You are on page 1of 7

A Report on Integrating Design Projects in Mechanical Engineering

Richard A. Layton and Samuel Owusu-Ofori


Department of Mechanical Engineering
North Carolina A&T State University
Greensboro, NC 27411

Abstract Mechanical engineering students at North • time-management problems as students try to


Carolina A&T State University take concurrent courses in schedule time for group work. During the first semester of
mechanism and engineering design followed by a course in the sequence this problem is particularly acute because a
machine design. Each course entails design projects. To student has different groups and projects for 440 and 474.
reduce the burden on students of multiple, short-term In addition, many students have a third group and project
projects and to give students the experience of developing a in a thermodynamics course the same semester.
long-term project in more depth than is usually required in • start-up or learning-curve penalties as students
an individual course, a single design project was developed spend time gaining familiarity with each project. Having a
to span all three courses. new project for each course adds to this time penalty,
The design project was selected to address a need in reducing the time available for productive work.
developing countries for debris removal in street gutters to
• interpersonal problems as students learn to
reduce the health problems associated with flooding.
accommodate one another’s work and study habits.
Students designed machines for street-gutter debris
Having a different group in each course tends to increase
removal. Students at North Carolina A&T State University
the likelihood of interpersonal friction, again reducing the
and the University of Science and Technology in Kumasi,
time available for productive work.
Ghana, collaborated in accordance with a previously
established memorandum of understanding for student • student stress is high, particularly at the end of the
exchange. first semester of the sequence, as written reports and oral
In this paper is presented a report on this experiment presentations are prepared for several projects.
in integrating design projects in mechanical engineering. • these difficulties are particularly burdensome on
The problem is defined, students are profiled, and technical working students and other nontraditional students.
issues, logistical issues, and methods of addressing these
issues are discussed. The primary goal of having students
develop a design project in more depth than is usually
expected in a single course was not attained. Secondary
goals of reducing the burden on students caused by
multiple, short-term projects and assigning a meaningful
design problem based on a documented need were met. An
informal assessment of integration of this type is given.

