Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Available online atonline
Available www.sciencedirect.com
at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia CIRP 00 (2020) 000–000
ScienceDirect
ScienceDirect www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
Procedia CIRP 00 (2020) 000–000
Procedia CIRP 00 (2017)
Procedia 000–000
CIRP 91 (2020) 565–570 www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia

30th CIRP Design 2020 (CIRP Design 2020)

Project-based 28th
learning
CIRP in an
30th Design
CIRP engineering-design
Design 2020 (CIRP
Conference, Design
May 2018, course
2020)
Nantes, France – developing
mechanical-
Project-based engineering
learning graduates for the course
in an engineering-design world of work
–architecture
developing
A new methodology to analyze the functional and physical of
existingmechanical- engineering
products forRamesh
an assembly graduates
Kuppuswamy oriented
a forMhakure
the world
product
*, Duncan family
b ofidentification
work
a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
Ramesh
PaulADP:
Stief
b
Numeracy Kuppuswamy
*, Jean-Yves
Centre, of Cape*,Town,
Dantan,
University
a
Duncan
Alain Mhakure
CapeEtienne,
Town AlibAfrica
7700, South Siadat
* Corresponding
Écoleauthor. Tel.:Supérieure
Nationale +27 a21 650d’Arts
4872;of
Department etfax: +27 21Arts
Mechanical
Métiers, 6503210. E-mail
Engineering,
et Métiers address:LCFC
University
ParisTech, Ramesh.kuppuswamy@uct.ac.za
of Cape
EATown,
4495,Cape
4 RueTown, South
Augustin Africa Metz 57078, France
Fresnel,
b
ADP: Numeracy Centre, University of Cape Town, Cape Town 7700, South Africa

**Corresponding
Correspondingauthor.
author.Tel.:
Tel.:+33
+27321
87650 4872;
37 54 30; fax: +27address:
E-mail 21 6503210. E-mail address: Ramesh.kuppuswamy@uct.ac.za
paul.stief@ensam.eu
Abstract

This paper explores the use of project-based learning as an effective pedagogy to integrate institutional curriculum in a mechanical engineering
Abstract
Abstract
design course and the skills demands for the world of work. Current engineering education institutions produce engineers who are great scientists
– knowledgeable in engineering science, mathematics and analytical techniques, and research, but are nonetheless mediocre in the design of
InThis paperbusiness
today’s
components,
exploresenvironment,
the use of project-based
processes, or systems. the In
trend learning
thistowards
paper we
as an
more
argue
effective
product pedagogy
variety
that the
to integrate institutional
and customization
engineering is unbroken.
education design
curriculum in development,
Due tothrough
curriculum, this a mechanical engineering
project-based thelearning,
need of
design
agile course and the skills demandssystems
for the world of work. Current engineering education institutions produce engineers who are great scientists
offers students the opportunities to experience engineering design the way it is practiced and simulated in industry. Dataand
and reconfigurable production emerged to cope with various products and product families. To design for optimize
the study production
constitutes
– knowledgeable
systems asusing as into engineering
well three science, product
choose the knowledge,
optimal mathematics and product
analytical techniques, and are
research, butIndeed,
are nonetheless mediocre in the design of
analyses, categories: skills,matches,
and values, of theanalysis
students’methods
performance needed.
in a mechanical most of the
engineering known
productmethods aim to
design course.
components,
analyze a processes,
product or one or systems.
product familyIn on
thisthepaper we argue
physical level. that the engineering
Different product education
families, designmay
however, curriculum,
differ through
largely in project-based
terms of the learning,
number and
Students were required to: Design a 21/2 axis Basic SCARA ROBOT (Selective Compliance Assembly Robot Arm) for a given application. A
offers of
nature students the opportunities
components. to experience
This factworking
impedes engineering design the way it is practiced and simulated in industry. Data for the forstudy constitutes
survey from graduate students inan efficient
industry comparison
shows that that and choice
project-based of learning,
appropriate product
enabled themfamily combinations
to effectively function theanproduction
in industrial
analyses,
system. using
A new three
methodologycategories: knowledge, skills, and values, of the students’ performance in a mechanical engineering product design course.
