A Hands-on Project-based Mechanical Engineering Design Module Focusing on Sustainability

Abstract

Design is a crucial element of engineering education. The mode of learning design techniques and knowledge is key to the relationship that students gain with this subject. In the School of Mechanical and Systems Engineering at Newcastle University modules in Design and Manufacturing are taught in the first and second year. This paper outlines the transition of the Year 2 Design and Manufacturing module from a paper-based exercise to a design–build–test project-based group exercise over a period of three years between 2007/08 and 2009/10, using an iterative process of student feedback to advise this process of module change. Through this evaluation five key elements were identified, which inform the process of the introduction of practical group working in an engineering setting – these are presented as having utility for engineering education in general. Two conclusions derived from the analysis are also outlined, together with their implications for the engineering higher education sector.

Keywords:

• project-based learning
• hands-on learning
• sustainability
• engineering design

Introduction

The School of Mechanical and Systems Engineering (MSE) at Newcastle University offers a three-year BEng degree in Mechanical Engineering together with a suite of four-year MEng degrees in Mechanical Engineering based disciplines. All degrees are accredited by the Institution of Mechanical Engineers or the Institution of Engineering and Technology. As with many such degrees in the UK, engineering design is seen as a core subject and is taught in MSE in both the first and second year.

A change in the staff involved in the module to include the first three authors offered an opportunity to reconsider both the pedagogical approaches and module content to expand the opportunities for project-based collaborative design team learning. This paper analyses the process of change that occurred over the three years during which this Stage 2 Design module became a Design and Manufacturing module, and completed the transition from a paper-based design exercise to a group exercise which required students to design, build and test a wind turbine within a £100 budget.

Teaching for the module took place over two terms and the module represented 20 credits of a total of 120 credits for the year. Four hours per week of contact time were allocated, broken down into a one-hour lecture and a three-hour slot where the students worked in groups. At this time group/team working was not standard practice for the programme. The assessment (and percentage marks) for academic year 2007–08 onwards consisted of a group essay related to sustainable development (5%), an interim report (33%), seven updates within which students were encouraged to reflect upon how their project learning linked to UK-SPEC requirements (26%) and a Final Report and Logbook assessment (36%).

By eliciting comprehensive feedback from students on their learning experiences within the module, it has been possible to engage in a reflective process which facilitated modifications and refinements as a response to this feedback. Detailed analyses of three consecutive sets of annual student feedback also allowed the identification of five key factors in the process of the development of project and team-based learning within this module. These key learning points were that 1) engineering students favour hands-on learning 2) seeing a project through to completion provides a sense of satisfaction/achievement 3) working as part of a team facilitates mutual support and collaborative learning 4) project ‘authenticity’ is required for full project engagement and 5) students have a dual need for autonomy and support, which may be challenging for academic staff to navigate. These key learning points will be expanded upon within the discussion section.

Rationale for the introduction of pedagogical change

As Professor Chris Pearce, a member of the Visiting Professor Team of the Royal Academy of Engineering, is quoted as saying of design teaching:

And what do we need to teach? We don’t. We need to give the opportunity to gain experience and awareness in multidiscipline team environments and let the confidence of youth loose on a prepared world. What can we give students in a university department? Experience of working in multidisciplinary teams working on realistic projects. (Royal Academy of Engineering 2005.)

This understanding that students learn most effectively when they have opportunities for experiential, generative learning within groups and that group working represents a preparation for roles within the engineering profession (Springer et al. 1999) was fundamental to the redesign of this module. As Dym et al. (2005) suggest “Design is what engineers do, and the intelligent and thoughtful design of the engineering curriculum should be the community’s first allegiance” (p114).

The literature around the use of problem-based and project-based learning within engineering education is often confused or conflated. Both approaches are based on self-direction and collaboration and both may be multi-disciplinary (Perrenet et al. 2000). Mills & Treagust (2003, p8) suggest that there are five essential differences between these two approaches. These are that, for project-based learning:

• Project tasks are closer to professional reality and therefore take place over a longer time-scale.

• Project work is focused on the application of knowledge whilst problem-based learning focuses on the acquisition of knowledge.

• Project-based learning is usually supported by subject teaching.

• Project teams have to manage time, resources and make decisions about task and role differentiation.

