Presentation on theme: "The Value of Immersive Learning Experiences Within an Introduction to Engineering Module Dr Matt Murphy Engineering Education Development University of."— Presentation transcript:
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 Civil96 Aerospace71 Mechanical58 Product Design23 Integrated13 Materials6
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).
Student Evaluation of Learning Outcomes 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;
Student Evaluation of Learning Outcomes 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 Mechanical Integrated Design TW Aeroplane 77 students Aerospace Materials
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 1Week 2 Initial 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 Preliminary performance testingFinal performance testing Comparison of predicted versus actual performance
Student Evaluation of Learning Outcomes two-week format allowed students to focus on a single major goal and made them feel like real engineers. Learning ObjectiveAverageTW-rocketTW-planeTW-bridge Experience of working in teams2.071.592.112.52 Practical application of theoretical learning 1.741.341.612.26 Introduction to the design-build- test process 1.671.251.752 Provided an opportunity for creativity1.290.801.621.44 Experience of project planning & management 1.280.881.171.78 Provided a real world engineering challenge 1.150.711.151.59 Evaluation Scale: -2 (worst); 0 (average); +3 (best)
Student Evaluation of Learning Outcomes TW-rocket not tailored to the expectations of all student groups TW-rocket provided limited scope for creativity Learning ObjectiveAverageTW-rocketTW-planeTW-bridge Experience of working in teams2.071.592.112.52 Practical application of theoretical learning 1.741.341.612.26 Introduction to the design-build- test process 1.671.251.752 Provided an opportunity for creativity1.290.801.621.44 Experience of project planning & management 1.280.881.171.78 Provided a real world engineering challenge 1.150.711.151.59 Evaluation Scale: -2 (worst); 0 (average); +3 (best)
Student Evaluation of Learning Outcomes Students were most uncomfortable when required to apply engineering science that they hadnt been taught (or at least taught to apply) Feedback = Confidence = Creativity Learning ObjectiveAverageTW-rocketTW-planeTW-bridge Experience of working in teams2.071.592.112.52 Practical application of theoretical learning 1.741.341.612.26 Introduction to the design-build- test process 1.671.251.752 Provided an opportunity for creativity1.290.801.621.44 Experience of project planning & management 1.280.881.171.78 Provided a real world engineering challenge 1.150.711.151.59 Evaluation Scale: -2 (worst); 0 (average); +3 (best)
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
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 enjoyable84 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 Icebreaker1.50 Eng Drawing & Comms-0.43 Sustainable Dev0.62 TW-Rocket1.17 TW-Aeroplane2.09 TW-Bridge2.43 Professional Practice0.74 3D CAD Training2.11 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)
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 hadnt 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.