Introduction

Mechanical engineering undergraduates at North Carolina


A&T State University (NCAT) take three courses in
machine design. The first two courses, Mechanism Design Fig. 1. A sequence of design courses in mechanical
and Analysis (MEEN 440) and Engineering Design (MEEN engineering at NCAT.
474), are typically taken concurrently in the second
semester of the junior year. The third course, Design of A separate set of burdens is placed on faculty. First, the
Machine Elements (MEEN 565), is scheduled for the instructor of each class spends time helping students with
following semester. The sequence is illustrated in Fig. 1. the difficulties listed above. Mediating interpersonal
Textbooks for these courses are by Norton [1] for 440 and problems can be particularly time-consuming. Second, at
by Juvinall & Marshek [2] for 474 and 565. the end of a semester, lecture attendance drops as students
In each of these three courses, students are assigned spend more time meeting their project deadlines. As a
design projects that require significant team effort. The result, these students miss the concluding material of the
burden placed on students by these projects includes: course, hindering their ability to unify the concepts
developed earlier in the course. Last, instructors are obliged environmental and health hazards when blocked by litter or
to develop new and interesting design projects for each natural debris. Blocked gutters cause flooded streets,
course each semester. It is a difficult task to design student creating a driving hazard and contributing to pothole
project assignments that are pedagogically satisfying, that formation. Blockage also produces standing water, creating
contribute significantly to student learning, and that can be a breeding ground for mosquitoes, posing a serious threat to
completed in one semester. public health.
The consequences of these difficulties are: In years past, gutters of this type were cleaned daily by
• project assignments can lack “real-world” laborers. Today, with a more highly educated workforce,
relevance, resulting in a project that is more an exercise manual laborers are in scarce supply and are
than an open-ended problem of substance. correspondingly costly. There exists, therefore, a need for a
• students acquire experience with short-term gutter cleaning system that is less costly and less labor-
projects with limited goals instead of long-term projects intensive than manual laborers. The project assignment is to
with broader goals. (This is not to say that short-term design such a system.
projects don’t have a place in the curriculum.)
• the typical completed project does not exhibit the
depth of understanding of design and the application of
fundamental principles instructors desire of the students.
To address these issues, we developed a two-semester
design project that spans all three courses. The project is
assigned to students in 440 and 474 the first semester and is
continued in the 565 class the following semester.
The basic goal of this experiment is to give students the
time to develop a design project in more depth than is
usually expected in a single course, allowing them to
exercise their skills in applying fundamental principles to a Fig. 2. Typical roadway gutter cross-section. Dimensions
greater degree than is usually possible. Secondary goals are are approximate and vary by locale.
to reduce the burden on students caused by multiple, short-
term projects and to assign a meaningful design problem Student Profile
based on a documented need.
This project is not intended to be a capstone experience. Students enrolled in 440 and 474 are typically in the second
For many students, 440 and 474 are the first courses in semester of their junior year and take the two courses
which open-ended design is inherent in the course material. concurrently. Most of these students take 565 the following
Therefore the project is intended to exercise students’ skills semester. Since only a single section of each course is
only in these specific courses and their associated offered, the same cadre of about 25 students, with some
prerequisites. exceptions, take these courses together.
In this paper is described the design problem, a profile Prerequisites for these courses include materials,
of the students involved, the technical and logistical issues statics, strengths, dynamics, circuits and thermodynamics.
that arose in implementing this experiment, and methods Topics covered in 440 include the design and analysis of
the instructors used in addressing these issues. Results linkages, gears and cams. In 474, the topics are design for
include observations on group work, lessons in cooperative static and fatigue strength as well as project planning,
learning, and comments on the international aspects of the standards and ethics. Topics covered in 565 include the
project. design of fasteners, springs, bearings, gears and shafts.
Students in these courses exhibit the usual range of
Design Problem personality characteristics and learning styles of any student
group. Some students strenuously resist group work. Some
Roads are typically cambered to allow rainwater to drift to worry about individual credit for group work. Some have
the sides of the road. Gutters are provided along the modest technical abilities but good group skills. Some
roadsides to collect and dispose of runoff water, helping to students thrive on cooperation and others thrive on
prevent premature roadway failure. A cross-sectional view confrontation. Competitiveness, arrogance, shyness,
of a typical gutter in Ghana is shown in Fig. 2. Unlike most friendship, trust and distrust are all present in varying
runoff water drainage systems in the United States, these degrees. These characteristics are important to note because
gutters are not covered. the instructors devote a significant amount of time assisting
Gutters of this type can contribute to serious students coping with nontechnical, group-interaction issues.
Issues and Methods

