. They have proven to be useful in addressing the critical feedback from industry
perceiving graduating engineers as unable to tackle real problems and manage professional
design practice, because of the change of focus from theoretical to practical2,3. Yet, the
alternative paradigm seeks a more integrative role for design, and thus introduces it at the
freshman and sophomore levels, usually dubbed as cornerstone design courses4. Both anecdotal
data5 and hard evidence6 have indicated that cornerstone courses enhance students’ motivation,
their retention in engineering programs, and their performance in senior engineering science and
capstone design courses. A major breakthrough in teaching cornerstone design courses, albeit
previously practiced in the senior capstone designs, has been the adoption of project-based
learning models and student-centred, experiential teaching/learning mechanisms7. A wide
spectrum of project-based design instruction has been implemented, from case study to reverse
engineering, to studio-based design, to full-scale projects tackling realistic (industry-customer) or
semi-realistic (faculty-customer) problems. An excellent review is provided by Sheppard and
Jenison8 (up to 1997) and Dym et al.7 (recently). These courses, which have been created over
the past two decades, demonstrate a great diversity in terms of implementing project-based,
team-centred approaches. Nonetheless, they share two major features7: a) they are scheduled in
one semester (or two quarters); and b) they tend to focus more heavily on conceptual design
methods and less on prototyping design artifacts. Consequently, the learning process in these
semester courses is extended up to design on paper/computer, or even if they reach beyond to
prototype fabrication the artifacts are primitive (such as kit-based projects9) and/or discipline-
specific (such as remote control mobile mechanisms involving mechanical design only10). This is
partly because of the shortage of time and experimentation/fabrication resources and partly due
to the lack of adequate knowledge that students will acquire only later in the curriculum. Despite
a number of positive reports11, the efficacy of project-based education in engineering programs
Page 14.220.2

has yet remained to be investigated thoroughly12. Furthermore, little has been addressed in the
literature about how to maintain a balance between direct instruction and self-controlled learning
in a design course based on the underlying learning theories.

The paper argues the need for a hybrid framework for teaching cornerstone design courses based
on the behaviourist and constructivist learning models, and presents a systematic instructional
design methodology using the Elaboration Theory. The learning models are discussed in Section
2. In Section 3, the expected design qualities that cornerstone courses should address and their
relevance to learning models are discussed. Section 4 briefly introduces an instructional design
theory that best utilizes a merger of the two rival learning models. Section 5 details the
application of the instructional mechanism to a second-year design course, as a case study. Some
concluding remarks are made in Section 6.

2. Engineering Design and Learning Models

The emphasis on project-based learning in the recent reform of engineering education sides,
mostly unconsciously, with the constructivist learning theory, which is a paradigm shift from the
mainstream behaviourist learning model. This alliance, more than a diligent deliberation, comes
from the fact that teaching design through a hands-on approach seems quite appealing to both
instructors and students, partly because bringing abstract notions of design into the classroom
and yet maintaining students’ attention and interest in the subject is a great challenge for
instructors, and partly because students seem to be better able to make sense of design notions by
experiencing them within the real-life context. Constructivism is primarily realized through the
work of Bruner13, Piaget14, and Vygotsky15, and it is often articulated in stark contrast to the
traditional behaviourist model of learning. Behaviourism conceives learning as a process of
changing or conditioning observable behaviour as a result of selective reinforcement of learner’s
response to events (stimuli)16. The mind is seen as a tabula rasa to be filled by, or as a mirror to
reflect, the objective reality17. Learning is considered as dissemination of knowledge via abstract
representation of reality. Thus, the goal of learning, behaviourism submits, is to understand the
reality and modify behaviour accordingly, and the purpose of teaching is to transfer the
knowledge from expert to learner18. The behaviourist model is still widely adopted for
instructional design of teaching factual or procedural knowledge of engineering. Instructors
convert the reality into abstract or generalized representations, and transfer them to students
through a well-planned, linear and gradual procedure in a “tamed” environment, be it a
classroom or laboratory. The students’ performance is assessed by measuring the proximity of
their behaviour (answering questions, writing reports and essays, performing laboratory
experiments, etc.) to the expected outcome. In contrast to behaviourism, the premise of
constructivism is that knowledge is created by learners, rather than transmitted to them. It is
based on the epistemological ground that views knowledge not merely as the awareness of
objects that exist independent of any subject, but also as a subjective and dynamic product of
knower’s experiential world constructed through the senses and social interactions19. Thus, the
constructivist model of learning advocates that, as von Glasersfeld states19, “knowledge is not a
transferable commodity and communication not a conveyance.” Individuals learn by
experiencing the real world and challenging real problems. Hence, the role of teacher is not to
dispense knowledge but to serve as a creative mediator and facilitator to provide learners with
opportunities and incentives to construct their own perception of reality20.
Page 14.220.3
The implications of the above two learning theories in instructional design are as diverse as the
theories themselves. From a behaviourist perspective, the instructor analyzes the learning subject
to develop the learning objectives and break down the learning tasks, and evaluation consists of
determining whether the criteria for the objectives have been met. On the other hand,
instructional design from a constructivist standpoint seems to be more concerned with the design
of learning environments and less concerned with the selection and sequencing of instructional
events. It requires that the instructor develop a product that is facilitative in nature rather than
prescriptive. The learning content is not pre-specified; learning direction is determined by the
learner, and assessment is more subjective because it relies less on specific quantitative outcomes
and more on the process and learner’s reflection and self-evaluation. Hence, the guidelines for
the constructivist instructional design can be summarized as follows18,21:

− Create real-world environments that employ the context in which learning becomes relevant,
and present realistic (multiple) approaches to solving real-life problems.
− Direct the learning exercises towards context- and content-dependent knowledge construction,
not reproduction.
− Relate the learning experience to the students’ previous knowledge and background.
− Set the instructor’s role as a coordinator, facilitator, resource advisor, and mentor, and
encourage apprenticeship learning.
− Communicate with the learner the teaching/learning strategy, and prepare the learner to take
the ownership of her/his learning process.
− Support and promote collaborative construction of knowledge through social negotiation.
− Foster reflective practice, and promote metacognition and strategic self-awareness and self-
regulation by learners.
− Devise authentic and integrative assessment based more heavily on the student’s learning
process than the learning outcomes, and allow certain errors and mistakes by students as
means of knowledge construction.

It has been pointed out by several educators22 that both behaviourist and constructivist learning
models have their own merits depending on the learning subject and circumstances. Some
learning situations require highly prescriptive models, whereas others are better suited to
experiential models. In the next section, the author attempts to make a point that both models can
bring benefits, and thus should be adopted harmoniously, in teaching certain aspects of
engineering design. A suitable instructional design theory can make this rapprochement happen,
as discussed in the sequel.

3. Which Model Better Suits Design Education?

Despite the apparent diversity of methods of teaching engineering design, certain characteristics
seem to have been accepted almost unanimously amongst both design educators and design
researchers. Sheppard and Jenison8 summarize the expected qualities in a design engineer, and
thus the topics that design courses should focus on, in 16 characteristics, which can be further
categorized into a number of classes as listed in Table 1 (items are numbered according to the
referred article8). Several remarks about the list of design qualifications are in order:
Page 14.220.4
• From Table 1, one may infer that some categories may not have been detailed adequately. This
could be due to the fact that the majority of design courses, especially cornerstone courses,
focus more heavily on conceptual and preliminary design, up to design on paper/computer, and
less on detailed design to the level of prototype fabrication. Nevertheless, many researchers23
have stressed the importance of physical artifacts in the learning process, and that students
develop engineering intuition by continuously iterating between mental concepts and real
hardware. Some important qualities listed in Table 1, such as teamwork, communication, and
team- and self-management capabilities, will show their merit seriously only during the
process of building the design concepts into real hardware prototypes. The process of building
design artifacts usually proves to be the most challenging part of a design course, due to time
constraints, limited resources, intense energy required from the team and instructor, lack of
hands-on knowledge, critical need for careful team and project management, and numerous
uncertain and unpredictable situations. Yet, design intuition comes to fruition effectively when
the developed concepts are reality-checked with the working prototype.
• A major challenge in engineering design is to deal with open-ended, ill-defined problems in a
complex world. Good designers are able to comprehend the complexity and dynamics of real
systems, handle uncertainty associated with complicated or unknown phenomena, and make
reasonable estimates. Hence, the task of system analysis in design involves imperfect models
and incomplete information, and addresses issues such as reliability and risk factor. Therefore,
students in a design course should learn how to design experiments to better understand the
problem, how to make intuitive estimates at various stages of design, and how to handle
ambiguous, uncertain, and unpredictable situations7.

Table 1. Expected qualifications in design engineers that engineering courses should focus on8.
Qualifications
Design Thinking Capabilities:
4. Utilize graphical and visual representations and thinking.
5. Exercise creative and intuitive instincts.
11. Think with a system orientation, considering the integration and needs of various facets of the problem.
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.
Analysis Capabilities:
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.
Information Collection and Dissemination Capabilities:
6. Find information and use a variety of resources (i.e., resourcefulness).
7. Identify critical technology and approaches, stay abreast of change in professional practice.
Teamwork and Communication Capabilities:
1. Communicate, negotiate and persuade.
2. Work effectively in a team.
4. Utilize graphical and visual representations and thinking. (repeated)
Management Capabilities:
3. Engage in self-evaluation and reflection.
Prototyping Capabilities:
Page 14.220.5

15. Build up real hardware to prototype ideas.

16. Trouble-shoot and test hardware.
• Engineering design is more than creating and implementing a technical solution. Today’s
engineers must design by following certain standards and regulations. The practice of
engineering is recognized in many countries as a profession, thus must comply with the
professional conduct and code of ethics. Design courses should, therefore, provide the
awareness of certain standards in the field as well as rules of professional engineering. They
should also address various ethical dilemmas that may arise during a design process.
• One important aspect of design that is not highlighted in Table 1, but should be included in the
design education, is the ability to make decisions throughout the process and choose rationally
among design alternatives based on certain criteria24.

