Discovery Learning Center at Marquette University. 

Context in source publication

Context 1

... lab activities in MEEN 143 were designed to complement the material that was covered in class lectures. To this end, students engaged in work that emphasized process analysis and investigation of machining, joining, and molding to gain insight into the underlying thermo- mechanical phenomenon for each process. Students attended weekly lab meetings where they performed engineering experimentation following scripted procedures, collected data, and submitted weekly reports. While students consistently demonstrated analytical ability, they often complained that the lab was “too theoretical” and proved to be reliant on having detailed instructions to conduct assigned activities. Students also tended to struggle when asked to apply their lab findings to a manufacturing-based application or to evaluate manufacturability. The above observations lead to a review of the course curriculum where it was recognized that existing lab activities were structured towards research oriented inquiry and more effective in promoting a strong adherence to the scientific method than skills transferral. Consequently, a decision was made to reform the MEEN 143 lab curriculum in 2001. A primary goal of the reform effort was to develop an environment where engineering could be taught in a manner that was more consistent with engineering practice than research yet remained complementary to class discussions. At the onset of reform, it was also recognized that an important contribution to student motivation, which has been confirmed by research findings (Meyers, 1993), is that learning is enhanced when the environment reflects the activity being performed. The reform was facilitated by an NSF funded project and the lab was designed around the Learning Factory concept to provide interactive experiences that emphasized discrete parts manufacturing and process engineering. To facilitate more flexibility in use, the lab was laid out along the lines of a small job-shop. Further details regarding the Learning Factory have been presented and discussed in previous papers (Domblesky 2001, 2001a). While the Learning Factory did require more effort to manage than the traditional lab which it replaced, it proved to be instrumental in improving student comprehension and application skills. It was interesting to note that students not only had more enthusiasm for hands-on equipment use but also were able to learn more from their mistakes than was possible from a similar outcome in engineering experimentation. Other observations that were made was that when students were asked to make simple components, they proved to be much less reliant on detailed instructions and exhibited a higher degree of initiative and confidence in making engineering decisions. A further change occurred with respect to lab practices in 2003 when the College Of Engineering initiated a Discovery Learning Center (DLC at the request of a private foundation. As the goals of the DLC (Figure 1) were complementary to those of the Learning Factory, the two facilities were subsequently merged into a single college resource. This alleviated most of the logistical, training, and utilization issues associated with a departmental lab and provided additional resources for conducting lab activities. At the time that the Learning Factory and DLC were merged in 2004, it had also become evident from discussions with a number of students and employers that engineering work was increasingly focusing on broader-based projects which necessitated a wider breadth of engineering skills. This represented a distinct change from the past where most co-op students and graduates worked ...