Content uploaded by Sven Esche
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sven Esche on Dec 09, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Session F3F
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA
32
nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3F-1
ENHANCING THE ENGINEERING CURRICULUM
THROUGH PROJECT-BASED LEARNING
Hamid A. Hadim
1
and Sven K. Esche
2
1
Hamid A. Hadim, Stevens Institute of Technology, Charles V. Schaefer, Jr. School of Engineering, , Department of Mechanical Engineering , Hoboken,
NJ 07030 ahadim@stevens-tech.edu
2
Sven K. Esche, Stevens Institute of Technology, sesche@stevens-tech.edu
Abstract Project-based Learning (PBL) is an
instructional approach that is gaining increasing interest
within the engineering education community. The benefits of
PBL include enhanced student participation in the learning
process (active learning and self-learning), enhanced
communication skills, addressing of a wider set of learning
styles, and promotion of critical and proactive thinking. PBL
also facilitates the development of many of the “soft skills”
demanded from engineering graduates, as embodied in the
ABET EC 2000. Examples include effective teaming skills,
project management, communications, ethics, engineering
economics, etc. At Stevens Institute of Technology the
undergraduate engineering curriculum has recently
undergone significant revisions to reflect the latest trend
towards enhancement of traditional lecture-based courses
with both a design spine and a laboratory experience
propagating through the entire educational program.
Project-based learning is also being integrated throughout
the curriculum. An initial implementation of PBL and its
preliminary assessment in a freshman-level course on
Mechanics of Solids and a junior-level course on
Mechanisms and Machine Dynamics is presented.
Index Terms Design projects, learning methods, project-
based learning, teaching techniques.
INTRODUCTION
Under the guidance of the ABET engineering criteria 2000,
recent trends in engineering education have led to increased
integration of design and other important engineering
practice skills (e.g. multidisciplinary teamwork, project
management, communications, ethics, economics of
engineering, etc.) into the engineering curriculum. At
Stevens Institute of Technology, the undergraduate
engineering curriculum has recently undergone significant
revisions to reflect this integration in light of an institute-
wide strategic initiative aiming at providing education rooted
in Technogenesis
®
. This term was coined to signify the
educational frontier wherein faculty, students, and
colleagues in industry jointly nurture the process of
conception, design and marketplace realization of new
technologies. The new curriculum includes an expanded
design course sequence in which each semester features one
design course to form a design spine [1]. This design spine
allows the development of many of the “soft skills” that are
embodied in the ABET EC Criteria 2000. In addition, the
design spine is a means for enhancing learning, as each of
the design courses is linked to a lecture course taught
concurrently. Another significant component of the revised
undergraduate engineering curriculum is the implementation
of project-based learning throughout the curriculum. The
expected benefits of PBL include enhanced student
participation in the learning process (active learning and
self-learning), enhanced communication skills, adaptation of
the pedagogies to a wider set of learning styles and
promotion of critical and proactive thinking.
In recent years, the engineering education community is
showing increasing interest in project-based learning
approaches. This trend is illustrated by the large and
continuously expanding body of related educational
literature as summarized below.
The roots of project-based education were traced by
Brown and Brown [2] back to the early 1980s. Felder [3, 4]
and his co-workers developed an Index of Learning Styles
that can be used to categorize the various dimensions of
learning. While the traditional lecture-based teaching
approach is well known to address only certain learning
styles, the use of design projects provides the student with a
broad context to the material presented in the lectures. With
PBL, students are encouraged to assume responsibility for
their learning experience and to shift from passive to more
active learning patterns. This is likely to improve the
knowledge retention as well as the ability to integrate
material from different courses. Woods et al. [5]
demonstrated the benefits of project-based learning by
comparing the problem-based and the lecture-based learning
environments through analysis of data obtained from two
questionnaires of the same students exposed to both
environments.
Implementation of project-based instruction into a
freshman engineering technology course was presented by
Rubino [6]. Genalo [7] discussed the application of a
project-based approach for teaching design of experiments in
the framework of a materials science course. Haik [8]
reported the development of an engineering mechanics
course based on a term project that also involved building
the designed product. McCreanor [9] adopted a project-
based format in a hydraulics course and implemented a just
in time teaching mode that kept the students focused on why
they were learning a certain topic.
Session F3F
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA
32
nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3F-2
Richardson et al. [10] emphasized that projects can
serve as a powerful tool for attracting students to and
retaining them in engineering programs by demonstrating
the diversity of skills needed to practice engineering.