• Information processing has two ends: collection and dissemination. On the collection end,
qualified engineers are experts at discovering just the required information when it is needed
(just-in-time), and at distilling, synthesizing, and applying it for the achievement of a goal. The
ability to extract the right information from the multiplicity of resources comes from
experience and proper training. On the dissemination end, which must be added to the list of
Table 1, it may not be an underestimate to say that engineers market their skills through the
ability to communicate their knowledge and expertise. This communication occurs in a variety
of formats, including design notebooks, proposals, technical reports, presentations, etc. Some
documentation procedures have become mandatory elements of design protocols in various
disciplines. For example, The ISO 9001:2000, Section 7.3, requires documentation of design
activity to be certified for conducting business in the member countries25. Collection and
dissemination of information should be equally emphasized in a design course.

• It is imperative that qualified designers be able to monitor and assess their performance during
the course of design. However, the management capabilities of a good designer must extend
beyond self-organization. Several researchers have pointed out that the design process,
particularly in the early stages, is inherently social but argumentative26. Consequently, each
member of the design team must be aware of the group dynamics and the requirements of
forming a productive team and achieving maximum benefit from the diversity in the team.
Further, being able to define the statement of work and prepare a plan for an engineering
project, including a feasible schedule and a realistic cost estimate, are also part of the
qualifications that must be conveyed to students in a design course.

The above discussions would result in a modified list of qualifications as shown in Table 2
(additional items are numbered after 16.) A number of qualifications listed in Table 2 (named
here as Group H, i.e., 5, 13, 19, 1, 2, 3, 15, 16, 24, and 28) exclusively refer to the know-how
that is built by the students: symbolically, when they are making their own representation of the
design problem and possible solutions; socially, when they are conveying to and negotiating with
others their understanding; theoretically, when they try to explain relationships and phenomena
while analyzing their solutions; and physically, when they are building and debugging their
prototypes. Several other qualities in Table 2 (Group HW: 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 21, 23, and 25)
represent a mixture of know-how and know-what that can be taught initially by a series of
instructions before enabling students to proceed to their own experiential learning process. The
remaining items in Table 2 (Group W: 8, 9, 10, 20, 6, 7, 22, 26, and 27) are mostly know-what
Page 14.220.6

that can be addressed and practiced in class/laboratory environments.

Based on this classification, the majority of design qualifications (19 out of 28) contain some
know-how that can best be gained by performing authentic tasks within realistic contexts using
apprenticeship-mentoring relationships and taking into account negotiation and social aspects of
learning subjects. This analysis justifies the recent trend of introducing project-based design
courses at all levels of engineering curricula, which can properly line up with the constructivist
model of learning as discussed in Section 2. However, a genuine project-based course should
contain a good deal of physical fabrication, testing, and debugging. While conceptual design and
system analysis are important aspects of engineering design, in many engineering fields it is the
process of “building” physical artifacts (in part or full scale) that completes the knowledge-
construction process, as argued by several23,27. It should also be noted that a mere project-based
format does not automatically guarantee a genuine constructivist approach unless major
guidelines mentioned in Section 2 are implemented in the instructional design. Nevertheless,
while a project-based format seems to be a suitable option for a design course, assuming that the

Table 2. Expected qualifications in design engineers that engineering courses should focus on. (Modified)
Qualifications Group
A1: Design Thinking Capabilities:
4. Utilize graphical and visual representations and thinking. HW
5. Exercise creative and intuitive instincts. H
11. Think with a system orientation, considering the integration and needs of various facets of the problem. HW
12. Define and formulate an open-ended and/or under-defined problem, including specifications. HW
13. Generate and evaluate alternative solutions. H
14. Use a systematic, modern, step-by-step problem solving approach. Recognize the need for and implement
iteration. HW
17. Make rational decisions about design alternatives based on certain criteria. HW
A2: System Analysis Capabilities:
8. Use analysis in support of synthesis. W
9. Appropriately model the physical world with mathematics. W
10. Consider economic, social, and environmental aspects of a problem. W
18. Design experiments to better understand systems and verify ideas/hypotheses. HW
19. Handle uncertainty and ambiguity is system modeling. H
20. Use statistical techniques as well as engineering intuition to make reasonable estimates. W
A3: Information Collection/Dissemination Capabilities:
6. Find information and use a variety of resources (i.e., resourcefulness). W
7. Identify critical technology and approaches, stay abreast of change in professional practice. W
21. Produce viable documentation, and present design ideas effectively. HW
A4: Teamwork and Communication Capabilities:
1. Communicate, negotiate and persuade. H
2. Work effectively in a team. H
4. Utilize graphical and visual representations and thinking. (repeated)
A5: Management Capabilities:
3. Engage in self-evaluation and reflection. H
22. Be aware of effective team organization. W
23. Plan a design project, and follow the schedule. HW
A6: Prototyping Capabilities:
15. Build up real hardware to prototype ideas. H
16. Troubleshoot and test hardware. H
24. Integrate various subsystems efficiently. H
25. Understand and dissect existing engineering products. HW
A7: Ethical and Professional Capabilities:
26. Be aware of major standards of the field. W
Page 14.220.7

27. Understand professional conduct and code of ethics. W

28. Can resolve ethical dilemmas. H
requirements of the constructivist model are met, a number of expected design qualities listed in
Table 2 (Group W in particular) call for a systemic and procedural instruction, more compatible
with the behaviourist learning model. In other words, it is granted that the core content of
engineering design consists of know-how that should best be constructed by the learner in
realistic circumstances, but it also contains a certain know-what that can be transferred/instructed
to the learner primarily to help her/him take the ownership of learning advancement effectively.
This preparatory stage of learning design, based on a behaviourist model, can indeed have a
crucial role in the efficiency (time and effort) and depth of the knowledge construction phase.
Hence, a thorough design course for addressing all the expected qualifications calls for a hybrid
model of learning, a merger of behaviourism and constructivism through a systematic
instructional design strategy. This will be discussed in the following section.