atmosphere where designing isproducts
proposed wereto analyze existing
the mainstay. products ainone-way
In addition, view of ANOVA
their functional and that
test shows physical
there architecture. The aim is to
were strong associations cluster
observed
Students
these wereinrequired
products new to: Design
assembly a 21/2
oriented axis Basic
product SCARA
families for ROBOT
the (Selective
optimization of Compliance
existing assemblyAssembly
lines andRobot
the Arm) forofafuture
creation given reconfigurable
application. A
in the development of skills between: knowledge and skills (p = 0.001); and skills and values (p = 0.0008).
survey from
assembly graduate
systems. Based students
on Datumworking
FlowinChain,
industrytheshows
physical thatstructure
that project-based learning,
of the products enabledFunctional
is analyzed. them to effectively function
subassemblies are in an industrial
identified, and
© 2020
atmosphere
a Keywords: The Authors.
where
functionalKeywords: Published
designing
analysis project-based by
productsElsevier
were
is performed.learning;
Moreover, B.V.
the mainstay.
aofhybrid In addition, a one-way
functional and physical ANOVA test
architecture shows that there were strong associations
graph (HyFPAG) is the output which depicts observed
the
This world work; engineering-design course; product design
in theisdevelopment
similarity
an open access
between product
articlebetween:
of skills under the CC BY-NC-ND
families byknowledge
providingand design
license
skills (p =(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
support 0.001); andproduction
to both, skills and values
system(pplanners
= 0.0008). and product designers. An illustrative
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CIRP Design Conference 2020
example of a nail-clipper is used to explain the proposed methodology. An industrial case study on two product families of steering columns of
Keywords: Keywords: project-based
is thenlearning;
carried world
out toofgive
work; engineering-design course; product design
1. Introduction
thyssenkrupp Presta France a first the learning
industrial evaluation curve of approach.
of the proposed a design engineer becomes shortened; less
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. design mistakes, economical and down to earth design
Peer-review under responsibility
A wide-spread echo from of thethe
scientific committee
industry tabulatesof thethat
28th CIRP Design Conference
(Kupusuz & Can, 2014). 2018. Mechanical engineering projects in the
1. Introduction the learning curve of a design engineer becomes shortened; less
graduates emerge from the mechanical engineering stream were real-world
design are inherently
mistakes, complex,
economical andill-defined,
down toandearth challenging
design
Keywords: Assembly; Design method; Family identification
notAdeveloping the critical “skills needed
wide-spread echo from the industry tabulates that in the workplace” (Barroso et al., 2016). For mechanical-engineering
(Kupusuz & Can, 2014). Mechanical engineering projects graduate
in the
(Nair et al.,
graduates 2009,from
emerge p. 132). Since mostengineering
the mechanical engineeringstream jobs entail
were students to are
real-world copeinherently
with the complex
complex,problems
ill-defined,thatand
theychallenging
encounter
designing and practice,
not developing engineering
the critical education
“skills needed in should then aim
the workplace” in the real-world
(Barroso of work,
et al., 2016). Forgraduate students need to be
mechanical-engineering taught
graduate
at preparing
1.(Nair
Introduction graduates to meet the needs of industry
et al., 2009, p. 132). Since most engineering jobs entail of (Duston et and trained
the product
students using
to coperange project-based
andcomplex
with the learning
characteristics
problems (PBL)
manufactured approach
and/or
that they encounter
al., 1997).and
designing The manufacturing
practice, engineering industry
educationthrives
should because
then aim of assembled
(Gratchev
in in&this
the real-world Jeng,
system.2018).
