Engineering fundamentals in a new undergraduate curriculum

CONTEXT In recent years there has been a push in Engineering education to change the basic model fromstudents learning discrete subjects, followed by design projects in third and fourth year, to learningand practicing the design process from the first year. At the same time, there has also been a pushtowards “active learning” (Prince, 2004) as opposed to the more traditional lecture/tutorial/practicalapproach. This year, Deakin University has launched a new design-centred curriculum inundergraduate engineering. Named “Project-Oriented Design-Based Learning” (PODBL), the newcourse structure is running in first and second years. In semester one of first year in the new course,students enrol in one double-unit of design, one unit of maths, and one unit of fundamental science.PURPOSE This work seeks to determine whether a new fundamental-science unit called “EngineeringFundamentals” fulfils the educational needs of first-year students in the PODBL curriculum. It alsoseeks to determine student perceptions of the new unit.APPROACH The unit was first offered in semester-one, 2016 to two separate on-campus cohorts and an offcampuscohort. Innovations in this unit include using the CADET model for teaching combinedpractical-tutorial seminars, a shift in lectures from delivering conceptual content to teaching problemsolving and applications (flipping the classroom), and extensive use of online videos and study guidesfor delivering primary content (Cloud Learning). Student learning was assessed by means of problembasedonline quizzes, practical reports, and a final exam. Student perceptions were queried by astandard unit-evaluation system and by a more focussed set of surveys given to students in threeseparate cohorts.RESULTS The academic results in this unit were compared with those in the previous unit. No substantialdifferences were observed in the marks of this unit in 2016 compared with the 2015 marks of thecorresponding previous physics unit. On-campus students showed more general satisfaction with theunit than did off-campus students. However, not all on-campus students were happy with the flippedclassroommodel.CONCLUSIONS As the course changes from a traditional approach to a design and project-based approach, it is best ifall units in the course adapt in some way to the new teaching style. Not all units need be completelyproject or design based. In the case of “Engineering Fundamentals,” we believe that due to the widevariety of topics covered, making the entire unit design-based is inappropriate. However, some designand project components can be built into the unit via the practicals. Semester one 2016 was asuccessful first offering of the unit. We recommend that in future years a design/project component beconsidered for the unit’s practicals

Identification, Characterisation and Prioritisation of Student Interactions in Face-to-Face and Remotely-operated Engineering Laboratories

There are various modes of conducting laboratory activities in university-level engineering education. The present study focuses upon those which involve students' operation of real physical equipment in their conduct of laboratory activity, that is, face-to-face and remotely-operated laboratories. This study first identifies and characterises student interactions that underpin laboratory learning in both face-to-face and remotely-operated laboratories and then prioritises such interactions to make recommendations for transfer from face-to-face to create effective remotely-operated laboratories

Student Expectations: The effect of student background and experience

CONTEXT The perspectives and previous experiences that students bring to their programs of study can affect their approaches to study and the depth of learning that they achieve Prosser & Trigwell, 1999; Ramsden, 2003). Graduate outcomes assume the attainment of welldeveloped independent learning skills which can be transferred to the work-place. PURPOSE This 5-year longitudinal study investigates factors influencing students’ approaches to learning in the fields of Engineering, Software Engineering, and Computer Science, at two higher education institutes delivering programs of various levels in Australia and New Zealand. The study aims to track the development of student approaches to learning as they progress through their program. Through increased understanding of students’ approaches, faculty will be better able to design teaching and learning strategies to meet the needs of an increasingly diverse student body. This paper reports on the first stage of the project. APPROACH In August 2017, we ran a pilot of our survey using the Revised Study Process Questionnaire(Biggs, Kember, & Leung, 2001) and including some additional questions related to student demographics and motivation for undertaking their current program of study. Data were analysed to evaluate the usefulness of data collected and to understand the demographics of the student cohort. Over the period of the research, data will be collected using the questionnaire and through focus groups and interviews. RESULTS Participants provided a representative sample, and the data collected was reasonable, allowing the questionnaire design to be confirmed. CONCLUSIONS At this preliminary stage, the study has provided insight into the student demographics at both institutes and identified aspects of students’ modes of engagement with learning. Some areas for improvement of the questionnaire have been identified, which will be implemented for the main body of the study

A new strategy for active learning to maximise performance in intensive courses

This paper describes an innovation in the delivery of an introductory thermodynamics course offered to students studying towards an engineering qualification. The course was delivered in intensive format, across three weeks of study. Students find it challenging to engage with complex engineering topics in a short period of time, and there is no sizeable study break for pre-exam study. This means that students cannot afford to delay in learning and applying content. Every class must be an opportunity to interact with the content immediately. The innovation described here involved implementing a new daily structure for the course that attempted to mimic the standard process by which students learn material, apply it, study it and practice it in across a traditional-length semester. The new structure involved integrating the lecture and recitation components to the course to increasing the active learning during material delivery, then allowing students to engage in guided study and open-book formative assessment. This paper describes the implementation of this innovation. A brief review of the literature on intensive courses is provided, followed by a description of the approach used in this particular class. The results are then presented, and evaluated in the context of the research and the instructor’s own critical reflection

Chair a session/Integration of theory and practice in the learning and teaching process

The theme for AAEE-2017 is “Integrated Engineering”, which covers a range of sub-themes, such as: Integration of theory and practice in the learning and teaching process Interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary engineering programs and learning environments Integration of teaching and research in the engineering training process The role and impact of engineering students and educators in the wider community Systems perspectives on engineering education. Integration is also about connections, e.g. between students and teachers, between students in learning together, and between educational institutions and industry and wider society in the engineering education process

Cloud-based teaching in an engineering-physics course

This paper presents a transition from passive, traditional delivery of teaching to an active, “cloud-based” method, in a freshman engineering-physics course. The course is delivered to a traditional on-campus cohort, and also to an offcampus cohort by means of distance education and online learning. Cloud teaching refers to delivering education by means of websites and mobile-technology applications, where constant student attendance at the host campus is not always necessary. This is contrasted with traditional on-campus teaching, which occurs in a classroom. The use of lectures has been reduced while the use of tutorial and lab classes has increased. The new course structure was delivered for the first time in 2014, has run for two semesters, and will continue in 2015. It was found that student performance in the new structure was no worse than that in the older structure. Off-campus students in general welcomed the changes, while on-campus satisfaction did not change from before to after the transition