Educating Designers On Design Via Distance Learning
Uwakmfon
Educating Designers On Design Via Distance Learning
This paper describes the experiences of the Department of Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics at Michigan Tech University in teaching conceptual capstone design to corporate designers, and it presents the challenges of adapting the traditional course delivery to students learning at a distance. This design course includes the integration of creativity with design; it simultaneously addresses a traditional on-campus population in a two-semester sequence and a group of corporate employees (100 to 200 students) at a remote location in a one-semester accelerated version. Differences are explored, ranging from cultural and logistical to the motivation of on-campus students versus off-campus designers in learning new methodologies. The challenges, logistics and organization, successes, failures, changes, and recommendations are discussed, based on experiences during Spring 2004 and Spring 2005. Background and Challenges The Designing Engineer Certificate (DEC) program was created by Michigan Tech in 2000 to meet the needs of a corporate distance learning client—its goal was to significantly enhance the skill and knowledge base of designers and engineers having diverse educational and experiential backgrounds. The program emphasizes the use of modern solid modeling tools to build a virtual model of a system, together with finite element programs for the evaluation of stress and deflection in the virtual model. The DEC core courses build on the fundamentals and encompass many of the mechanical design concepts included in the distance-learning Bachelor of Science in Engineering (BSE) degree program offered to people working in industry. 1 The capstone design project is the culmination in both the certificate course sequence and the on-campus course sequence. An important requirement by the client was that the distance-learning capstone design course must incorporate the same principles as the capstone course taught to on-campus students. This constraint represented a major challenge, not only because the distance-learning students had different educational backgrounds and experience levels, but because the content had to be delivered in one semester (e.g., Spring 2004), whereas the on-campus students had two semesters (e.g., Spring 2004 and Fall 2004) to complete their projects. Other challenging differences included project selection, team formation, team project monitoring and final course assessment. The instructional team also faced the challenges of integrating their teaching approaches and streamlining the topics and reading materials required of all students, while placing an increased emphasis on creative thinking and the development of new design concepts. P ge 10501.1 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2005, American Society for Engineering Education” Evolution of Course Content and Objectives Two professors with different perspectives and experiences in teaching design teamed up to teach the capstone design course for the academic periods designated “2004” (Spring 2004/Fall 2004) and “2005” (Spring 2005/Fall 2005). Professor Evensen’s design background is in the area of “Design for X” (DFX), whereas Professor Lumsdaine has co-authored and taught conceptual design based on a creative problem solving model. The main texts used were Engineering Design by George Dieter 2 and Creative Problem Solving and Engineering Design by Edward Lumsdaine, Monika Lumsdaine and J. William Shelnutt. 3 To streamline the reading materials and substantially reduce the costs to the students for purchasing the books, a customized edition was produced at the suggestion of the McGraw-Hill campus representative; it is Creative Problem Solving and Engineering Design 2 and combines all the material from Reference 3 with selected chapters from Reference 2 in the areas of information sources, ethics and DFX. 4 The course content traditionally taught at Michigan Tech during the first semester was retained, but the emphasis was shifted toward conceptual idea generation, development, and communication, as shown in Table 1. Table 1 Capstone Design Course Syllabus and Sequence of Topics Introduction 1, 2 Course requirements, grading; project descriptions; need identification; design journals Foundational Thinking Tools 3, 4 Thinking styles model (HBDI); application to teamwork and communication 5 Creative problem solving: model overview; problem definition (explorer + detective) 6 Creative problem solving continued: idea generation (artist), creative idea evaluation (engineer), critical evaluation (judge), solution implementation (producer) 12 Overcoming mental blocks to creative thinking Engineering Design and Project Management Tools 7,8,18 Design documentation, formats; how to give an effective oral presentation 11 Project planning and scheduling charts (using CD templates in the textbook) 13, 14 The Pugh method for creative design concept evaluation and solution optimization 15 Information sources and patent searching 17 Economic decision making (using CD templates in the textbook) 19 QFD and design specifications (or other just-in-time topics needed by specific projects) 21 Prototyping and prototype testing 22, 23 Product liability; ethics 24–26 Design for X (DFX); design for manufacturability (DFM) 10 “Innovation in the Workplace” Individual and Team Project Deliverables and Course Assessment 9 Oral team presentation of project proposal; written proposal is submitted to sponsor 16 Oral and written team presentation of progress report to instructors and sponsor 20 Written exam on reading assignments and design concepts 27 Final oral team presentation and poster exhibition; design journals 28 Peer contribution rating form; course evaluation; final team project report. P ge 10501.2 “Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright 2005, American Society for Engineering Education” Only three adjustments had to be made in the course syllabi between the campus students and the distance learning students to account for the major differences between the two groups: 1. “Innovation in the Workplace” Lecture: This topic was scheduled for the distance learning students while the on-campus students were on winter break. For the on-campus students, it was shifted to the second semester when they receive other materials commonly known by or provided to people working in industry, such as FMEA (failure modes and effects analysis) or support for patent applications. 2. Project Reports: The distance learning students had to have their projects completed and documented by the end of the semester, including prototyping and testing, whereas the oncampus students had a second semester to finish their projects. Thus the oral team progress report half-way into the first semester was a major presentation for the distance learning students, whereas the campus students were limited to a 3-minute briefing to their class and instructors. Both groups, however, were required to submit a complete written report. For the off-campus students, the final team project report was the last element in the course. On the other hand, for the on-campus students, the final team project report at the end of the first semester was an extensive progress, or “accomplishments to date,” report, where all major decisions on the best design concept had been made. The second semester’s work then consisted of detail design, building the prototype, analysis, testing, and preparing a final report that could include operating instructions and manuals if required by the sponsor. 3. Use of the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI): At the beginning of the capstone design course, the on-campus students completed an on-line HBDI survey form to assess their thinking preferences. 5 The results were used to form mentally diverse teams which had at least one member with a strong preference for right-brain, conceptual thinking, together with members with dominant interpersonal, organizational, or analytical thinking modes as outlined in Table 2. 3,5,6 Although initial communication can be difficult in such “whole-brain” teams, the members learn to appreciate the contributions and perspectives their differences bring to the team, and the team is eventually able to achieve superior results. Table 2 Thinking Characteristics and Behavioral Clues of the Herrmann Model Rational Financial Academic Quantitative Mathematical Analytical Technical Critical Realistic Authoritarian Logical Factual
