The Value of Immersive Learning Experiences Within an Introduction to Engineering Module Dr Matt...

The Value of Immersive Learning Experiences Within an Introduction to

Engineering Module

Dr Matt Murphy

Engineering Education Development

University of Liverpool, UK

Engineering Education at Liverpool

• Department of Engineering– Aerospace, Civil, Integrated, Manufacturing, Materials,

Mechanical & Product Design– Allied to Dept of Electrical Engineering & Electronics

• 33 UG programmes – 3 & 4 year• 7 taught PG programmes – 1 year• 50 academic staff• 200 research, technical & admin staff • 900 undergraduate & postgraduate taught students• £36 million investment in teaching & research facilities• Complementary programme of educational reform

The Liverpool Engineer Project

To develop a portfolio of enhanced degree programmes …

distinctive …

well rounded …

and highly employable …

Liverpool Engineers from 2010.

in Aerospace, Civil, General, Mechanical & Materials Engineering …

that will begin to graduate …

•Industrially relevant curriculum

•Active, experiential & team based learning

•Application of theory in practical solution of engineering problems (Design-Build-Test)

•Joined CDIO in 2004

Introductory Module - Overview

• New ‘Introduction to Engineering’ module (CDIO Standard 4)– Team based DBT exercise (CDIO Standard 5)– Variety of teaching approaches (CDIO Standard 8)– Covering key syllabus topics (CDIO Standard 2)– Structured / scheduled to provide integrated learning experience

(CDIO Standard 7)

• 150 hours of student learning (15 credits) over two 12-week semesters

• First introduced in 2005/06

• Taken by 267 Yr 1 students from all disciplines

Engineering Student Numbers

• 267 new Year 1 UG students in 2005/06

Civil 96

Aerospace 71

Mechanical 58

Product Design 23

Integrated 13

Materials 6

Introductory Module Content

Component Delivery Mode Hours % mark

Module overview / attitudes & experience survey Lecture / Questionnaire 1

Ice-Breaker exercise Build-Test Project 12 5

Intro to Total Design, teamwork & project mngt. Lecture 1

Engineering drawing & communication Lecture / Practical 2 5

Sustainable Development Lecture / Case Study Project 5 10

Teamwork, planning, risk assessment, creativity Lecture / Practical 2

Two Week Creation Design-Build-Test Project 60 40

Professional Practice Lecture 5 10

3D CAD training Industry Standard Course 40 30

Personal Development Planning Tutorial 2

Private study 20

Total 150

Ice-Breaker Exercise

• To build & test a cardboard model truss girder bridge

• 4 x 3hr sessions (semi-immersive)

• Year 1 / Semester 1 / Wk 1

• Team of 5 - tutor group

Rock Island, Illinois

Ice-Breaker Exercise

• Objectives:– Introduce students to the Department, staff & each

other (week 1)– Introduce importance of experimental method, team-

work, work planning & time management– Prepare students for more complex DBT activity to

come (Two Week Creations)– Develop a sense of achievement and enthusiasm

• Assessment– 5% of overall module– All on completion of practical tasks– Devised to ensure student success

•Fabrication of tensile and

compression test specimens.

• Begin to fabricate truss

elements.

• Layout of truss joints

Day 1 Activity

• Testing of compression and

tensile specimens.

• Completion of truss

elements.

Day 2 Activity

•Assembly of complete truss

bridge.

•Structural analysis of truss

using simple computer

package.

Day 3 Activity

• Prediction of Factor of Safety.

• Load testing of bridge.

• “On-the-spot” performance

assessment

Day 4 Activity

Student Evaluation of Learning Outcomes

• Experimental method: precise interpretation and execution of instructions; accurate preparation and mechanical testing of specimens; data collection and analysis; laboratory safety;

• Team-work, project planning and time management;

• Engineering science: principles of truss bridge design; concept of compressive & tensile strength; link between analysis and testing (Factor of Safety).


• Reflective tutorial during following week– Working as a team towards a common goal had

enabled students to build effective relationships with their peers, and had given them the confidence to make a full contribution;

– The exercise provided the backdrop for the students’ first introduction to their tutor and provided a subject for conversation: serving to reduce nervousness and ease initial communication;

– The close involvement of technical staff made students aware of their role within the Department and gave them the confidence to ask for support;


• Interviews with a sample of 18 students by an independent, external evaluator (Semester 2) .

• Students:– Felt this experience prepared them for the more

complex design-build-activity later in the programme;– Were motivated by the fact that they had really

enjoyed the exercise, and were given confidence by the fact that they had achieved an early success;

– Understood the personalities and attributes of their tutorial group members and this allowed them to work more effectively as a team;

– Were better prepared for traditional laboratory classes as a result of this introduction to experimental methods.

Two Week Creations

• Team based design-build-test exercise– 60 hrs full-time over 10 days

TW Bridge 96 students

Civil

TW Rocket 94 students MechanicalIntegrated

Design

TW Aeroplane 77 students AerospaceMaterials

Two Week Creations

• Objectives– Build on Ice-Breaker introduction to key skills– Application of theory from other engineering science

modules (weeks 12 & 13)– Enthuse students through ‘real’ engineering challenge– Be less prescriptive than Ice-Breaker & provide

opportunity for creativity

• Assessment: 40% of total module– Design performance – 25%– Individual report & logbook – 62.5%– Oral presentation – 12.5%– Simple peer moderation scheme

Two Week Creations

• Project log book– Progress of design process, individual contributions, engineering

workings

• Emphasis on teamwork, project planning & management– Reflective questionnaires at start, middle, end

Week 1 Week 2Initial design & build of artefact (limited design freedom)

Advanced design & build of artefact (greater design freedom)

Experimental analysis of key performance characteristics

Optimisation of performance

Prediction of performance by modelling & simulation

Prediction of performance by modelling & simulation

Preliminary performance testing Final performance testing

Comparison of predicted versus actual performance

Comparison of predicted versus actual performance


• two-week format allowed students to focus on a single major goal and made them feel like ‘real engineers’.