• Project teams have stronger self-direction.

Project-based learning employs an inductive, learner-centred approach to the acquisition of knowledge and skills. It is underpinned by constructivist theory, which assumes that all new understandings are built upon previous knowledge and that the interweaving of knowledge and practical skills can help students to consolidate their understandings (Tempelman & Pilot 2011). Project-based learning encourages students to learn together and problem-solve collectively. Elshorbagy & Schönwetter (2002) suggest that this process is, in itself, generative and that learning is reinforced when students teach each other. Project-based learning gives students the opportunity to develop their communication, problem-solving and team-working skills which will be relevant in their future careers (Elshorbagy & Schönwetter 2002). This approach is enhanced when projects are combined with challenge-based or enquiry-based learning (Bramhall et al. 2008, Powell et al. 2008), when students learn collaboratively (Prince 2004) and when projects not only have a ‘hands-on’ practical focus, but students are also given greater responsibility for their own learning (Lambert et al. 2008).

Working together with other students as a team is a fundamental part of project-based work. Team working provides opportunities for peer-to-peer sharing of knowledge and skills, mutual academic support and enhanced collaborative learning (Joyce & Hopkins 2011). Teams can also represent a form of ‘learning community’. Zhao & Kuh (2004) found learning communities were positively linked with academic performance, student engagement and perception of their college environment (p124). Similarly, Zepke & Leach (2010) write that students who learn together and from each other, who “make connections between ideas whilst drawing on the ideas, experiences and knowledge of others are most deeply engaged” (p172). Berglund (2012, p31) suggests that team climate is of great importance in project work and that where there is a strong sense of self-efficacy, this both strengthens achievement and promotes deep approaches to learning. Berglund (2012) also reports that students judge themselves more positively where there is ease of communication and proximity between group members. When students have not had experiences of either practical working or working as part of a group of peers within their university education, they may have difficulty in making the transition between university and industry, as reported by Flores (2012) in his study of Mechanical Engineering students in Portugal.

Lecturers who facilitate project-based learning are required to adopt a very different role from that of information provider employing a traditional lecture format and deductive approach with a large number of students. They need skills in facilitating small group learning (Perrenet et al. 2000), to be able to help students to bridge the gap between theoretical knowledge and real-life problem solving (Elshorbagy & Schönwetter 2002), and to guide students through their mistakes to a greater sense of design task-specific mastery (Carberry et al. 2010). Groups who perceive their supervisors to be readily available, actively-involved and reassuring were found by Berglund (2012, p31) to function most effectively. Lecturers who are also experienced professional design engineers will be uniquely placed to offer support and supervision to students (Hayhurst et al. 2012).

It is recognised that the motivation of students to learn is increased when they perceive themselves to be developing the professional skills needed for their future careers (Fang 2012). If students are to engage in a meaningful way with their project then it is essential that it contains a recursive interweaving of theory and practice. ‘Authentic’ projects provide a meaningful context for student learning and consequently stimulate development of expertise and engagement with the project (Tempelman & Pilot 2011, Fang 2012). Project work that is structured to reflect the real-world requirements of professional engineering design facilitates the development of skills such as professional report writing (Dym 1994). Christiaans & Venselaar (2005) for example, found that students engaged in experiential design projects acquired “general process knowledge, heuristics and higher-order rules that can be transferred to a wide variety of design situations” (p226).

In the second year Design module it was felt that the introduction of a group-oriented, project-based approach would assist students with the transition from a purely theoretical to a practice-based framework (Mills & Treagust 2003). It was hypothesised that this change would also provide the opportunity for students to develop the skills and attributes of “integrity, independence, impartiality, responsibility and competence and frequently discretion” required for sound decision making outlined by the Royal Academy of Engineering (2005, p1).

Evaluation methodology

Contemporaneous with the introduction of modifications and changes to the module, a revised ten-item feedback questionnaire was introduced (Appendix 1). The form consisted of ten questions, each of which invited students to anonymously choose a response on a five-point scale. The questions covered the structure of the module, the input of teaching staff and questions specific to the student completing it. In addition, the questionnaire offered the opportunity to add freehand comments. Students were invited to describe two good features of the module and to make two suggestions for improvement, as well as being free to make any other comments about the module.