4. An Instructional Design Theory for Implementing the Hybrid Learning Model

The premise of Section 3 was that engineering design involves various types of content at
different levels of learning. Several pedagogues have argued that both content and level of
learning assign the suitable learning model. For example, Jonnassen17 states that the appropriate
learning model directly depends on the learning level. For the introductory learning when the
learner has little prior knowledge of the content area, the classical behaviourist model is most
effective because it is predetermined, sequential, and constrained, so that the learner can develop
some anchors for future knowledge construction. For the advanced and expert learning stages, on
the other hand, where the learner is able to gain metacognition with respect to the content area, a
constructivist approach would work more effectively. Similarly, Ertmer and Newby28 stress that
a behaviourist approach can effectively facilitate mastery of the content of a profession, while
constructivist strategies are suited to teaching expertise in solving ill-defined problems in
unfamiliar situations through reflection-in-action.

In order to systematically utilize the impact of content and level of learning in the design
education, the author appeals to a relatively-new instructional design technique, called
Elaboration Theory29. The theory, like any other instructional design technique, helps instructors
select and sequence content in a way that will optimize achievement of learning goals. It
organizes instruction in increasing order of complexity, and gradually moves from prerequisite
learning for introducing the basics of the content to the novice learner to “learner control” where
the learner takes the ownership of both content and instruction. A pragmatic interpretation of the
Elaboration Theory is the following30: present the simplest representations of the learning
content that relate to the whole task through simplest techniques (direct instruction), and
gradually “enable” the learner to succeed levels of elaboration by “relaxing” the simplifying
conditions (more realistic circumstances) so that the task becomes more and more complex.
Hence, one can infer that the approach suggests a gradual transition from direct instruction to
self-learning, and it is, thus, suitable for teaching subjects that require both behaviourist and
constructivist models, such as Engineering Design. Consequently, the instructional procedure
and its characteristics that are recommended by the Elaboration Theory31 can be readily tailored
to design pedagogy with a hybrid learning framework, as described below:

Simple-to-complex Sequence: The course flow should be a gradual transition from direct
Page 14.220.8

instruction, in the form of lectures and tutorials, to semi-directed learning, in the form of hands-
on assignments, to self-controlled experiences of conducting the design project. Needless to say,
the content of the course should also follow a simple-to-complex sequence.

Organizing Structure: The Elaboration Theory advises that the content of a course be primarily
focused on one of the three types of conceptual, theoretical, and procedural, and the other two
types be brought up only when they are directly relevant to the core type. In a design course,
procedure is the primary organizing content, thus the course should centre on a procedural task,
i.e., developing a prototype from concept generation to analysis, to synthesis, to fabrication,
integration, and testing. During this procedure, relevant concepts and theories should be
presented directly related to what the procedure requires. For example, the Reverse Engineering
Assignment, which will be discussed in the next section, is of conceptual type, but choosing the
subject related to the design project ensures the relevance of the developed concept(s) to the
primary procedural content. The same strategy can be applied to the design and technical lectures
and tutorials, as well.

Within-lesson Sequencing: For a procedural organizing structure, such as that of a design

course, the subjects should be arranged sequentially within a realistic context. This requirement
is met by defining an initial statement of work for the projects, included in the Request-for-
Proposal (RFP) announcement, to be discussed in the next section, and by devising directive
assessments so that students follow a certain sequence while conducting their design project.
That is, they formulate the problem and develop the concept, then analyze the solution, then
communicate the design (proposal), then detail the subsystems, then fabricate them, then
integrate the entire system, then test and calibrate, and finally present their design and document
the activities (final report). It is worth noting that within-lesson sequencing for the instruction
does not contradict the iterative nature of design, i.e., teams should always be allowed to step
back and modify the previous stages, if required.

Synthesizers and Activators: The theory recommends the use of a) presentation devices, called
synthesizers, which are designed to help the learner integrate content elements into a meaningful
context and assimilate them into prior knowledge; and b) means of activating cognitive
awareness of learning process, called activators, which are designed to help the learner navigate
through her/his learning journey and check the progress with certain milestones. Therefore, a
design course should be enriched by a collection of “demonstration boards” that illustrate various
tasks of subsystem design, fabrication, and integration, as well as a number of flowcharts and
milestones that help teams identify their situation throughout the design process.

Learner Control: According to the theory, the trend of instruction should be toward delegating
the task of learning to the learner through the provision of a context that illustrates the
complexity of real life. This is well suited to a hybrid project-based design course, in a sense that
the role of instructor should gradually change from information conveyor, to content facilitator,
to activity observer and advisor, to design critic and evaluator.