Technical issues and methods

In most lower-division courses, students solve problems


using well-defined solution methods resulting in closed-
form solutions. Consequently, students become accustomed
to finding “correct” answers. However, in MEEN 440, 474
and 565, open-ended design is inherent in the subject
matter. These are the first courses in the mechanical
engineering curriculum in which students are daily
expected to demonstrate competence through a thoughtful
process instead of point solutions. As Hyman [3] says, “The
design instructor is not so much a transmitter of facts, but a
facilitator of the design process and a partner with the
students in searching for successful solutions of design
problems.” Students are not usually prepared for this type of
student-instructor relationship.
A related technical issue is that, prior to these courses,
students are typically not required to integrate their Fig. 3. Example of student handout on problem types
knowledge acquired in fundamental engineering science encountered in machine design.
courses. It is often difficult for students to apply the skills
they learned in statics, strengths, and dynamics, for
example, as means of making design decisions in an Table 1. Student handout excerpts— learning objectives.
iterative process rather than as ends in themselves.
Lastly, since design is a new topic to most students Cam design
entering this sequence of courses, students are generally 1. Given a cam specification, sketch the SVAJ
unsure of what constitutes good conceptual design, good diagrams.
detailed design, or even a completed design. One of the 2. Select an acceleration program to meet given
objectives of all three courses is to address these performance criteria.
uncertainties and ambiguities. 3. For a given cam and follower, sketch the pressure
To address these technical issue, we collaborated on the angle; compute the pressure angle.
problem statement and on the deliverables expected of 4. Outline the iterative procedure for sizing a cam.
students at several milestones throughout the project. Design for static loads
Learning objectives were provided to students for the major
1. Select an appropriate static failure theory.
topics in each course. Excerpts from the set of objectives for
2. Apply failure theory to develop the design equation.
kinematic cam design and static-load design are shown in
3. Analyze the design equation for sizing, material
Table 1. Test questions were based on such written
selection, and design factor.
objectives. Design procedure suggestions for major
components such as linkages, cams, springs, and so forth
were summarized and provided to students. A sample Logistical issues and methods
design handout is shown in Fig. 3. Project grades were
based in part on the appropriate use of these procedures. In fairness to the students, we wanted to implement
consistent policies for teaming, presentations, and grading.
Accomplishing this goal entailed some compromise. For
example, one instructor prefers group work for all
assignments while the other instructor prefers individual
work except for the major project. For the major project,
one instructor prefers small groups (3 or 4 students each)
while the other instructor prefers larger groups (4 to 6
students each). Our solution was to have small groups for
all assignments in 440, and to combine small groups to
form larger groups for the major project in both 440 and
474. In 565 the following semester, some of these larger and projects for each course according to personal
groups were reorganized to account for students that preferences. However, grades assigned to oral and written
dropped or added the course and to disband one group presentations in 440 and 474 were used in both courses. For
having serious interpersonal difficulties. In all cases, as consistency, one instructor graded all oral presentations and
recommended in [4], care was taken to have as the other graded all written reports. Presentation grading
heterogeneous a mixture of student ability, race, ethnicity criteria were provided to students early in the semester and
and gender in each group as possible. In addition, student written comments based on these criteria were provided
schedules were considered in forming the small groups in after each submittal. Grades were not “curved.” Students
440 since these students had to meet regularly for all were held an objective standard based primarily on how
assignments. Therefore the small groups were organized well the students satisfied the project deliverables, including
first and the larger, combined groups were formed from the application of engineering fundamentals and basic
combinations of the smaller groups. design principles.
Assigning project deliverables consistent with the To mimic a competitive time-to-market environment,
learning objectives in each course at progressive milestones teams earned extra credit for completing their final report
was another logistical problem. The draft problem statement and presentation early. Teams requested a presentation date
was reviewed with respect to course syllabi. The result was in writing and submitted written reports three days prior to
a schedule of project deliverables that both moved the the presentation date. Only one presentation was allowed
design project forward and built on the content of topical per date, except for the last day of class. The first group to
course content. An outline of the schedule is given in Table present earned extra points equal to 20% of their score and