The standard student evaluation is often criticised for being insufficiently sensitive to allow students to provide feedback related to the minutiae of a specific module (Huxham et al. 2008). Doubts are often also expressed that the data collected is used as a means of improving the quality of teaching and learning (Kember et al. 2002). Students providing feedback on this module were made aware that their ratings and comments would be used to make refinements to its structure and the teaching and learning strategies employed as the recommendations of each cohort were integrated into the module design for forthcoming years.

Analysis of the survey took place as each group of students neared the end of the module. In each case the ratings data were entered into a spreadsheet and graphical representations of the data were created. The freehand qualitative comments were analysed for themes. The list of themes was read repeatedly to gain a sense of their content and a set of categories were generated from these readings. Each comment was then tested against the categories; it was possible for each comment to be matched against a category with the exception of a small number of outlying comments. This method is a simplified version of the constant comparative method (Boeije 2002). Once the categories had been assembled it was possible to create meaningful sub-categories which allowed the nuances of feedback to become visible and coordinated.

The process of change

In addition to being responsive to student feedback, module design was also influenced by the first three authors’ previous experience of teaching the module together with their reflective discussions. Table 1 summarises developments over the three academic years.

Table 1 Evolution of the Design and Manufacturing module over three years

Year	Size of Stage 2 cohort	Project group size	Module format	Assessment methodology	Changes and modifications based on student feedback and staff initiatives
2007/08 Year 1 (15 credits)	63	7	Project title: ‘Greening our Homes’	Seven ‘weekly updates’.	N/A
Collaborative group project.	Completion of individual logbook.
Develop three conceptual designs of energy-saving/ generation devices in 1^st term.	3000 word group interim and final reports.
Finalise design of one concept in second term.	Group interim and final presentations.
2008/09 Year 2 (20 credits)	73	7 or 8	Project title: ‘From Kilobytes to Kilowatts’	Group essay on sustainability.	Provision of workshop space and basic hand tools to allow hands-on learning.
Collaborative group project.	Seven ‘weekly updates’.
Design/build/test a wind turbine.	Completion of individual logbook.	Allocation of £100 budget for locally sourced material and components in second term.
Term 1 – given redundant computer and printer to design and manufacture turbine (tested end of term).	3000 word group interim and final reports – groups decide allocation of marks.	Reduction in number of presentations and option to submit DVD instead of presentation.
Term 2 – budget of £100 amend original design and manufacture (basic hand tools).	Assessment of wind turbines at end of first and second terms.	Only one submission of logbook.
Use of wind tunnel for testing.	Group interim and final presentations.	Every group has same motor.
2009/10 Year 3 (20 credits)	95	7 or 8	Project title: ‘From Kilobytes to Kilowatts’	Group essay on sustainability.	Computer/printer exercise reduced duration (3 weeks rather than 1 term). No longer required to generate power.
Collaborative group project.	Seven weekly updates.
(Initial project using redundant computer/ printer restricted to three weeks).	Completion of individual logbook. 3000 word group interim and final reports – groups decide allocation of marks(option to submit DVD).
£100 budget available from week three.	Remainder of time spent on ‘final’ design and budget made available after three weeks rather than in second term.
Design/build/test a wind turbine (as in 2008/09).
Use of wind tunnel for testing process.	Assessment of wind turbines at end of first and second terms.

Since 2010 the module has undergone further developments under the guidance of other academic staff. The first three authors were asked to continue their design teaching at Stage 1 as part of a school strategy to enhance retention and progression (Joyce & Hopkins 2011).

Findings

The quantitative data collected from relevant parts of the feedback questionnaire are presented in graph form in order to show a direct comparison across years. The questionnaires were completed by 52 students (83% of group) in 2007/08, by 57 students (78% of group) in 2008/09 and 82 students (86% of group) in 2009/10. In total there were 191 data sets gathered over a three-year period.

It must be stressed that the questionnaire format elicited quantitative data through a structured format, whilst no such format was provided for qualitative data (Appendix 1). It was not unusual for respondents’ statements to relate to multiple aspects of the module, increasing the total number of items in each category.

Qualitative feedback from the questionnaires over the three years reflected the increasingly hands-on and practical nature of the module, but the key positive themes remained constant. These were that it represented:

• A practical opportunity to gain skills in preparation for professional practice.