of work, Ascontext,
Ingraduate
this anstudents
enquiry-based
the main to belearning
need challengetaughtin
designing,
at Due to manufacturing
preparing graduates and selling
the fast todevelopment
meet the needscutting
in edge
the products
of industry domain
(Duston into
of approach,
et modelling
and trainedPBL
andusing– provides
analysis is students
now notwith
project-based onlyopportunities
learning to cope
(PBL)with tosingle
apply
approach
the
al., marketplace.
communication
1997). Theand For anthese products
ongoing
manufacturing to beofthrives
trend
industry competitive
digitization
because inand
the their formally
of products,
(Gratchev & taught
a limitedJeng, knowledge
product
2018).rangeAstoorsolve ill-defined
anexisting product
enquiry-based tasks which
families,
learning
marketplace
digitalization, both “timing
manufacturing
designing, manufacturing and quality
andenterprises are
selling cuttingessential,
are edge
facing and both
important
products are are
into but presented
also to be
approach, PBL with
able minimum information,
to analyzestudents
– provides and to compare requiring minimum
products totodefine
with opportunities apply
dependent
challenges on
in the
the marketplace. design
today’s
For theseof the
market product” (Nicolai,
environments:
products to be a 1998,
competitive p. the
continuing
in 7). new
guidance
theirproductfrom
formally a facilitator
families.
taught It can be
knowledge – aobserved
tomore
solveknowledgeable
that classical
ill-defined tasks person.
existing
which
Current engineering
tendency
marketplacetowards education
both reduction
“timing and institutions
of quality
product are produce
development
essential, and engineers
times
bothand Several
are product
are methods
families
presented with were
are attempted
regrouped
minimum on teaching
in function
information, product
ofrequiring
clients design
orminimum
features.
who are
shortened great
dependentproduct scientists
on the lifecycles.
design of the – knowledgeable
In addition,
product” there in engineering
is an1998,
(Nicolai, increasing and
p. 7). However,Table 1
guidance assembly describes the selected
oriented product
from a facilitator – a more teaching
families and assessment
are hardly to
knowledgeable find.
person.
science,of
demand
Current mathematics
customization,
engineering and being
analytical
education at thetechniques,
institutions timeand
sameproduce research,
in engineers
a global approaches used for
On themethods
Several product product
family
were design
level,
attempted course.
products
on differ product
teaching mainly in two
design
but are
who arenonetheless
competition great mediocre
with scientists
competitors in over
– all the design
the world.
knowledgeable of
in components,
This trend,
engineering andThe
main literature
characteristics:
Table shows
1 describes that
(i) the
the PBL as
number
selected a teaching
ofteaching
components andapproach
and in
(ii) the
assessment
processes,
which
science, or systems
is mathematics
inducing theand (Banios, 1991).
development Bringing
from macro
analytical techniques, the industry
andtoresearch,
micro engineering
type education
of components
approaches used for(e.g. has four
mechanical,
product key advantages. First,
electrical, electronical).
design course. PBL
atmosphere
markets,
but to the
results
are nonethelessin classroom
mediocreyield
diminished immense
lotthe
in sizes duebenefits
design such as:
to components,
of augmenting allows
The students
Classical toshows
engagethat
methodologies
literature in solving
PBL as complex,
considering amainly
teaching andapproach
single ill-defined
products in
product varieties
processes, (high-volume
or systems (Banios,to1991).
low-volume
Bringing production) [1].
the industry or solitary, already
engineering educationexisting
has four product families analyze
key advantages. First, PBLthe
To cope withtothis
atmosphere
2212-8271 © 2020 the augmenting
The classroom
variety
yield
Authors. Published
as well benefits
immense
by Elsevier B.V.
as to besuch able as:
to product structuretoonengage
allows students a physical level (components
in solving complex, and level) which
ill-defined
identify possible optimization potentials in the existing causes
Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the CIRP Design Conference 2020.difficulties regarding an efficient definition and
production system, it is important to have a precise knowledge comparison of different product families. Addressing this
2212-8271 © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review
2212-8271 ©under
2020responsibility
The Authors. of Published
the scientific
bycommittee of the CIRP Design Conference 2020.