The next section details the development of a full-year hybrid cornerstone design course based
on the Elaboration Theory.
Page 14.220.9
5. Case Study: A Hybrid Design Course for Sophomores

A design course was developed, based on a hybrid learning framework and following the
guidelines of the Elaboration Theory, for the second-year syllabus of the Division of Engineering
Science at the University of Toronto. Engineering Science is a special program designed for top-
ranked students to provide them with both breadth and depth of engineering fundamentals. The
program emphasizes interdisciplinary linkages in the first two years, and trains students in the
third and fourth year in one of the specialized fields of their choice such as: Aerospace,
Biomedical, Computer, Electrical, Manufacturing, etc. The course mandate is to teach students
the theoretical and practical notions of multidisciplinary design and familiarize them with
technology advances.

5.1 Course Outline

The course schedule is extended to 22 weeks, equally divided between fall and winter semesters.
The average class size is 185 students divided into four sections. Each section is scheduled for 4
hours per week, except for the first 5 weeks of fall semester during which design and technical
lectures are presented for 6 hours per week. During the first two weeks, students form their teams
of three (or four in special circumstances,) within team-finding sessions and after attending
lectures on group dynamics and team/project management. The course centres on a number of
full-scale, multidisciplinary projects, as discussed in the sequel, which are introduced in the

Direct Instruction (Lecture) Semi-direct Instruction Process Evaluation

Direct Instruction (Tutorial) Experiential Learning and Feedback

Design Proposal

Reverse Engineering Assignment Motor Driving Assignment PIC Integration Assignment

Team/Project Lab. Session,

Introductory Lab. Session Lab. Session
Selection Experimentation,
Lab. Session Startup Startup
Project Preparation
Communication
Project & Machine
Management Information Tutorial Tutorial Shop
Tutorial
Design Conceptual
Fundamentals Design Digital & Electro PIC Decision Reliability
mechanical Micro Sensors Making
Analog & Risk
Course Project Systems controller
Circuits Assessment
Introduction Definition

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8

Design Project Technical Report

Tutorial Tutorial Team Team Public

Individual Tutorial Individual
Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Demonstration
Professionalism Ethics in
in Design Design Notebook Interim Notebook Final
Page 14.220.10

Week 9 Week 10 Week 11 Week 12 …... Week 14 …... Week 17 …... Week 20 …... Week 22
Figure 1. The flowchart of the design course
beginning through formal Request-for-Proposal (RFP) announcements. Each team is expected to
elect one project to proceed throughout the course. A proposal must be prepared by each team in
Week 8, which concludes the conceptual and preliminary design phases. Upon approval of the
proposal, the team proceeds towards detailed design and prototype fabrication. A technical
document submitted by the team at the end of the course reports the phase of detailed design.
Also, teams will present their prototypes to a panel of judges in a public event while competing
with other prototypes of their category. The first semester of the course consists mainly of design
lectures, technical lectures, tutorials, and hands-on preparatory (individual and group)
assignments, while teams are conducting the conceptual and preliminary design phases of their
project. This instruction initially books the entire weekly schedule, and is gradually reduced to
one hour per week in the fall semester. The winter semester mainly consists of detailed design
and prototype fabrication, and except for few specialized tutorials there is no further direct
instruction for the class. Figure 1 illustrates the course procedure, as detailed in the following.

5.2 Course Components

The course consists of the following elements:

Design Project: This is the core activity of the course. A set of projects is announced that share
a common “theme.” Some examples are shown in Table 3. A common theme enables the
instructor to provide the class with a unified set of training materials and evaluation schemes.

Table 3. Some examples of projects for the second-year Engineering Design course.
THEME PROJECT
Graffito Machine: moves along a piece of papers hung on a vertical wall, and draws
pre-programmed figures of various shape, size, geometry at specific locations.
Manipulation with
straight-
Ball Stocking Machine: moves along a stock rack held against a vertical wall, and
places balls of various colour and size (mixed in its container) on specific shelves as
forward mobility along a
initially programmed.
vertical wall
Fabric Inspection Machine: moves along a piece of cloth hung on a vertical wall and
locates, marks, and records a number of undisclosed spots based on their colour.
Battery Sorter: receives a mixture of batteries of various types (sizes and shapes) and
voltage conditions (charged or discharged), and sorts them in separate bins.
Ball Sorter: receives a mixture of balls of various sizes, types (surface softness) and
Sorting objects based on
colours, and sorts in separate bins.
colour, size, geometry,
function, etc. Bottle Sorter: receives a mixture of various types (size, shape) of empty bottles and
cans, and sorts them in separate bins.
Skittle™ Sorter: receives a mixture of Skittles™ in various colours, and sorts them in
separate bins.
Tennis-player Robot: moves within one side of the tennis court (scaled down to half),
and throws tennis balls to the other side at specific times and locations as programmed
initially.
Object handling with
controlled mobility within
Mine-detecting Robot: travels within a field, and detects and marks an undisclosed
number of metal plates (mine examples) laid on the ground without hitting them.
a field
Waiter/Waitress Robot: moves within a court, finds an undisclosed number of metal
plates (table examples) on the ground, and puts one can of soft drink on each plate
without hitting the plates.
Nail-hammering Machine: moves on a timber, and hammers in nails at marked spots
Manipulation with directed
Page 14.220.11

as well as pre-programmed locations.