Similarly, Wood and Craft [11] reported a dramatic
improvement in student retention of an engineering
technology program through the introduction of project-
based learning. Going one step further than the above
summarized implementations, Wood [12] describes an entire
engineering technology curriculum for the freshmen year
where mathematics, science, technology and
communications are taught in an integrated fashion using
group projects that deal with the solution of real-world
problems and serve as learning context. In a similar
development, Clark et al. [13] presented the design,
implementation and evaluation of an entire project-based
curriculum for chemical engineering that addresses a series
of shortcomings of traditional curricula.
In the present work, an initial implementation of PBL in
a freshman-level course on Mechanics of Solids and in a
junior-level course on Mechanisms and Machine Dynamics
is presented. A preliminary assessment of the outcomes of
this implementation is provided.
PBL IMPLEMENTATION IN MECHANICS OF
SOLIDS
Mechanics of Solids is a 4-credit lecture/recitation course
that replaced separate courses on Statics and Strength of
Materials from the previous curriculum [14]. The project-
based learning approach was implemented into this course
according to the following objectives:
• Making learning of engineering principles more
enjoyable yet more efficient through practical design
projects
• Providing a hands-on collaborative learning experience
as a more effective learning tool
• Integration of design and other engineering practice
skills based on ABET 2000 criteria
• Stimulating student interest
• Improving the student retention rate in engineering
Implementation of project-based learning in the
Mechanics of Solids course was achieved by assigning a
semester-long project designed to encompass all the
fundamental topics covered in the course and to complement
the projects conducted in the associated design laboratory.
As indicated in the course objectives as well as the overall
curriculum objectives a set of competencies that the
graduating engineers are expected to acquire for a successful
entry into their professional careers were identified. The
project was designed to address these competencies through
collaborative work.
As illustrated in Figure 1, the project was related to the
design and analysis of a tower crane used for lifting heavy
loads. In the first part of the project, the students were
guided through a set of sample design calculations on an
existing design. In the second part, they were asked to
develop their own design as an improvement to the existing
design.
FIGURE 1:
EXAMPLE OF AN EXISTING TOWER-CRANE DESIGN
The project was introduced into the course lectures,
such that as each major section of the course material was
covered, the students were asked to complete the
corresponding parts of the project. To illustrate the important
aspect of simplifying a “real-life” design to generate models
that can be analyzed using the fundamental concepts covered
in this introductory course, the tower crane project was
introduced by discussing the existing design illustrated in
Figure 1. Methods for simplifying this design were discussed
in class. The students were then asked to develop their own
simplified, two-dimensional models of the design before
conducting appropriate parametric studies. An example of a
simplified model of the tower crane is illustrated in Figure 2.
This model was used in class discussions to illustrate
practical applications of each fundamental topic as it was
introduced into the course. To include all the main
fundamental topics (except torsion), the model was modified
by replacing the truss in the crane with an I-beam. Typical
engineering textbooks used in design, analysis and problem-
solving courses contain at the end of each chapter isolated
problems that reinforce the concepts covered in the chapter,
but they do not illustrate the relationships with the other
topics covered elsewhere in the textbook. The tower-crane
project was designed to illustrate the relationships between
all the fundamental concepts of the course leading to a better
understanding of the big picture. These fundamental topics
included: particle and rigid-body equilibrium, equivalent
force-couple systems, trusses, frames, axial loading, flexural
Session F3F
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA
32
nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3F-3
loading, stresses in beams and combined loading including
Mohr’s circle.
FIGURE 2:
SCHEMATIC CONFIGURATION OF SIMPLIFIED TOWER-CRANE DESIGN
As an important component of PBL, the students
conducted the project in teams of 3 or 4 members. In the first
part of the project, the students conducted a series of
parametric studies on a simplified design of the tower crane
(Figure 2). The results from these studies were used to
determine important design aspects including: (1)
identifying the various types of members, external loadings
and types of supports involved in the design, (2) identifying
important design parameters, and (3) identifying critical
regions and related failure modes. Based on the analysis and
discussion conducted in the first part for an existing design,
the students were then asked to develop an improved design
of the tower crane based on a set of design criteria to be
selected by the students. Some of the criteria were related to
codes and regulations related to safety and other aspects of
tower-crane design, installation and operation. The students
were asked to submit progress reports periodically. This was
useful in providing feedback to the students before they
prepare their final reports.