Elsevier B.V.
This is an©open
2212-8271 2017access article Published
The Authors. under theby CC BY-NC-ND
Elsevier B.V. license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Peer-review
Peer-review under
under responsibility
responsibility of scientific
of the the scientific committee
committee of the of theCIRP
28th CIRP Design
Design Conference
Conference 2020
2018.
10.1016/j.procir.2020.02.215
 566 Ramesh Kuppuswamy et al. / Procedia CIRP 91 (2020) 565–570
2 Ramesh Kuppuswamy, Duncan Mhacure / Procedia CIRP 00 (2020) 000–000
real-world problems where multiple solutions are expected –
unlike in a traditional classroom setting where contrived
problems are used (Gratchev & Jeng, 2018). Second, PBL gives
students the opportunity to work collaboratively on real-world
problems which are ill-defined, hence developing critical
thinking skills and teamwork (Neo & Neo, 2009). Third, PBL
allows students to work on problem like those in world of work,
students can develop the skills relevant to their professional
careers.
Table 1: Summary of four selected methods on teaching & assessment
of product design
Blended learning environments: Encourages the integration of technology
with the traditional face-to-face teaching approaches thus fostering flexible,
interactive, and affective learning environments (Boelens et al., 2018).
Learners predominantly control the realization of the blended learning
benefits
Augmented reality (AR) technology: AR creates a learning experience on
interface between real world and computer-generated objects. Future
engineers require real practical learning. AR provides ways of blending
virtual and real world thus increasing students’ independent learning, and
maximising resources and time (Martín-Gutiérrez et al., 2015). Teachers
have limited knowledge on AR software whereas the developers are not
familiar with creative design education, which makes it difficult to
incorporate AR.
Problem-based learning: A student-centred approach to learning, that
Increases students’ factual knowledge in addition to developing their higher
problem- solving skills. Allows students to construct their own knowledge
base – which is beyond factual. The archived knowledge enable them to
solve problem located in unfamiliar contexts. For students who are
unfamiliar with the problem-based learning approach, lack of confidence
could be a hinderance (Yadav et al., 2011).
Case-based instruction: Students are taught using cases like the ones they
will get in the world of work. It increases students’: problem solving skills;
higher order cognitive skills; understanding concepts; and act as a
motivation to learning in general. Students are given the opportunity to see
complex the application and importance of mechanical engineering
concepts in the real world without any concerns about the impact of their
concerns. Has not been used within design engineering because educators
have limited ability to use it in their courses (Holley,2017; Yodav, 2010).
In addition to developing long-term knowledge retention,
the use of real-world problems in PBL, motivates the students
to engage with the learning activities (Zhou et al., 2012; Uziak,
2016). Last, through demonstrating how theories can be applied
to find solutions of ill-defined real-world problems, PBL
strongly supports the integration of theory and practice (Shekar,
2014). Kapusuz and Can (2014) also argue that PBL provides
more effective pedagogy when integrating institutional
curriculum and the skills demands for the world of work. In this
paper we argue that the engineering education design
curriculum, should offer students the opportunities to
experience engineering design the way it is practiced and
simulated in industry – these opportunities can be provided for
using project-based learning (Lopez-Quero, 2014). Barroso et
al. (2016, p. 249) argues that “it is certainly clear that any
improvement to the existing lecture-centric programs that
dominate engineering would be welcomed by students, industry
and accreditors alike”. The central question that this paper seeks
to address is: How does PBL in an undergraduate engineering
course promote the development of mechanical design skills
required in the world of work? Design projects encourage the
students to be active and creative, cope with engineering
challenges and get practical experience. As a result of business
world globalization, many industrial companies operate in a
vibrant and multicultural environment. They realized that
engineers work in their company meet the both technical
engineering skills and soft skills such as: communication skills,
team-work ability and the understanding of other society
cultures. This paper explores the project-based learning and
assessment of a mechanical design course at the university level
on its contents and students’ projects. In order to get feedback
from the project based mechanical design, focus group
discussions and a survey were conducted, and the results are
presented. We asked them about the contribution of the design
project experience on their practical design knowledge and
whether it had an impact on their performance in their learning.
