A Review of Practical Design Integration Methods for Existing Engineering Curriculum

Design is a fundamental aspect of engineering education. Traditionally, students are challenged with acquiring a skillset for design during their first year in introductory design courses and their last year in senior capstone design courses. In most engineering undergraduate curricula, throughout the sophomore and junior year, design is not necessarily a focus. Some efforts have been made in an attempt to incorporate design through every year of the engineering curriculum. Some of these notable efforts include the Conceive-DesignImplement-Operate (CDIO) initiative implemented at various universities and the Institute for Design Engineering and Applications (IDEA) at Northwestern University, both of which showcase a completely restructured curriculum. While the CDIO framework and the IDEA program have been proven effective, not all institutions desire or are practically able to drastically restructure their curriculum. Therefore, practical methods of design integration to existing curriculum may prove more useful to these institutions. This paper includes a review of practical methods used to incorporate design in various engineering courses. Specific design integration methods reviewed in the paper include examples of project-based learning, inquirybased learning, design competitions, case study modules, reverse engineering, and design-based learning. Assessments of these methods are qualitative in nature thus the comparisons are also qualitative. The goal of this research effort is to provide a brief review of current methods found in the literature. While a qualitative comparison of the methods is discussed, providing assessments of each method lies outside of the scope of this work. History of engineering education and the role of design Engineering education is continually evolving. The purpose of formal engineering education in the United States, at its inception in the early 1800s, was to promote “the application of science to the common purposes of life” . Engineering educators in the 1800s were merely practitioners and relied on their professional, hands-on experience to train their students. Interestingly, engineering was not viewed as an esteemed academic endeavor at the time. The Homestead Act, the construction of the Union Pacific Railroad, and the Morrill Land Grant Act led to rapid economic development in the late 1800s, and the amount of engineering schools significantly increased across the nation. Engineering curricula during this period was based on specialized technical training to allow graduates to become immediately useful in industrial design careers and to efficiently meet the needs of the quickly developing economy. This trend of education continued and “by 1900, it was generally recognized that American laboratories and methods for the teaching of engineering were not surpassed and often not equaled in any other part of the world. This could not be claimed, however, for much of the theoretical instruction in design” . Despite the weakness of design theory instruction, the focus on applied learning and hands-on experience in engineering schools sufficiently met the needs of the booming manufacturing, automobile, aviation, and electrical industries of the time. After World War I, engineering education shifted from the applied, specialized training to a more general training focused on science, humanities, and the administrative and professional responsibilities of the engineer. Engineering programs across the nation were simplified to create curricula useful in a wide range of occupations. The effects of World War II caused yet another shift in engineering education. The rigorous study of scientific theory and mathematics became the foundation for engineering education to meet the demand for technological advancement in nearly all engineering branches. P ge 26100.2 This educational foundation remained prominent throughout the “Space Race” with the Soviet Union. In 1955, the acclaimed Grinter Report was issued and provided a thorough evaluation of current engineering education methods and made recommendations for the future of engineering education with the growing economy and rapid scientific and technological developments in mind. The report claimed that engineering curricula should focus on the studies of “humanities, social sciences, mathematics, and basic sciences, engineering sciences, engineering specialty subjects, and electives” . The guidelines in the Grinter Report impacted engineering education until the 1990s when a call for curriculum reform was made . It was argued that engineering curricula heavily emphasized scientific theory while abandoning engineering design and creative synthesis . The hands-on training and applied learning methods of earlier engineering education were re-introduced to the curricula, and design became a major focus in the reform of engineering education. The Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology 3 influenced the development of capstone design courses offered to senior-level students to meet the need of design implementation in engineering curricula . Capstone design courses enable students to become familiar with the engineering design process through a class project requiring the application of knowledge and training received in freshman, sophomore, and junior level courses. While the addition of capstone design courses has successfully integrated the design process in engineering education, it has been argued that design integration throughout the entire curriculum is necessary . Several institutions have taken this notion to heart and have completely restructured their curriculum around design. Examples of completely restructured engineering curricula with design foundation Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology developed and implemented the Conceive-Design-Implement-Operate (CDIO) initiative to resolve two irreconcilable needs: teaching students how to apply technical knowledge to real world problems and equipping students with the personal, interpersonal, and system building skills necessary to function in the professional engineering environment . The CDIO initiative requires curriculum reform and maintains twelve standards related to syllabus outcomes, integrated curriculum, design projects, workspaces, integrated and active learning experiences, faculty training, student evaluations, and program assessments . Graduates of institutions that follow the CDIO framework are expected to fully understand the product-system lifecycle which consists of four metaphases: conceiving, designing, implementing, and operating. These four metaphases form the context of engineering education within the CDIO initiative. Northwestern University established the Institute for Design Engineering and Applications (IDEA) to benefit students with a comprehensive, inter-disciplinary design experience throughout their undergraduate studies. IDEA offers a design certification program for students after completion of several design-related courses, an engineering design portfolio, and multiple design projects . The portfolio must demonstrate the students’ proficiency in the design process, design analysis, prototyping and implementation, modern software tools, and effective communication. To enhance communication skills and provide quality instruction and feedback, students collaborate with graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, faculty advisors, and industry professionals to complete projects. Graduates of IDEA are trained to become competent designers and reflective practitioners of engineering. They acquire a well-rounded design skillset that helps them solve difficult design problems, reflect upon their methods and solutions, and make revisions to their solution approach if required . P ge 26100.3 While these efforts are notable, perhaps ideal, examples for engineering curriculum with a design focus, their approaches are not easily implemented. A collaborative effort is required to implement these programs. Faculty, administrative staff, students, and industry professionals all contribute to the development and implementation of the CDIO framework and the IDEA program. While these two programs effectively provide students with a comprehensive engineering design skillset, the collaborative efforts required to implement such completely restructured curricula do not practically meet the needs of all engineering institutions. Practical design integration methods that do not require complete curriculum restructuring may better serve these institutions. Examples of practical design integration methods for existing engineering curriculum Embracing curriculum reform is not an easy task. Engineering faculty desiring to integrate the design process throughout their curriculum must develop innovative and insightful ways to do so without drastically changing existing curriculum. Slightly modifying the content of an engineering course is perhaps the most realistic approach 11, . Several examples of practical design integration methods are provided to meet this need. Papers cited either provide qualitative assessments which are difficult to normalize, or they do not provide assessments at all. Therefore, providing an assessment of these methods lies outside of the scope of this work. Project-based learning Perhaps the most effective way to teach engineering design is through project-based learning methods. Project-based learning allows “students to learn design by experiencing design as active participants” . The literature suggests that improvements in retention rates, student satisfaction, and student learning are observed when project-based learning methods are used . The senior level capstone design course is one example of project-based learning. Design projects can also be incorporated into other engineering courses as demonstrated by the following examples. Libii at Indiana University-Purdue University at Fort Wayne has successfully int