2 to illustrate the process. the second group earned 10%. Subsequent groups received
Written and oral presentations were required of the no extra credit.
student groups at each deliverable date. Emphasis was The final logistics problem was that of collaborating
placed on clear and concise communications. During and with students and faculty at the University of Science and
after oral presentations, instructors asked pointed questions Technology (UST) in Ghana. The primary difficulty was
(for example, challenging unsubstantiated claims) and that of timely coordination— UST and NCAT follow
encouraged students to think critically about the material different academic calendars. Consequently, NCAT students
presented. Afterwards a colloquium-style discussion was in 440 and 474 were often unable to obtain timely answers
held in which students and faculty discussed the merits and to their questions about local conditions in Ghana. From a
errors of the presentations in context of industry pedagogical standpoint, this difficulty is simply another
expectations. Presentation class time was divided roughly learning exercise. For students, however, lack of
equally among the two fall courses. Both instructors information about design conditions and performance
attended all presentations. parameters can cause great frustration. This problem was
ameliorated somewhat for the 565 class. First, UST was in
Table 2. Project deliverables for two semesters. session, enabling timely communications between NCAT
students and UST students (enrolled in their own machine
Week Milestone or deliverable
design course). Second, two NCAT students, one from the
8 Project assigned.
cadre of students involved in this project, went to Ghana in
9 Develop the design process, project plan,
March, 1998, as part of a student exchange program. Thus
schedule, system requirements.
students had a better opportunity for coordination in the
11 Develop 3 design concepts, applying design second semester than they had in the first semester.
methods covered in class.
14 Preliminary analysis; preliminary computer Group-work issues and methods
simulation of relevant mechanisms; physical
model. The skills or habits that students require for productive
15 End of first semester team work are discussed extensively in engineering
21 Progress report. education literature. One summary of these skills, given in
23 Progress report. [5], is that students should:
28-30 Final report, final computer simulation; final • take personal responsibility for team success.
analysis (sizing, manufacturability and cost);
• follow through on commitments to the team.
construct a prototype; marketing strategy.
30 end of second semester • listen to others actively.
• contribute to discussions with clear
Grading was another shared duty. To simplify matters, communications.
we assigned weighting factors to homework, quizzes, tests • give useful feedback.
• accept feedback gracefully.
As could be expected with any class, our students had
varying degrees of difficulty in all of these areas.
To assist students in learning these skills, we tried a
variety of cooperative learning techniques. One was the
colloquial discussion after presentations discussed above.
Another was the use of brief classroom exercises for student
pairs in which the pair was asked to reach a consensus and
then were called on individually to give a response to the
class. For groups having difficulties, we tried:
• faculty-led meetings to air grievances and seek
solutions.
• student-authored memos to unresponsive group
members.
• confidential conversations with individual
students. Fig. 4. Representative gutter-cleaning system.
• faculty-facilitated “working meetings” in which the (The structural framework connecting the
group was helped to function, kept on task, and by machine to a vehicle is not shown.)
example shown how the desired skills are used.
• as a last resort, dysfunctional groups were Logistical results
disbanded at mid-year.
In contrast to the technical issues, most of the logistical
issues were adequately addressed even though our vision of
Results
active and persistent collaboration among students at NCAT
and UST was not realized. Most students deemed the
Technical results
teaming, presentation, and grading policies fair and
consistent. Having two instructors assess the oral and
A representative example of student design is shown in
written presentations aided learning for both students and
Fig. 4. Overall, the project results were adequate, and two
faculty.
goals were attained— reducing the burden on students
The time-to-market exercise at the end of the project
caused by multiple, short-term projects and assigning a
worked well. Teams that submitted early tended to get lower
meaningful design problem based on a documented need.
marks, which were offset by the extra credit given for early
However, the primary goal of having students develop a
completion. Teams that submitted later earned higher
design project in more depth than is usually expected in a
marks but no extra credit. Presumably the later reports were
single course was not attained. The students had more time
of higher quality than the earlier reports because students
for this project than they would have had otherwise, but that
were learning from one another’s mistakes.
time did not significantly enhance the project results
Students were assigned individual grades based on a
compared to projects from previous semesters. Neither the
group grade, adjusted according to their contribution as