2. Framework of the project based mechanical design
course
In general the design framework for four-year programmes:
BSc (Eng) in Mechanical Engineering and BSc (Eng) in
Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering degrees are
structured according to guiding learning outcomes – students
should be able to: i) specify, design, develop and evaluate
precision mechanical and electro-mechanical components,
subsystems or products; ii) have thorough knowledge of
product development procedures and methodologies,
conceptual design, design evaluation, and able to generate
general arrangement (GA) drawings for tender purposes and
final client approval; and iii) generate technical data packs
containing detail drawings and engineering bill of materials
(EBOM) with inclusion of tolerances, machining, welding and
material treatment specifications. In the context of this study, a
multidisciplinary teamwork project was assigned to the final
year mechanical/electromechanical engineering students.
A teaching exercise towards enhancing the generic
knowledge on a product development process was done through
formal lectures and weekly tutorial sessions. In addition, the
students are supported through scaffolding of the design
activities; formal and informal consultations with the lecturer;
workshop activities; and through peer interactions – where
students use each other’s thinking as resources. A digital
platform was created for the course and in this platform both
lecture notes and design support information such as: material
standards, industrial catalogue, geometric, dimension and
tolerances and machine element standards were uploaded. Fig.1
shows the PBL towards executing the design project for
successful completion of the mechanical design course.
From time to time assessment is done to evaluate the success
of the PBL and applied necessary course corrections such as:
additional explanations on project instructions, additional
formal and informal scaffolding were done. Shown in Fig. 2 is
the assessment framework for the PBL of a project driven
mechanical design course. In this study, data constitutes focus
group interviews and satisfactory survey of students about their
experiences of using PBL to acquire mechanical design skills
as outlined by the design courses guiding principles. Students’
performance on assignments were tested for correlation and
significance differences. By tracking graduate students who are
already working in the industry, the study seeks to investigate
the impact of the mechanical design course using PBL had
prepared them to solve design tasks they encountered in the
workplace.
 Ramesh Kuppuswamy et al. / Procedia CIRP 91 (2020) 565–570 567
Ramesh Kuppuswamy, Duncan Mhacure/ Procedia CIRP 00 (2020) 000–000 3

Fig.1: Framework of PBL for a mechanical design course

Fig. 2: Assessment framework of PBL in a mechanical design course

assessment was devised to check both theoretical and practical

A two-stage assessment was imparted on the mechanical
design course. In the first stage the knowledge garnered by the
student was assessed through administration of assignments and
project report for a given design project. A systematic design
process was taught, and the students were evaluated on the
specific knowledge elements such as: problem formation,
design planning, design analysis, lifecycle cost computation and
a detailed design in the form of engineered part drawings and
assembly drawings. In the second stage the knowledge elements
were corroborated against the learning outcomes stipulated by
the Engineering Council of South Africa. As a result, this
knowledge required for the product design project.
3. Project-based learning methodology
A team project task was given to the students of product
design course and the details of a typical project task is given
below.