Two software packages, MDSolids [15] and Elica [16],
were provided to the students to facilitate repetitive design
calculations and parametric studies. MDSolids is an
educational interactive software package containing several
modules related to introductory fundamental topics in
Mechanics of Materials [17]. The main features of
MDSolids include ease of use, a graphical user interface,
illustration of intermediate results, text-based explanations
of intermediate steps and software help files. The Elica
Truss Analysis Program was designed and developed at the
School of Engineering at Stevens Institute of Technology. It
is used for automated analysis of plane trusses. The software
features a user-friendly graphical user interface to build any
two-dimensional truss and generate automatically the
internal load in each member of the truss.
PBL IMPLEMENTATION IN MECHANISMS AND
MACHINE DYNAMICS
Previously, the junior-level course on Mechanisms and
Machine Dynamics was taught in two 75-minute lectures
and one three-hour lab per week for a total of three academic
credits. The syllabus followed the standard sequence of
topics that have traditionally been part of similar courses
nationwide. A more detailed description of the course
outline and a discussion of the performance criteria used in
the assessment of the related learning outcomes were given
elsewhere [18]. In addition, a portion of the laboratory
component associated with this course has recently been
based on remotely accessible experimental setups [19-21].
An important component in this course includes several
analytical tools that are reinforced by exercises.
Subsequently, the students are engaged in synthesis-based
design activities that tend to better resonate with the
students’ preferred mode of learning. In previous offerings
of this course, this often led to insufficient student
motivation for acquiring sufficient analysis skills which led
to a lack of prerequisite skills needed to meet the analytical
challenges involved in design projects assigned later in the
course.
For implementation of the project-based learning
technique in this course, several project requirements were
identified. Realistic project topics were selected to ensure
that the students would recognize their relevance and
consequently identify themselves with the tasks at hand.
This requirement takes into account that one of the key
incentives for introducing the project-based approach into
the course was to stimulate excitement and enthusiasm of the
students and to motivate them to take an active interest in
their own learning process rather than mainly focusing on
obtaining a satisfactory grade by acquiring just enough
knowledge to achieve this goal. In addition, the project had
to seamlessly integrate all topics that are typically covered in
the course and at the same time exhibit the appropriate scope
and level of complexity.
In recognizing the importance of the students’
awareness about non-technical issues for their future
professional success in the corporate environment, it was
decided in the course revision described here to focus the
projects to be developed on the design of specific products,
which included a variety of business considerations. This
product-oriented approach was used to ensure the open-
ended nature of the projects which requires that the students
make appropriate assumptions related to the product to be
designed on their own. It complements the analysis activities
typically associated with traditional, lecture and homework-
centered courses. By aiming the projects at the design of an
actual product, they were made relatively complex, thus
requiring true teamwork and efficient communication for
successful completion and helping to impart skills and
strategies associated with collaborative planning, executing
and monitoring of project progress. The interdisciplinary
Session F3F
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA
32
nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3F-4
nature of the project assignments was introduced in order to
help to overcome the compartmentalization of knowledge
that often results from the students taking various courses on
what appears to them as being disconnected subjects and
thus failing to realize their interconnectedness. This
educational model therefore attempts to reflect the realities
in the corporate work environment.
In the revised course, the total number of contact hours
remained unchanged. Also, the general technical topics that
were covered in the course in the past were not altered in the
revised version. The course content was organized into six
two-week educational modules that essentially correspond to
the principal subjects. The amount of traditional homework
problems assigned was reduced approximately by half. The
comprehensive design project was structured into six parts
that are integrated with the educational modules. The project
was assigned at the beginning of the course to groups of
three or four students. Submission of a written progress
report was required after the completion of each of the six
parts of the project. This requirement was introduced in
order to guide the students through the wealth of tasks
involved in the design process and at the same time as a tool
to enforce due progress throughout the entire semester.
At the beginning of every lecture period, approximately
fifteen minutes were devoted to unstructured discussions of
project-related issues and problems. In addition, a total of
three full class periods throughout the semester were allotted
for two progress presentations and a final presentation by
each student team. The class time thus used for interaction
on issues related to the design project required the reduction
of the material covered in the lecture component by
approximately 25 percent compared with the traditional
syllabus. The topics of cam analysis and design as well as
function and path generation using four-bar linkages were
removed entirely, and the discussion of gears in the lecture
was reduced to spur gears. The students were then informed
that the remaining gear types had to be covered through
independent learning associated with the project activities.
