Teaching Sustainable Engineering Throughout the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Hallinan ◽  
Kelly Kissock ◽  
Margaret Pinnell
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Energy Use ◽  
Regional Scale ◽  
Natural World ◽  
System Level ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Biological Degradation ◽  
Sustainable Engineering

The natural world has long been impacted by technological society; however, in recent years environmental impacts and constraints are increasingly on the global, rather than local or regional, scale. Moreover, the interconnectivity of biological systems with energy and material flows is increasingly evident. Today, it is well understood that climate change, energy constraints and biological degradation are largely a consequence of technological production and energy use. In this context, one would expect engineering education to have evolved to prepare engineers to be capable of addressing these issues. Rather, excluding the resurgence in design education, we see a curriculum that remains largely unchanged. In this context, we propose an integrated mechanical engineering curriculum that emphasizes sustainable engineering and whole-system design. The curriculum provides mechanical engineering students with a deeper understanding of the broader impact of the products and processes they design, the tools to assess that impact, and the system level thinking to design technologies for a sustainable future.

A Pillar of Mechanical Engineering Design Education in Australia: 25 Years of the Warman Design and Build Competition

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Warren F. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Engineering Design ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Student Assessment ◽  
National Committee ◽  
Engineering Design Education ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Institutional Learning ◽  
History Of

The “Warman Design and Build Competition”, running across Australasian Universities, is now in its 26th year in 2013. Presented in this paper is a brief history of the competition, documenting the objectives, yearly scenarios, key contributors and champion Universities since its beginning in 1988. Assuming the competition has reached the majority of mechanical and related discipline engineering students in that time, it is fair to say that this competition, as a vehicle of the National Committee on Engineering Design, has served to shape Australasian engineering education in an enduring way. The philosophy of the Warman Design and Build Competition and some of the challenges of running it are described in this perspective by its coordinator since 2003. In particular, the need is for the competition to work effectively across a wide range of student group ability. Not every group engaging with the competition will be competitive nationally, yet all should learn positively from the experience. Reported also in this paper is the collective feedback from the campus organizers in respect to their use of the competition as an educational experience in their classrooms. Each University participating uses the competition differently with respect to student assessment and the support students receive. However, all academic campus organizer responses suggest that the competition supports their own and their institutional learning objectives very well. While the project scenarios have varied widely over the years, the intent to challenge 2nd year university (predominantly mechanical) engineering students with an open-ended statement of requirements in a practical and experiential exercise has been a constant. Students are faced with understanding their opportunity and their client’s value system as expressed in a scoring algorithm. They are required to conceive, construct and demonstrate their device with limited prior knowledge and experience, and the learning outcomes clearly impact their appreciation for teamwork, leadership and product realization.

The Impact of Direct Competency Testing (DCT)

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey G. Marchetta ◽  
John I. Hochstein ◽  
Teong E. Tan
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Valuable Component ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Program Accreditation ◽  
Competency Testing ◽  
Faculty Survey ◽  
Survey Results ◽  
The Impact

Direct Competency Testing (DCT) was developed and implemented to measure the ability of mechanical engineering students to correctly solve problems in the fundamental areas for each course in the mechanical engineering curriculum. Almost 10 years since the inception of DCT, an effort is made to assess the efficacy of DCT as a measure of student ability. Qualitative and quantitative assessments are conducted to evaluate the impact of administration, documentation, and evaluation of DCT on students and faculty. Student surveys focus on the perception of competency testing as a component of coursework and whether DCT is a reasonable measure of learning. Faculty survey results yield historical data of student DCT and provide perceptions of the effectiveness of DCT in mechanical engineering coursework. The impact of DCT on program accreditation and the connection to EC2000 criteria are examined. Evidence is provided that competency testing helps instructors assess a minimum threshold above which to evaluate the success of their students and that the majority of students believed DCT was a valuable component of an engineering curriculum. Results are presented to support the merit of continuing and further refining the methods for DCT.