• Project task: Design a Two and half axes basic SCARA
ROBOT (Selective Compliance Assembly Robot Arm) for an
industrial application as a part of the product design course. The
568 Ramesh Kuppuswamy et al. / Procedia CIRP 91 (2020) 565–570
4 Ramesh Kuppuswamy, Duncan Mhacure / Procedia CIRP 00 (2020) 000–000

proposed basic SCARA ROBOT (see Fig.3) system may
consist of several modules such as: Basic Structure & X axis; Y
axis; Z -axis; End of Arm Tooling; supportive fixturing for
assembly; and Controller. Each full axis (X & Y) would include
positional and velocity loop whereas the half axis which is Z
axis is intended to use for pick and place and hence only
positional loop is to be included. Therefore, Z axis termed as
half axis. A team of 4 engineers, consisting of both mechanical
and electro-mechanical engineers, have assembled to execute
the design of each sub-module design in the short time frame
available. Each team have a system engineer whose main task
is to integrate the team member’s work and deliver a quality
output that meets the project requirement. The roles and
responsibility of the project team are given in Table. 2. The
students are expected to apply a comprehensive approach duly
considering user needs, planning and managing the process,
evaluation of alternatives, analysing techno-economic
performance and communicating the design solution. As a part
of the project build-up initial attempts were centred on building
the project using scientific tools such as Product requirement
specifications (PRS) of the system/sub-system, Functional
analysis (FA) of the system, Quality function diagram (QFD)
with appropriate assessment of the different design concepts,
Annotated Sketches of the design alternatives and resource
planning. Upon completion of the design concepts the students
were expected to build a decision support matrix to identify the
most suitable design for the intended task. The selected concept
would then be subject to a life cycle costing analysis and
computation of “VALUE” which is a ratio of “WORTH” to
“LIFE CYCLE COST”. This will enable the students to
understand the major expected gains in the new design.
Necessary adjustments to enhance the VALUE would then be
evolved through further fine tuning the design, manufacturing
and assembly. Upon satisfactory magnitude of the “VALUE” a
detailed design consists of 3D models, assembly drawings and
bill of materials were developed.
Table 2: Roles and responsibilities of the project team
Role Responsibility
Systems engineer Overall system design, Basic structure design X-
Axis Unit design
Design engineer A Y-Axis unit design
Design engineer B Z-axis design, controller
Design engineer C End of arm tooling, Fixturing for the application
Fig. 3: Project sketch of the Basic SCARA ROBOT
4. Results and discussion
Fig. 4 show the examples of three different students’ designs
(in 3D model) of the project product.
Fig. 4: Three different designs demonstrated by the students
after the implementation of PBL method
As a result of the PBL methodology students have
demonstrated their ability to systematically formulate the
design, and able to deliver a quality design output. The design
consists of both manufacturing components, standard
components and bought out sub-units. Furthermore, the
students have extended their thought process towards creating
the SCARA robot design for variety of applications such as
inspection of Printed Circuit Board (PCB), dispensing of liquid
and assembly of capsule bottles. Also, different designs invert
mounting, and stand-alone mounting of the SCARA Robot
were noted that depicts the in-depth learning abilities of the
PBL method. The success of the PBL was evaluated using a
survey administered to the students who had successfully
completed the product design course and have become
practicing engineers. Nearly 78% of the past students (21
respondents) have responded to the survey and more than 50%
of the past students were working in a product design intensive
industry. The past students were asked to respond to each
statement by choosing a score from one to five. It was stated
that a score of five indicates that the past student is in very high
agreement of the stipulated statement whereas a score of 1
implies that the past student has a very low agreement with the
mentioned statement. The survey questions were devised into
three categories such as: knowledge, skills and values. The
knowledge category refers to the direct information
disseminated through formal lectures. The skills category refers
to the application of knowledge to resolve the given product
design problem with some assistance from the tutors and
lecturer. The values refer to the wisdom or the takeaway skill
to the industries. Table 3 shows the questions asked and the
average weightage of their response. The past students (84%)
agreed that the PBL method has enhanced their knowledge
content of the course. However, while executing the knowledge
 Ramesh Kuppuswamy et al. / Procedia CIRP 91 (2020) 565–570 569
Ramesh Kuppuswamy, Duncan Mhacure/ Procedia CIRP 00 (2020) 000–000 5

content into a design output, several students have faced suggests that the samples were drawn from a different
difficulties and hence only 74% of the respondents confirmed population as the survey statements were different. In addition
that knowledge was truly transformed into design skills. Eighty to the satisfactory survey of the students, focus group
percent (80%) of the past students acknowledged that the discussions were also conducted. Table 5 shows the summary
product design skills acquired from the use of PBL as an of the focus group questions and the students’ responses to the
instructional methodology, enabled them to effectively function questions.