Four candidate products as shown in Figure 3 were
presented to the student teams as possible selections for the
project. Contrarily to the examples typically used in popular
textbooks for courses on machines and mechanisms, a theme
of significant relevance to our society in the times ahead was
selected. Triggered by a rapidly aging population and
facilitated by recent technological advances, devices to assist
older citizens and people with disabilities will become more
and more prevalent. Many related products and applications
involve simple mechanisms and thus represent valid
candidate projects for this course.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
FIGURE 3:
PRODUCTS: (A) HAND-HELD THERAPEUTIC MASSAGER, (B) WHEELCHAIR LIFT TO BE RETROFITTED INTO A MINIVAN, (C) ARM PROSTHESIS (ELBOW JOINT
ONLY), (D) STAIRWAY LIFT TO BE INSTALLED IN HOMES OF ELDERLY
Session F3F
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA
32
nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3F-5
The project statement distributed to the students
included the following elements: a concise statement of the
project objectives, an explanation of the teaming issues
(team forming procedure and team member responsibilities),
the breakdown of the six modules into a sequence of specific
tasks, a list of deliverables with associated deadlines, and an
outline for the grading and evaluation procedures. At first
glance, distributing an explicit task breakdown to the
students might seem to contradict the fundamental
philosophy of open-ended project-based learning but this
class was the first exposure of this particular group of
students to this approach, which indisputably requires a
certain amount of training and experience. After assessing
the outcomes of the recent pilot implementations and
making the necessary adjustments, Stevens is planning to
propagate the project-based teaching approach into a number
of other classes. In this future scenario, the students will be
exposed to this approach as early as in the freshman year and
thus they will be enabled to gradually build up the skill set
required to function in this active learning environment. At
that time, the level of detail included in the project
description is likely to be reduced.
ASSESSMENT
A preliminary assessment of this initial implementation of
project-based learning in Mechanics of Solids course was
performed through a survey of the students at the end of the
semester. It was observed that the motivation and interest of
the freshmen was improved as the project provided a
practical illustration of real-life applications of the various
fundamental topics covered in the course. The students felt
that they needed more guidance in completing the project.
However, there needs to be a balance between the amount of
guidance given and the freedom that should be allowed for
creativity in an open-ended project. A preliminary analysis
of student performance in the exams, which were designed
to be of similar level of difficulty before and after
implementation of project-based learning, showed a
measurable improvement of the students especially in the
design component of the examinations.
Upon assessing the first pilot implementation of the
course on Mechanisms and Machine Dynamics, a few
findings can be identified. First, the introduction of the
project-based learning resulted in a significant change in the
interaction between the instructor and the students. Before
the revision, the learning environment was very teacher-
driven whereas in the revised course the interaction was
much more focused on the students’ needs. This required
some flexibility on the instructor’s part in responding
spontaneously to the project-related problems surfacing
during the unstructured discussions and in adjusting the pace
of the lecture to the progress made in the projects. In the
future, some adjustments will have to be made to determine
which topics need to be covered in the lectures and which
ones to move to independent learning. Second, letting the
students determine the composition of the project teams
entirely on their own based on friendships and working
relationships from previous courses turned out to be an
inadequate procedure which resulted in a significant
imbalance between the teams and affected fair evaluation of
both individual contributions and the overall team
performance. In the course on Mechanisms and Machine
Dynamics described here, the teams were not only asked to
evaluate and rate each other’s work as documented in the
final group presentations, but in addition an anonymous
questionnaire judging the contributions of all team members
had to be filled out by every student. In cases of obvious
extreme discrepancies in the level of contributions, a
differential to the project grade of the group was assigned
for individual students.
CONCLUSION
As part of the newly revised undergraduate engineering
curriculum at Stevens Institute of Technology, A project-
based learning approach was implemented into a freshman-
level course on mechanics of solids and in a junior-level
course on mechanisms and machine dynamics. In each
course, a comprehensive group design project was assigned
to the students at the beginning of the course. Written
progress reports required upon completion of each individual
component as well as oral progress presentations helped to
guide the students in the timely progression towards the final
project completion. A preliminary assessment of the
experiences gained from this initial implementation of the
project-based learning methodology is given and potential
modifications for future revisions of the courses are
discussed.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The support of these projects through grants by the
Charles V. Schaefer, Jr. School of Engineering at Stevens
Institute of Technology is gratefully acknowledged.
Furthermore, the numerous stimulating discussions with Dr.
Bernard Gallois, Dr. Arthur Shapiro, Dr. Constantin
Chassapis, Dr. Leslie Brunell, Dr. Yusuf Billah and Dr.
Dimitri Donskoy were very helpful in shaping some of the
ideas described herein. Finally, the diligent help by Mr.
Qiang Yu, Mr. Jun Ni and Mr. Matt Klemchalk in
developing the course materials is truly appreciated.
REFERENCES
[1] Sheppard, K. and Gallois, B., “The Design Spine: Revision of the
Engineering Curriculum to Include a Design Experience each
Semester,” Proceedings 1999 ASEE Annual Conference, Session
#3225, 1999.