mobility along other
objects Pipe-inspection Machine: moves on a PVC pipe, and detects and records spots on the
pipe outside surface based on their colour.
Consumer market and industry must be consulted extensively for defining new projects each
year. Design problems are expected to convey the multidisciplinary nature of the program. That
is, prototypes should involve at least mechanical (structure and mechanisms), electrical (circuits
and instrumentation), electromechanical (actuators and drivers), and software (microcontroller
coding) design. Although some projects are modified to illustrate a more traceable and feasible
process, the RFP announcements are created so that they give students a sense of real-life
meaningfulness. Major design constraints are weight, dimension, cost of the prototype, and other
function-specific constraints. The developed prototypes are to perform specific tasks as quickly
and accurately as the team’s design permits. Hence, in the final public presentation these
machines hold a competition in their category to gain the highest score according to certain
criteria also specified in the RFP announcements. In addition to the physical prototype, other
outcomes of the design project that will be subjected to evaluation are: design proposal that
concludes conceptual and preliminary design phases; engineering notebook that becomes an
instrumental means for each student as a journal, bookkeeper, data-logger, communicator, and
report facilitator; and final report that describes the detailed design and fabrication, integration,
testing, and calibration processes.

Design Lectures: This series of lectures presents some practical notions of engineering design
that students need to be familiar with to conduct their knowledge construction. Topics include:

• Introduction: Course Outline, Procedure, Expectations, etc. (1 hour)

• Learning Strategy: why you learn (Attitude), how you learn (Metacognition), what you learn
(Cognition) (1 hour)
• Project Management: Group Dynamics and Teamwork, Project Planning, Time Management
(3 hours)
• Design Projects of the Year (1 hour)
• Fundamentals: Definitions of Engineering and Design, Design Process (1 hour)
• Conceptual Design: Problem Formulation, Concept Generation, Functional Analysis (3 hours)
• Communication and Information: Engineering Sources, Writing Proposals, Technical Reports,
Engineering Notebook (3 hours)
• Decision Making Process (1 hour)
• Reliability and Risk Assessment (1 hour)
• Professionalism (1 hour)
• Ethics (1 hour)

Technical Lectures: To perform a multidisciplinary design and build a functional machine,

students need to possess certain practical knowledge about different disciplines, which is
presented to them through a series of prescriptive technical lectures, as titled below. These
lectures are designed to bridge between students’ theoretical knowledge and the practical notions
that they need to experience throughout the design process. Many of the presented topics will be
discussed again in the upper years in greater detail.

• Digital and Analog Circuits (5 hours)

• Mechanical and Electromechanical Systems (5 hours)
Page 14.220.12

• Microcontrollers (5 hours)
• Sensors (2 hours)
Tutorials: Throughout the course, different tutorials are presented by experts, students from the
previous years, and people from industry. The topics include machine shop, printed circuit
boards and soldering, experiences of previous years, industrial project management, software
applications, etc. These sessions are also good opportunities for students to interact with experts
of various fields.

Preparatory Assignments: During the conceptual design phase while teams develop their
design ideas, three hands-on assignments give them a better practical sense about the systems
they are to develop. These assignments are means of transition from instructional to experiential
learning, and they are of the following types:

• Reverse Engineering: In this assignment, teams of students dissect a specific consumer product
and discuss its design attributes, functional analysis, and methods of improvement. The
selected product is relevant to the theme of the year projects. For example, for the “object
sorting” theme a coin-sorter machine, and for the “mobile manipulation” theme an electric
scooter were assigned for the reverse engineering practice. Through this assignment, students
begin to know their team and also how to generate engineering ideas.

• Motor Driving: All individual students build a driver circuit on the protoboard for a gear-head
DC or stepper motor, and design and perform a number of experiments to obtain motor
characteristics. All the required components are provided as a kit, and circuit schematics and
descriptions are discussed in the lectures and course notes. In this assignment, students
construct their first circuit, and learn how to design and perform engineering experiments.

• Microcontroller Integration: All individual students write simple assembly codes to integrate
their circuit and actuator built in the previous assignment with a particular microcontroller.
The microcontroller with its driver board is provided to students. It belongs to the low-cost,
medium-range family of PICmicro™ units from Microchip Technology, Inc.32, with a simple
set of instructions that are lectured to students a priori. Through this assignment, students
learn about the microcontroller that they will use for their project, and also how to integrate
and test different subsystems.

5.3 Performance Assessment

The assessment strategy in the course is a balance between outcome-based and process-based

Table 4. The course assessment scheme

Individual-Based Group-Based
Reverse Engineering Assignment (5%)
Motor Driving Assignment (5%)
Design Proposal (10%)
Outcome-Based
Project Demonstration (7.5%)
PIC Integration Assignment (5%)
Final Report (20%)
Week-11 Evaluation (7.5%)
Page 14.220.13

Week -17 Evaluation (7.5%)

Interim Notebook (7.5%)
Process-Based
Week-14 Evaluation (7.5%)
Week-20 Evaluation (10%)
Final Notebook (7.5%)
and also between individual-based and group-based evaluations, as detailed in Table 4. Process-
based evaluations are performed by experienced teaching assistants who constantly monitor
students’ performance based on specific criteria and provide them with adequate feedback. The
criteria for outcome-based evaluation are also detailed sufficiently to ensure a fair and objective
assessment.