Learning Objective Average TW-rocket TW-plane TW-bridge

Experience of working in teams 2.07 1.59 2.11 2.52

Practical application of theoretical learning

1.74 1.34 1.61 2.26

Introduction to the design-build- test process

1.67 1.25 1.75 2

Provided an opportunity for creativity 1.29 0.80 1.62 1.44

Experience of project planning & management

1.28 0.88 1.17 1.78

Provided a ‘real world’ engineering challenge

1.15 0.71 1.15 1.59

Evaluation Scale: -2 (worst); 0 (average); +3 (best)


• TW-rocket not tailored to the expectations of all student groups

• TW-rocket provided limited scope for creativity




1.74 1.34 1.61 2.26


1.67 1.25 1.75 2



1.28 0.88 1.17 1.78


1.15 0.71 1.15 1.59



• Students were most uncomfortable when required to apply engineering science that they hadn’t been taught (or at least taught to apply)

• Feedback = Confidence = Creativity




1.74 1.34 1.61 2.26


1.67 1.25 1.75 2



1.28 0.88 1.17 1.78


1.15 0.71 1.15 1.59


CAD Training

• PTC Pro/ENGINEER Wildfire 2.0 adopted across department

• Past approach:– Number of sessions throughout first 2 years of

programme – variable success

• New Approach:– Replicate industry standard training– 40 hour intensive, comprehensive course– Year 1, Week 15

Intensive Pro/E Training Course

• Objectives:– To instruct students in 3D CAD modelling techniques and

familiarise them with the Pro/ENGINEER tools;– To introduce the importance of project data management;– To demand a professional approach to the completion of a

project under severe time pressure

• Delivery– Lectures, practical exercises, project– Formal tuition – 5 x 8hr sessions– 24hr CAD suite / home installations

• Assessment– 30% module– Accuracy, completeness, plagiarism

Intensive Pro/E Training Course

Student Evaluation – Pro/E Training

• Students were uncomfortable with the time pressure but were happy to apply extra effort

Statement (Strongly) Agree (%)

I found the training interesting and enjoyable 84

The course was effective and I feel that I am now proficient in Pro/E

83

I have learnt something that will be useful to me throughout my career

80

I enjoyed using Pro/E and can't wait to use it as part of a real project

75

The intensive course was hard work but I feel that immersing myself in this was the best way to learn

75

Student Evaluation – Overall Module

Module

Component

Evaluation Score

Icebreaker 1.50

Eng Drawing & Comms -0.43

Sustainable Dev 0.62

TW-Rocket 1.17

TW-Aeroplane 2.09

TW-Bridge 2.43

Professional Practice 0.74

3D CAD Training 2.11

• immersive learning experiences score significantly higher than the other components.

• in the words of one student, “… a welcome relief from the crippling monotony of endless lectures and lab classes”.

• many comments suggest that this type of learning is most valued because students are, for a while, removed from the university environment and treated more like professional engineers

Scale: -2 (worst); 0 (average); +3 (best)

Teaching & Assessment Effort

Evaluation Score

Module Component Credit Staff Time (hrs) Staff Time (hrs) /Credit

1.50 Icebreaker 0.75 30 40

-0.43 Eng Drawing & Comms 0.75 5 7

0.62 Sustainable Development 1.5 65 43

1.17 TW-Rocket

2.09 TW-Aeroplane

2.43 TW-Bridge

6 534 89

0.74 Professional Practice 1.5 5 3

2.11 3D CAD Training 4.5 284 63

Total 15 923

300 for equivalent ‘lecture + labs’ module

Conclusions

• An Introduction to Engineering module that targets a number of CDIO Syllabus outcomes has been developed within the framework of the CDIO Standards.

• The immersive activities were most popular because, for their duration, students were removed from the usual learning environment and treated more like professional engineers: devoting all of their time to the completion of a major practical challenge.

• Students recognised that these experiences target the development of several important technical, personal and professional skills: they were willing to devote more effort per assessment credit earned than to other types of learning.

Conclusions

• Students were most uncomfortable when made to work under severe time pressure, or when required to apply engineering science that they hadn’t been taught (or at least taught to apply) in the solution of engineering problems: situations faced every day by professional engineers.

• The CDIO Approach has enabled the development of an introductory module that:– delivers several important learning outcomes– provides valuable exposure to the practice of engineering– is popular amongst students.

Conclusions

• Delivery and assessment of the immersive learning experiences demands far more staff time than conventionally taught elements bearing the same assessment credit.

• This type of active learning experience delivers many benefits to the student but carries significant resource implications for the department.

• Delivery of the enhanced Liverpool Engineer degree programmes will only be feasible in the long term if more efficient teaching and assessment practices can be introduced.

Any Questions?

The Value of Immersive Learning Experiences Within an Introduction to Engineering Module Dr Matt...

Documents

Transcript of The Value of Immersive Learning Experiences Within an Introduction to Engineering Module Dr Matt...