Introduction of Prevention Engineering Into the Mechanical Engineering Curriculum

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zbigniew M. Bzymek ◽  
Eliot Brown
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Engineering Design ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Nuclear Research ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Engineering Practice ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Engineering Research ◽  
Preventative Measures

Abstract In today’s fast growing world, the economy — especially the field of technology and production — are developing very rapidly. Engineering design that would predict the results of this rapid development and equip the society with tools to control them, faces a big challenge. Rapidly developing technology brings many benefits to humanity and makes life easier, friendlier and more comfortable. This has been the case for thousands of years as new branches of engineering were born and came to serve society. One might say that engineers have the privilege of creating a bloodless and peaceful revolution resulting in easier and happier lives for people. At the same time, such fast developing technology creates traps and dangers, and may cause harm. The inventions of Alfred Nobel, Samuel Colt and Eliphalet Remington, for example, or nuclear research have all brought significant technological progress to nations and societies but have also brought harms and disasters affecting both societies and individuals. The role of engineering design is to predict these harmful actions and plan to neutralize or eliminate them, or even change them from harmful into friendly. Such actions follow the way recommended by BTIPS (Brief Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) procedures [1], especially those using the Prediction module [2], [3]. When developing Prevention Engineering a system approach should be observed and hierarchy of systems established and defined. All systems should be designed in such a way that prevents harm to humans and the natural world. Recommendations for introducing Prevention Engineering as a branch of engineering practice, and as an educational and research discipline, should be created as soon as possible, and directions for introducing courses in Prevention Engineering design and practice should also be developed [4]. For example, personal protective equipment for individuals and groups as designed by ME and MEM engineering students in their courses might be considered as Prevention Engineering developments [5]. Defining and formulating Prevention Engineering as a new branch of engineering is necessity in our times. In every step of our lives we face the challenge of preventing harms and destruction that can be done by the contemporary surrounding world. The goal of Prevention Engineering [PE] is to make the world safe. Prevention and safety are connected, prevention is an action, while safety is the condition or state that we are trying to achieve. Preventative actions can be based on the recommendations of BTIPS - Brief Theory of Inventing Problem Solving - and may use BTIPS’s approach [4], [5]. The reasons for the development of PE have already been described [6]. Each of these should be pointed out and preventative measures should be found. Adding these preventative measures to the contemporary engineering research, practice and education, and especially reflecting them in the engineering curriculum would be useful now and will also be necessary in the future [7], [8].

Improving students’ freehand sketching skills in mechanical engineering curriculum

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacek Uziak ◽  
Ning Fang
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Engineering Design ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Critical Role ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Modern Engineering ◽  
Computer Aided

Freehand sketching is a fundamental skill in mechanical engineering and many other engineering disciplines. It not only serves as a communication tool among engineers, but plays a critical role in engineering design and problem solving. However, as computer-aided drafting has replaced traditional drawing classes nowadays, the training of students’ freehand sketching skills has been almost completely eliminated in modern engineering curricula. This paper describes the attributes of freehand sketching and its roles in several essential aspects of engineering; in particular, in its roles in problem solving, of which current literature has ignored. Representative examples are provided to show students’ freehand sketching skills in problem solving in a foundational undergraduate mechanical engineering course. Pedagogical suggestions are made on how to teach freehand sketching to engineering students.

Design in the Thermal Fluids Engineering

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadegh M. Sadeghipour ◽  
Mehdi Asheghi
Keyword(s):  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Integrated Approach ◽  
Thermal Engineering ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Job Market ◽  
Design Engineers ◽  
Thermal Fluids ◽  
Design Competition

Design is seen as the magic word and being a design engineer is considered to be the key to success in the job market by many of the mechanical engineering students. However, it is always assumed that the mechanical systems not the thermal engineers are indeed design engineers by education and practice. This notion probably stems from the fact that most of the thermal fluid courses in mechanical engineering curriculum seem to have been defined and developed to prepare undergraduate students for going to graduate school rather than the job market. The undergraduate courses usually emphasize on the theories with less attention to the design and application aspects. Perhaps, the responsibility of thermal engineering educators is to correct this notion by emphasizing more on the application and design in the existing courses or alternatively to develop and offer new courses on more applied topics. In this paper, we will report an integrated approach in teaching topics in fins and fin assemblies, which includes class lectures, laboratory experiments, ANSYS simulations and design competition. In this manuscript, we will report on the details of this approach including the procedures, methods, our observations, and the students’ feedbacks.

scholarly journals Self Evaluation for Compliance with the 12 CDIO Standards

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Platanitis ◽  
Remon Pop-Iliev
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Learning Experience ◽  
Value Added ◽  
Engineering Ethics ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Engineering Programs ◽  
Practical Applications ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
Engineering Program

Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s, collaboration began between universities, industry, and government to improve the quality and state of engineering education. Their paramount goal was to provide better ways to help students become successful engineers, possessing the necessary technical skills and expertise, exhibiting creativity, and having awareness of social, lawful, ethical, and environmental impacts as related to their profession. Traditionally, engineering programs emphasized the theoretical aspects required, while placing little emphasis on practical applications. An approach that has been introduced to provide a better learning experience for engineering students and to educate them as well-rounded engineers to be able to develop complex, value-added engineering products and processes is the CDIO (Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate) approach. This approach has been adopted by several universities within their engineering departments. At UOIT, the Mechanical Engineering curriculum has been developed around and continually evolves to line up with the goals of CDIO in terms of course and curriculum offerings for core and complementary engineering design courses, science, math, communications, engineering ethics, and humanities courses. Herein, we present an evaluation of the Mechanical Engineering program at UOIT against the twelve CDIO standards.