5.4 Students’ Feedback

At the end of the course each year, students were asked to respond to a survey about their
individual learning experience. The survey consisted of two parts. Part one ranks their opinion
about the learning experience with regard to the expected qualifications listed in Table 2. There
is one additional factor in part one concerning the life-long learning (A8), i.e., the ability to learn
independently and continuously seek for acquiring new knowledge, and to bring in relevant
outside experiences to provide advanced solutions to the problems at hand. Part two ranks their
consensus about the following six questions:

Q1: To what extent did you enjoy the learning experience?

Q2: To what extent was the workload worth the learning outcome?
Q3: To what extent do you think this course would be useful for your future career?
Q4: To what extent did teamwork help you develop the design skills?
Q5: Overall, how satisfied are you with the teaching/ learning process in this course?
Q6: Do you think that you could obtain similar learning experience in one semester (instead of
two semesters)?

The ranking was based on a five-grade Likert ordinal scale [33], with the following codes:
1: Not at all
2: To a limited extent
3: To a fair extent
4: To a great extent
5: To a very great extent

Table 5. Students’ feedback

Rank 1 2 3 4 5
Subject
A1 0 0.64 22.44 52.56 24.36
A2 2.56 15.38 37.82 32.69 11.54
A3 1.92 18.59 37.18 33.33 8.97
A4 0.65 4.52 22.58 41.29 30.97
A5 1.92 6.41 34.62 38.46 18.59
A6 0.64 1.28 21.79 40.38 35.90
A7 7.69 33.33 39.10 14.74 5.13
A8 1.30 10.39 23.38 38.31 26.62
Q1 4.52 12.26 32.90 33.55 16.77
Q2 7.74 28.39 32.90 21.94 9.03
Page 14.220.14

Q3 2.56 8.33 25.64 32.69 30.77

Q4 2.58 14.19 36.13 32.26 14.84
Q5 5.77 10.90 20.26 50.26 12.82
Q6 48.72 28.85 12.82 7.69 1.92
Results of the survey for one year are shown in Table 5, as a sample. Each entry represents the
percentage of class (192 students) who selected a rank for a specific subject. For example,
52.56% of class thinks that the course helped them “to a great extent” (scale 4) strengthen their
“design thinking capabilities” (A1 in Table 2), and 48.72% of class selected option 1 for question
Q6 (above), meaning that this group does not think at all that they could obtain similar learning
experience in one semester. As it is obvious from the data, a strong majority of class thinks that
with a hybrid format all seven categories of qualifications (Table 2) are satisfied to a fair, great,
or very great extent. However, students pointed out that there needs to be more coverage on the
“ethical and professional capabilities” (A7). Also, the two capabilities of “information
collection/dissemination” (A3) and “system analysis” (A2) may need improvement, albeit the
latter is constrained by the students’ limited knowledge of engineering sciences in the second
year. With regard to the “life-long learning capabilities” (A8), 88.31% of class seemed to have
gained confidence in acquiring knowledge independently and continuously bringing in relevant
outside experiences for creating new solutions, an expected outcome from a constructivist
learning model. Questions Q1-5 examine students’ subjective attitude toward the course, which
is a measure of success in keeping them motivated throughout the numerous technical and social
challenges that they were facing in the course. Although a strong majority of class seemed to
have enjoyed the course and appreciated its learning experience for their future career, a notable
minority (36.13%) thinks that perhaps the workload was excessive. This remark is admitted,
particularly in comparison with other courses that they carry out simultaneously. A number of
students tend to become greatly attached to their artifacts. Hence, a major administrative
challenge for such hands-on design courses is to ensure that students do not overdo their design
activities to the extent that their other assignments (academic and else) are compromised. On the
other side of the argument, it should be noted that since the survey was taken at the end of the
course activities when students were exhausted as a result, some of the remarks about the
excessive workload may become moderated later on when they have a chance to rest.
Interestingly, only 22.43% of class thinks that such a learning experience could have obtained in
one semester (Q6), which may support a full-year format. Of course, more investigation is
needed to justify the full-year duration for a hybrid design course when it is compared with a
semester-long similar course.

6. Conclusion

Teaching engineering design involves both direct instruction and learner-controlled knowledge
construction. Thus, a hybrid framework is needed for the rapprochement of the two rival models
of learning, i.e., behaviourism and constructivism. Such a framework can be manufactured based
on an instructional design theory, namely Elaboration Theory, which allows a gradual transition
from content-based to project-based design education. The instructional format was detailed for a
multidisciplinary design course for sophomores, which requires a 22-week schedule. Students’
feedback indicates notable enthusiasm towards the course, despite its heavy workload. Based on
their evaluation, the course was able to address major qualifications that are expected in design
engineers. However, further investigations are needed to improve the course with respect to
certain expected qualities, and also to justify the course duration compared to semester-long
formats.
Page 14.220.15
 7. References