level of application of design principles nor the level of
assessed by their teammates and the instructors. The peer-
integration of fundamental engineering topics seemed to be
assessment form is shown in Fig. 5. Students rated their
greater than usual for these courses. Students had no more
teammates confidentially, though not anonymously, with
than usual success in defining conceptual designs, detailed
two interesting results. First, assessments by conscientious
designs, and final designs. And student presentations
students were generally consistent with faculty assessments.
tended to contain more style than substance, reflecting
Second, students that were flippant or otherwise
students’ fragile abilities in applying engineering science to
unprofessional in assessing their classmates also tended to
problems in design.
be the students deemed by their peers to be poor performers.
This particular peer evaluation is the most satisfactory
approach we have tried in recent years.
Final distribution of project scores is shown in Fig. 6.
Final course grades are shown for comparison. Generally,
project scores are higher than course scores, reflecting both
our students’ superior presentation skills and their fragile
understanding of basic course content.
admonishment that in industry they won’t always be able to
choose their teammates. We counseled them in team skills
Peer Evaluation of Design Project over the course of the semester. At the end of the first
Rate on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent).
Do not rate yourself. semester, these two students were not only working well
Team member — > #1 #2 #3 #4 together, they jointly volunteered to make a technical
presentation to a class of lower-class engineering students
Write team member’s
name vertically in during which they extemporaneously lectured their audience
column — > on the importance of developing good team skills. The
Attends meetings audience responded well to their comments [6].
regularly In contrast, another group (two women and three men)
Contributes to was never able to overcome their distrust of one another nor
discussions
their reluctance to attempt working as a team. The basic
Has good
communication skills sources of interpersonal friction were strong preferences for
Committed to group working individually, lack of commitment to team goals,
goals and an unwillingness to accept criticism. Gender, too,
Listens effectively seemed to play a role. Progress in overcoming these
Takes responsibilities difficulties was made, late in the semester, through a
seriously faculty-facilitated working meeting. Had this been done
Accepts criticism earlier in the semester, and more than once, it is possible
gracefully
Performs significant that the group would have succeeded. The group was
tasks disbanded in the second semester.
Tasks have technical
content
Conclusions
Completes tasks on
time
The primary goal of having students develop a design
Fig. 5. Student peer-evaluation form. project in more depth than is usually expected in a single
course was not attained. Secondary goals of reducing the
burden on students caused by multiple, short-term projects
and assigning a meaningful design problem based on a
7 documented need were met.
6 However, the primary goal is attainable (in our
Project
opinion) through closer attention in and out of class to
5 Course
principles of design and building team skills. The published
4 learning objectives and suggested design procedures are
valuable, as long as students use them appropriately,
3
recognizing that these are not so much recipes as
2 guidebooks. Faculty have to work harder at encouraging a
sense of discovery instead of rote, algorithmic analysis. The
1
development of team skills is greatly enhanced through
0 faculty-facilitated working meetings, but the toll on a
90s 80s 70s 60s <60 faculty members’ time makes this strategy difficult to
Scores endorse. It might be possible instead to organize a
mandatory lecture or workshop on teaming with an in-
Fig. 6. Grade distribution in MEEN 565. house expert. Whatever shape it takes, some provision is
Group-work results necessary to more formally familiarize our students with the
uncertainties and ambiguities of both team skills and
We had mixed success in assisting students develop design.
team skills. The following two anecdotes describe the range Another joint project is planned for this course
of success and failure. sequence for the 98-99 academic year. One of the authors
At the beginning of the project, two members of one (R. Layton) will repeat the experiment with a different
group avoided speaking to one another, would not colleague, building on the lessons learned here.
collaborate, and requested to be placed in separate groups.
We refused and encouraged them to work together with the
References

[1] Norton, R., Design of Machinery, McGraw-Hill, 1992.


[2] Juvinall, R. and Marshek, K., Fundamentals of
Machine Component Design, 2nd ed., Wiley, 1991.
[3] Hyman, B., Fundamentals of Engineering Design,
Prentice Hall, 1998.
[4] Felder, R. and Brent, R., “Navigating the Bumpy Road
to Student-Centered Instruction,” College Teaching
44(2), 1996, pp. 43-47.
[5] Shelnutt, W., “Coaching Multidisciplinary Teams, Just
Enough at Just the Right Time,” SUCCEED Coalition
Workshop on Multidisciplinary Design, Charlotte, NC,
25 Mar 98.
[6] Pai, D., Kelkar, A., Layton, R., et al., “Vertical
Integration of the Undergraduate Learning
Experience,” in proc. of ASEE Annual Conference,
Seattle, 1998.

You might also like