• The freedom for creativity and innovation; the opportunity to ‘learn by doing’ and to ‘see a project through’.

• A group-work experience which was welcomed even when difficulties were encountered.

Requests for module modifications similarly altered as the module changed, although increasingly revealed respondents’ engagement with the practical nature of their project. At the end of the 2007/08 academic year the main change required was the opportunity to manufacture a design rather than to stop once engineering drawings had been produced. In 2008/09 the focus changed to concerns about group functioning and the need for more workshop time. By 2009/10 the feedback had moved to requests for specific lectures or knowledge such as “more lectures on aerodynamics”. This latter comment revealed an interesting difference in approach. Many students seemed keen to maximise power (group competition to obtain the highest Watt output per pound spent was strong) and craved an imaginary ‘optimum’ blade profile to give them this. Staff opinion, tempered by industrial experience, was that such concerns were not the ultimate priority in a device with a 25-year intended lifespan. The requests from students for more workshop time indicated a preference for hands-on work and it also reinforced the need for good time management skills. In response to other student requests, additional hand tools were made available in 2008/09 and each team was provided with an identical motor to reduce variability across projects.

The quantitative and qualitative questionnaire elements have been interwoven into a narrative around the key themes which are: (a) students’ perceptions about the workload of the module (b) their experiences of group work (c) the teaching environment and (d) the module content as a preparation for professional practice.

Perceptions of workload

Across the three years of module development, feedback indicated a growing perception of increasing workload; the number ticking the category of ‘heavy’ almost doubled from 27% in 2007/08 to 52% in 2009/10 (Figure 1). Paradoxically this shift in perception occurred despite staff efforts to reduce the workload and to simplify the structure and assessment procedures for the module. Students reported spending a higher number of hours outside class on study related to the module, rising from 21% who dedicated more than six hours each week to out-of-class work on the project in 2007/8, to 44% dedicating the same amount of time in 2009/10. By 2009/10, a further 12% were spending more than eight hours per week on module work (Figure 2). However, when a calculation was done of how many hours the students had spent on the module (based on their own perception) this actually matched the hours expected by the university.

Figure 1 Perception of weight of workload relative to other modules

Figure 2 Hours worked per week outside class

Interestingly, qualitative feedback throughout the three years focused not on students’ perceptions of the number of hours spent completing their work, but on the positive aspects of having a prolonged period of time to work on a project. In 2007/08 one student commented that he had become very involved in the project because of its length; in 2008/09 another respondent wrote that “It took up a lot of time but was fun and we learnt a lot”. In the same year, suggestions for change appealed for workshops to be available for more than three hours a week and for “more access to turbines out of lab hours”. Feedback in 2009/10 included multiple requests for “greater access to workshops outside of working time” demonstrating students’ engagement with their project. This sense of deep engagement is also revealed in respondents’ requests for ‘more time’ for various aspects of work, such as “more time to carry out research”, “more time to work as a group”, “more time in labs and more time for testing”, “more testing time/time to adjust, improve, then test again (with real wind tunnel)”.

Group working

Group working appeared to enhance the students’ sense of ownership of their project and their learning. In 2007/08 all groups had seven students but, as student numbers increased, group size occasionally increased to eight due to practical considerations such as availability of workshop space and worktables. It was therefore very difficult to reduce group size despite qualitative feedback indicating that larger groups could experience problems in maintaining communication and allocating work equitably.

Despite such concerns, the development of team working and communication skills was highly prized by each year group as a preparation for professional practice. Among the response to the open-ended question: “give two good features of the module”, in 2007/08 team working was mentioned positively by 15 (29%) survey respondents, by 23 (40%) in 2008/09 and by 28 (34%) in 2009/10. The team experience was valued because it provided an experience of working, as one student put it, “in teams and under pressure”, others commented that it represented “actual practice on project management”, a “great team working exercise – very valuable skills learned” and another wrote that it represented “learning from each other, different people have different understandings”.