1. C.L. Dym, “Design Systems and Engineering Education”, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 20, No. 3,
2004, pp. 305-312.
2. 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, Vol. 76, No. 1, 1997, pp. 17-28.
3. J.V. Farr, M.A. Lee, R.A. Metro, and J.P. Sutton, “Using A Systematic Engineering Design Process to Conduct
Undergraduate Engineering Management Capstone Projects”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 90, No. 2, 2001, pp.
193-197.
4. C.L. Dym, “Learning Engineering: Design, Languages, and Experiences”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 88, No.
2, 1999, pp.145-148.
5. A. Bright, and C.L. Dym, “General Engineering at Harvey Mudd: 1957-2003”, (CD) Proceedings of ASEE Conference and
Exhibition, Session 1471, 2004.
6. R.S. Adams, J. Turns, and C.J. Atman, “Educating Effective Engineering Designers: The Role of Reflective Practice”,
Design Studies, Vol. 24, No. 3, 2003, pp. 275-294.
7. C.L. Dym, A.M. Agogino, O. Eris, D.D. Frey, and L.J. Leifer, “Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning”,
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 94, No. 1, 2005, pp. 103-114.
8. S. Sheppard, and R. Jenison, “Examples of Freshman Design Education”, International Journal of Engineering Education,
Vol. 13, No. 4, 1997, pp. 248-261.
9. J.V. Ringwood, K. Monaghan, and J. Maloco, “Teaching Engineering Design through Lego® Mindstorms™”, European
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 30, No.1, 2005, pp. 91-104.
10. A.H. Slocum, “2.007 - Design and Manufacturing I”, MIT, http://pergatory.mit.edu/2.007/.
11. D.W. Knight, L.E. Carlson, and J.F. Sullivan, “Staying in Engineering: Impact of a Hands-On, Team-Based, First-Year
Projects Course on Student Retention”, (CD) Proceedings of ASEE Conference and Exhibition, Session 3553, 2003.
12. J.T. Luxhole, and P.H.K. Hansen, “Engineering Curriculum Reform at Aalborg”, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.
85, No. 3, 1996, 83-84.
13. J. Bruner, Toward a Theory of Instruction, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, , 1966.
14. J. Piaget, To Understand Is To Invent, Viking Press, Inc., New York, 1972.
15. L. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Harvard University Press,
Massachusetts, 1978.
16. B.F. Skinner, The Behavior of Organisms, Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1938.
17. D.H. Jonassen, “Objectivism Versus Constructivism: Do We Need A New Philosophical Paradigm?”, Educational
Technology Research and Development, Vol. 39, No. 3, 1991, pp. 5-14.
18. D.H. Jonassen, “Toward A Constructivist Design Model”, Educational Technology, Vol. 34, No. 4, 1994, pp. 34-37.
19. E. von Glasersfeld, “A Constructivist Approach to Teaching”, In L.P. Steffe, and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in
Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Inc., New Jersey, 1995, pp. 3-16.
20. K.J. Gergen, “Social Construction and the Educational Process”, In L.P. Steffe, and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in
Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associations, Inc., New Jersey, 1995, pp. 17-39.
21. P. Ernest, “The One and the Many”, In L.P. Steffe, and J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in Education, Lawrence Erlbaum
Associations, Inc., New Jersey, 1995, pp. 459-486.
22. R.A. Schwier, “Issues in Emerging Interactive Technologies”, In G.J. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional Technology: Past,
Present, and Future, Second Edition, Libraries Unlimited, Inc., Englewood, 1995, pp. 119-127.
23. M. Brereton, The Role of Hardware in Learning Engineering Fundamentals: An Empirical Study of Engineering Design
and Product Analysis Activity, Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, 1999.
24. G.A. Hazelrigg, “An Axiomatic Framework for Engineering Design”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 121, 1999, pp.
342-347.
25. B. Hyman, Fundamentals of Engineering Design, Second Edition, Pearson Education, Inc., New Jersey, 2003, pp. 185.
26. L.L. Bucciarelli, Designing Engineers, MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1994.
27. D.A. Kolb, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and Development, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey,
1984.
28. P.A. Ertmer, and T.J. Newby, “Behaviorism, Cognitivism, Constructivism: Comparing Critical Features From An
Instructional Design Perspective”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, 1993, pp. 50-70.
29. C.M. Reigeluth, and C.A. Rodgers, “The Elaboration Theory of Instruction: Prescriptions for Task Analysis and Design”,
NSPI Journal, Vol. 19, 1980, pp. 16-26.
30. C.M. Reigeluth, and A.N. Darwazeh, “The Elaboration Theory's Procedure for Designing Instruction: A Conceptual
Approach”, Journal of Instructional Development, Vol. 5, 1982, pp. 22-32.
31. C.M. Reigeluth,, “The Elaboration Theory: Guidance for Scope and Sequences Decisions,” in R.M. Reigeluth, (Ed.),
Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory, Vol. II, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
Mahwah, NJ, 1999, pp. 425-454.
Page 14.220.16

32. Microchip Technology, Inc., PIC16F87X Data Sheet, http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/DeviceDoc/30292c.pdf.

33. W.J Tastle, M.J. Wierman, and U.R. Dumdum, “Ranking Ordinal Scales Using the Consensus Measure,” Issues in
Information Systems, Vol. VI, No. 2, 2005, pp. 96-102.

View publication stats