Perceptions of Prototypes: Pilot Study Comparing Students and Professionals

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlye Lauff ◽  
Daria Kotys-Schwartz ◽  
Mark E. Rentschler
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Design Process ◽  
Design Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Fundamental Part ◽  
Engineering Work ◽  
Recommendations For Practice ◽  
Physical Elements

Just as design is a fundamental part of engineering work, prototyping is an essential part of the design process. For many engineering design courses, students must develop a final prototype as part of the course requirements. And in industry, engineers build multiple prototypes when creating a product for market. Although prototyping is core to design education, there is a lack of research on understanding the perceptions and usage of prototypes from both students and professionals. Without understanding students’ perceptions of prototypes, we cannot adequately train them. Likewise, without knowing how professionals use prototypes, we cannot translate these practices back to design education. This paper reports on the pilot study comparing the perceptions of prototypes between mechanical engineering students and professional engineers. The findings indicate that the interpretation of the term “prototype” varies between students and professionals. Specifically, these mechanical engineering students have a more narrow perception and identify prototypes as only having a few key elements, namely for building and testing functionality and feasibility of physical elements in a product. Comparatively, professionals have a broad perception of prototypes. They identify a wider range of attributes, including prototypes as a communication tool, an aid in making decisions, and a way to learn about unknowns throughout the design process. Many instructors in design education are cognizant of the importance of prototyping. However, we believe that students require explicit instruction about key concepts. It is not enough to just tell students to “prototype.” As design educators, we must be aware of the various roles of prototypes, and teach these concepts to students. We provide some immediate recommendations for practice, including a list of ten principles of prototypes to create similar mental models between students.

Exploring the Effect of Design Education on the Design Cognition of Mechanical Engineering Students

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher B. Williams ◽  
John Gero ◽  
Yoon Lee ◽  
Marie Paretti
Keyword(s):  
Design Education ◽  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Design Thinking ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Protocol Analysis ◽  
Design Cognition ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Protocol Study ◽  
The Impact

In this paper, the authors report on progress of a longitudinal study on the impact of design education on students’ design thinking and practice. Using innovations in cognitive science and new methods of protocol analysis, the authors are working with engineering students to characterize their design cognition as they progress through engineering curricula. In this paper, the results from a protocol study of sophomore Mechanical Engineering students are presented. Specifically, data gathered from two experimental sessions (conducted before and after the students’ introductory design course) are analyzed to identify changes in design thinking cognition. Design cognition is determined using protocol analysis with the coding of the protocols based on a general design ontology, namely, the Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) as a principled coding scheme (as opposed to an ad hoc one). Preliminary results indicate that statistically significant changes in students’ design cognition occur over the course of their sophomore year. The change manifests itself in an increase in focus on the purposes of designs being produced, which is often a precursor to the production a higher quality designs, and an increase in the design processes associated with the introduction of purposes of designs.

V-Learn-Fact: A New Approach for Teaching Manufacturing and Design to Mechanical Engineering Students

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thenkurussi Kesavadas
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Engineering ◽  
Engineering Students ◽  
Engineering Curriculum ◽  
Student Survey ◽  
Direct Experience ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Manufacturing Automation ◽  
Written Comments ◽  
Product Realization ◽  
Better Than

Students in the mechanical engineering curriculum are rarely given opportunities for direct experience in the topics in many areas. This is especially true for the education component of the manufacturing and design curriculums. Some reading and stylized laboratory and group projects often substitute for real experience. In this paper an innovative experiential learning curriculum called Virtual Learning Factory (V-Learn-Fact) is described for teaching manufacturing and design courses. In the V-Learn-Fact curriculum, the entire class takes part in a single large project, which covers product realization from concept to final production stage. V-Learn-Fact was implemented in MAE464/564 – Manufacturing Automation course (senior elective and graduate level course) between 2006–2012. A student survey was carried out to gauge effectiveness of this curriculum. 89% of the students fully or partially agreed that the V-Learn-Fact helped them learn topics in manufacturing automation better than traditional mechanical engineering courses. Written comments also provided interesting insights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document