[2] Brown, B. F. and Brown, B. F., “Problem-based education (PROBE):
learning for a lifetime of change.” Proceedings of the 1997 ASEE
Session F3F
0-7803-7444-4/02/$17.00 © 2002 IEEE November 6 - 9, 2002, Boston, MA
32
nd
ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference
F3F-6
Annual Conference and Exposition, June 15 - 18, 1997, Milwaukee,
WI, USA, Session 2530, 1997.
[3] Rosati, P. A. and Felder, R. M., “Engineering student responses to an
index of learning styles,” Proceedings of the 1995 ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, June 25 - 28, 1995, Anaheim, CA, USA,
pp. 739-743, 1995.
[4] Felder, R. M., Woods, D. R., Stice, J. E. and Rugarda, A., “The future
of engineering education II: teaching methods that work,” Chem.
Engr. Education, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp. 26-39, 2001.
[5] Woods, D. R., Hrymak, A. N. and Wright, H. M., “Approaches to
learning and learning environments in problem-based versus lecture-
based learning,” Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference
and Exposition, June 24 - 27, 2001, Albuquerque, NM, USA, Session
2213 , 2001.
[6] Rubino, F. J., “Project based freshman introduction to engineering
technology courses,” Proceedings of the 1998 ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, June 28 - July 1, 1998, Seattle, WA,
USA, Session 3547, 1998.
[7] Genalo, L. J., “A project-based approach to DOE in materials,”
Proceedings of the 1999 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition,
June 20 - 23, 1999, Charlotte, NC, USA, Session 1364, 1999.
[8] Haik, Y., “Design-based engineering mechanics,” Proceedings of the
1999 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 20 - 23, 1999,
Charlotte, NC, USA, Session 2625, 1999.
[9] McCreanor, P. T., “Project based teaching: a case study from a
hydraulics class,” Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference
and Exposition, June 24 - 27, 2001, Albuquerque, NM, USA,
Multimedia Session, 2001.
[10] Richardson, J., Corleto, C., Froyd, J., Imbrie, P. K., Parker, J., Roedel,
R., “Freshman design projects in the Foundation Coalition,”
Proceedings of the 1998 28th Annual Frontiers in Education
Conference, November 4 - 7, 1998, Tempe, AZ, USA, 50-59, 1998.
[11] Wood, J. C. and Craft, E. L., “Improving student retention: engaging
students through integrated, problem-based courses,” Proceedings of
the 2000 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 18 - 21,
2000, St. Louis, MO, USA, Session 2547, 2000.
[12] Wood, J. C., “An interdisciplinary problem-based engineering
technology freshman curriculum,” Proceedings of the 1998 ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition, June 28 - July 1, 1998, Seattle,
WA, USA, Session 2248, 1998.
[13] Clark, W. M., DiBiasio, D. and Dixon, A. G., “A project-based, spiral
curriculum for chemical engineering.,” Proceedings of the 1998 ASEE
Annual Conference and Exposition, June 28 - July 1, 1998, Seattle,
WA, USA, Session 1313, 1998.
[14] Hadim, H., Donskoy, D., Sheppard, K. and Gallois, B., “Teaching
mechanics to freshmen by linking the lecture course to a design
laboratory,” Proceedings of the 2000 ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition, June 18 - 21, 2000, St Louis, MO, USA, Session 2468,
2000.
[15] http://www.mdsolids.com/
[16] http://www.elica.net/
[17] Philpot, T. A., “MDSolids: Software to bridge the gap between
lectures and homework in mechanics of materials,” International
Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 1, No. 5, pp. 401 – 407, 2000.
[18] Esche, S. K., Pochiraju, K. and Chassapis, C., “Implementation of
assessment procedures into the mechanical engineering curriculum,”
Proceedings of the 2001 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition,
June 24 - 27, 2001, Albuquerque, NM, USA, Session 1566, 2001.
[19] Esche, S. K., Prasad, M. G. and Chassapis, C., “Remotely accessible
laboratory approach for undergraduate education,” Proceedings of the
2000 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 18 - 21, 2000,
St. Louis, MO, USA, Session 3220, 2000.
[20] Esche, S. K. and Hromin, D. J., “Expanding the undergraduate
laboratory experience using Web technology,” Proceedings of the
2001 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, June 24 - 27, 2001,
Albuquerque, NM, USA, Session 3220, 2001.
[21] Esche, S. K., “On the integration of remote experimentation into
undergraduate education,” Submitted for publication in ASEE Journal
of Engineering Education, (2002).