Teaching environment

Throughout the three years of feedback there was also an increasingly positive rating of the teaching environment. Those rating it in the two highest categories rose from 72% in 2007/08 to 82% in 2008/09 and to 87% in 2009/10 (Figure 3). In parallel with this the number of responses rating lecturers’ interest and enthusiasm for the subject in the two highest categories stayed high across all three years, varying only between 94% and 96% (Figure 4). This positive response is also reflected in the students’ rating of the overall teaching on the module, which rose from 72% in the two highest ratings on the scale in 2007/08 to 91% in 2008/09 and only slightly lower at 90% in 2009/10 (Figure 5). A comment from a student in 2007/08 was that there was “good structure for both semesters. Limitless concepts could be used”.

Figure 3 Perception of the teaching environment

Figure 4 Lecturers interest and enthusiasm for their subject

Figure 5 Overall rating of teaching on the module

The availability of help, support and feedback from staff was noted as important within all qualitative feedback, both when it was seen as being sufficient and also when additional support was felt to be necessary. Students appeared to enjoy the freedom that the open-ended design projects gave them, but they also wanted to be able to call upon a great deal of staff support. There was recognition that the industrial experience of teaching staff was valuable and that, as one student expressed it, a “professional approach by lecturers inspires a professional output by students”.

Module content

Module content was recognised as highly significant across all three years. The major factor attracting positive feedback was its relevance to students’ professional skills development. The module was seen as “practical”, “hands on” and linking theory to engineering practice. These comments were made by 28 (54%) respondents in 2007/08, 51 (89%) in 2008/9 and 36 (44%) in 2009/10. One student’s words exemplify this understanding when he wrote that the module “brought ALL aspects of engineering together and showed the relevance of each”. Other comments show that the module presented an opportunity to “learn by doing”, that it linked theory and practice because “we actually got to do stuff”; that it was a “practical course – more enjoyable/learn more”, but especially that it “helps prepare for real-world design problems”. The acquisition of new skills such as project management, report writing and budget management were commented on by respondents in each group (eight (15%) in 2007/08, 16 (28%) in 2008/09 and 17 (21%) in 2009/10). One of the final wind turbine designs manufactured on the £100 budget is shown in Figure 6.

Figure 6 A wind turbine based on components and materials from a maximum expenditure of £100 (large motor at rear supplied free of charge)

The reasons for the module providing this positively rated experience were multi-factorial. The descriptions which appeared most frequently amongst qualitative feedback were “freedom” and “independence” and the linked, resultant concepts of “creativity” and “innovation” (mentioned collectively ten times (19%) in 2007/08, 11 times (19%) in 2008/09 and 21 times (26%) in 2009/10), becoming more prominent as the module changed from design only. Respondents’ comments on these linked concepts were that the module had provided; “freedom for creativity”, “helps with thinking and being inventive”, “freedom to implement our ideas” and “freedom to design creatively”.

Another positive aspect of the module was that it promoted continuity and a sense of completion. One student commented that it allowed her to “get to see the whole life cycle of the project. Made me proud to see something at the end”. This was highly valued as it promoted learning through being “given the chance to learn by fixing our mistakes” or as another student put it succinctly “made u think – if it didn’t work, made u rethink”. By 2008/09 26% of respondents commented on the importance of this complete life cycle aspect of the project.

The sustainability topic was very important too – the choice of a renewable energy project further enhanced students’ perception of it as ‘authentic’ and increased their interest. Respondents reported being able to integrate and use knowledge gained across their degree programme in this design project work and also indicated that they had acquired new process abilities such as time-management, team working, organisational and communication skills.

In summary

The experience of working in teams and under pressure whilst managing a budget developed students’ independence and resourcefulness and enhanced their sense of freedom and creativity. They valued the experience of simultaneously being allowed this high degree of freedom whilst receiving support from lecturers. It seemed that the freedom of the learning environment which fostered group and individual creativity, coupled with the opportunity to acquire professional skills, had more power to enhance student commitment than their perception of a heavy workload had to discourage them. This suggests that engineering students relish these challenges if they can be seen in the context of skills progression and preparation for professional practice. Students indicated this when they wrote of the module: “This is the exact thing that I expected to do on this course” and another that “I have learned more in this module than in the whole first year”.

Key learning points from evaluation of the module

The process of module evolution and development has highlighted five key learning points which possibly have general applicability across a variety of modules where project-based learning and team working are being introduced into engineering programmes. These are outlined below.

Engineering students display a strong orientation towards learning in a ‘hands on’ or practical way and see this as being valuable preparation for their future careers.

Students in this study displayed a very high level of commitment to their project despite their perception that it represented a ‘heavy’ workload. Kember et al. (1996) found that students’ perception of their workload may not be directly related to the actual hours worked, but may be multi-factorial and related to students’ interest in the subject, the volume of content covered, the motivational approach used by lecturers, but most importantly, students’ individual learning approaches. For many students in this evaluation the Design and Manufacturing module may have represented their first experience of group and project work and will therefore have influenced their perceptions of its workload. Students indicated that the work felt like a preparation for the ‘real world’, something which previous studies of engineering students’ motivations have identified (Fang 2012, Tempelman & Pilot 2011). Allie et al. (2009) describe this process as developing discursive engineering identities, not simply acquiring knowledge, but a negotiation of a visible self: “engaging with engineering is an act that has implications for how others will see you” (p361).

The process of preparation for professional practice and the acquisition of transferrable skills, engineering language and terminology were frequently commented upon positively. Many students feel unprepared for this transition even if they have acquired the requisite knowledge (Flores 2012). Dahlgren et al. (2006, p583) comment that “the contextualisation of knowledge of working life occurs, if at all, late in the programme, or is left to the novices to handle individually”. Having the opportunity to try out skills (in this case in the second year) allowed students to try out engineering identities within the safety of the institution and to gain confidence through practising this role.

The ability to see a process through from start to finish provides students with a sense of satisfaction and achievement

Being part of a process from concept through to design, manufacturing and testing was seen as a crucial part of the enjoyment and learning from the project. This feeling is exemplified in the words of one student who wrote in his logbook “nothing is more rewarding than to see what you’ve created in actual use, and to see it working is overwhelming”. Incorporated within this sense of achievement are the circular, collaborative processes of having conceptualised a design framework within limited resources, negotiated manufacturing difficulties with a constrained supply of tools, gone through the process of testing, found solutions to problems encountered and brought forth a product for evaluation. Students who only encounter well-structured problems within a learning environment may not automatically be able to transfer their acquired problem-solving skills to an industrial environment where they meet real-life and therefore ill-structured problems (Jonassen et al. 2006).

Working together as a group/team provides opportunities for mutually supportive relationships where collaborative learning can take place

The ability to work as part of a team, especially a multi-disciplinary engineering team, is now an essential skill for all engineering graduates being demanded by industry (Royal Academy of Engineering 2010). Team working in an engineering educational setting can offer the opportunity for both mutual support and an environment in which students share knowledge and learn from each other (Kamsah & Talib 1995, Joyce & Hopkins 2011). It has also been found to help promote academic achievement as well as more favourable attitudes towards learning and persistence (Springer et al. 1999). Asking students to work together in groups is underpinned by the idea that learning takes place within social contexts and is achieved through sharing and the co-construction of meaning and understanding (Vygotsky 1978). It is not only the less able group members receiving instruction who benefit from the interaction; the team member who is sharing knowledge or skills also strengthens their own understanding within the process (Stump et al. 2011).

Working with a group of colleagues allowed students to move from design to finished product and to amalgamate the sum of their previous problem-solving experiences and differing perspectives, and bring these to bear on the design problems they faced, addressing both possibilities and constraints. As Jonassen et al. (2006, p144) suggest, “knowledge exists not only in the heads of learners, but also in the conversations and social relations among collaborators”. Problem solving in this context becomes an iterative process where learning occurs when the contrast between new and previous experiences are integrated and become part of new understandings (Daly et al. 2012). Seeing a project through to its completion as a collaborative venture was viewed by students as both satisfying and another indication of gaining real-world expertise.

Difficulties arise in teams when they experience conflict or include members who fail to participate. When this occurs students may need staff support to overcome these problems (Parsons & Drew 1996, Burgland 2012).

If students are to engage effectively with the project they must view it as being relevant and ‘authentic’.

For engineering students to engage enthusiastically and effectively with projects the projects must have relevance and the potential to provide a range of learning applicable for future career development (Tempelman & Pilot 2011, Fang 2012). In this evaluation the project with which students engaged most thoroughly and were prepared to devote most time to had sustainability at its heart and included recycled materials. UNESCO (2005, p9) recommend the acquisition of “skills, capacities, values and knowledge required to ensure sustainable development” at all levels of education. In addition, projects that incorporate interdisciplinary perspectives provide multiple opportunities for further discovery, innovation and accumulation of knowledge capital (Hayhurst et al. 2012).

There is a delicate tension between students’ wish for autonomy and freedom and their wish for support

In this evaluation this delicate balance was clearly articulated within feedback and perhaps reflects the difficulty for academic staff in making judgements about how best to promote autonomy in learning groups. Dym (2005, p104) lists a series of skills and abilities associated with good designers as being able to 1) tolerate ambiguity that shows up in viewing design as inquiry or as an iterative loop of divergent–convergent thinking 2) maintain sight of the big picture by including systems thinking and systems design 3) handle uncertainty 4) make decisions 5) think as part of a team in a social process and 6) think and communicate in the several languages of design. Students in the second year of their programme may not have yet become comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty and may require support which helps them to acquire these and the other skills described.

Tempelman & Pilot (2011) suggest that academic staff taking on the role of support and mentorship to students engaged on project-based work may be working outside their accustomed comfort-zone and may also require a level of support. They may be asked to examine in detail their theoretical knowledge base and be flexible in its application to practice in new and unexpected ways. This delicate balance is one which needs to be carefully negotiated and addressed.

Conclusions and implications

This evaluation of the transition of a second year Design and Manufacturing module from paper-based to a practical, hands-on, design–build–test exercise has revealed two conclusions which the authors suggest may have implications for the wider engineering higher education sector.

The first is that many of the things that students appreciate about project-based group working, such as seeing a project through from start to finish and working and learning with others on ‘sustainable’ and ‘real world’ projects, are all related to preparation for professional practice and employment. Many of those involved in the education of engineers will view this finding as confirmatory of what is already known.

What is perhaps more surprising is the second conclusion that students appear to be able to hold two contradictory positions simultaneously, without apparent awareness of any contradiction. Each succeeding group of students reported that whilst their perception that the module was increasingly demanding of their time and effort, they also felt a growing contentment with its content and teaching. Similarly, an increasing number of students throughout the three years highlighted both their enjoyment of the freedom/independence the module represented whilst simultaneously expressing a wish for a high level of staff support, monitoring and guidance.

At a time when engineering student numbers are expanding and higher education is faced with the increasingly complex challenge of ensuring that students graduate in a state of readiness to take up their place in industry, it is suggested that students undertaking modules featuring project and group work should be alerted to the possibility that they may experience contradictory perceptions and feelings as they negotiate their competing needs for independence to be creative and for academic support. Theorising this process as a stage on a developmental continuum towards a professional engineering identity could heighten students’ ability to remain self-reflective as they go through this process of academic adjustment to full engineering identity.

Appendix 1:

Design and Manufacturing II – Feedback questionnaire

The purpose of this anonymous questionnaire is to provide feedback on the MEC2007 Design and Manufacturing II module. It aims to find out what went well and what did not. Please rate the module according to each of the criteria below. For each question in the table, please shade one circle with a pen or pencil. When you have done this, please answer the other questions. Your assistance is greatly appreciated.

Table

1. The proportion of classes you attended	Nearly all		Half		Very few
O	O	O	O	O
2. How well you felt the module was structured	High rating				Low rating
O	O	O	O	O
3. The difficulty of the module relative to others	Too hard		Right		Too easy
O	O	O	O	O
4. The course materials (handouts etc)	High rating				Low rating
O	O	O	O	O
5. The workload of the module relative to others	Heavy		Average		Light
O	O	O	O	O
6. The teaching environment	High rating				Low rating
O	O	O	O	O
7. The lecturers’ interest and enthusiasm for the subject	High				Low
O	O	O	O	O
8. Your overall rating of teaching on the module	High rating				Low rating
O	O	O	O	O
9. How many hours per week have you been working on this module outside of classes?	0–2	2–4	4–6	6–8	>8
O	O	O	O	O
10. How available was help when you needed it?	Hardly ever				Nearly always
O	O	O	O	O
Give two good features of this module and two suggestions for improvement
First good feature:
Second good feature:
Suggestion one:
Suggestion two
Feel free to make any further comments you wish to add about the module