in an industrial atmosphere where designing products was the Table 4: ANOVA Comparison tests on (A) knowledge and
mainstay. To further demonstrate the correlation between the skills (B) skills and values
knowledge and skills, ANOVA tests were performed. A one- Table 4A
way ANOVA test was applied to compare the effect of a single Analysis of Variance Results
factor on the different groups: knowledge, skills and values. Source DF SS MS F P
The findings of ANOVA Comparison tests on (i) knowledge Total 41 9.3326 0.2276
and skills (ii) skills and values are shown in Table 4 A and Table A 1 3.4572 3.4572 23.5364 <0.0001
4B. Error 40 5.8754 0.1468
Table 3: Summary of respondents’ survey and results DF: Degree of freedom; SS: Sum of Squares; MS: Mean square; F
Claim statement for assessment by Detail Average weightage of the
value: Ratio of mean square over error mean square; and P value:
the past students statement in agreement implies statically different between groups
Knowledge Skills Value Table 4B
Does the PBL enabled you to analyse 4.38
and define the design problem, and
Analysis of Variance Results
identify the criteria to reach an Source DF SS MS F P
Nearly 78% of the past students have responded the survey and more than 50% of the past students were working in a

acceptable solution?
Does the PBL instructional method 3.8
Total 41 5.191 0.1266
provides adequate information and A 1 1.2862 1.2862 13.1762 0.0008
applicable engineering knowledge to
handle the given product design Error 40 3.9047 0.0976
challenge? DF: Degree of freedom; SS: Sum of Squares; MS: Mean square; F
value: Ratio of mean square over error mean square; and P value:
Does the PBL method enable you 4.4
select a best solution using implies statically different between groups
engineering tools such as quality
function diagram, decision support
matrix? Table 5: Summary of findings from the focus group discussions
Do the lectures give exposure to 4.5 FC question Participants say
conduct a literature/patent search Explain •While working as a group, realistic data were harnessed
across the scientific search your in the design formulation process especially on tools:
platforms? thoughts on Quality function diagram and Functional analysis
The product design course, using 3.8 the design •The PBL facilitates learning by doing but the multi-
PBL as an instructional strategy, has problem dimensional challenges hindered the project completion
imparted a practical knowledge on formation
the design, manufacturing and
within the short time frame
assembly with emphasis on
while using •While devising the functional analysis output a severe
economics, fool proof and the PBL lack of information among team members was noted but
innovation methodology. the scaffolding support by the tutors addressed some of
The use of the PBL to teach the 3.6 our concerns effectively
product design course contribute Any thoughts • While evolving a design solution with active
beyond what was learned in other on design participation of team members a shift from artistic to
courses. concept engineering design was noted.
Does the PBL instructional method 3.5 formation • Tutorial sessions has helped to fine tune the concept
enable you to work in a team to
product design intensive industry.

and designs
effectively execute and deliver the
evaluation
design tasks?
Does the PBL instructional method 4.0 Any thoughts • The group discussion has enabled to understand
enable you to access, comprehends on life cycle sensitivity of the design change on LCC.
and applies knowledge acquired costing • PBL method opens unlimited thought leads and hence
outside formal instruction? (LCC) finishing the project in time remains as a daunting task
Does the PBL instructional method 4.65
• The concurrent lecture sessions helped a lot to establish
enable you to critically challenge the necessary equations for the LCC computations.
assumptions and embraces new Share your • PBL method creates a healthy competition between
thinking? experience team members especially on project completion.
on the • While integrating design corrections were required on
detailed the sub-units. This creates some conflict between
Statics such as P & F factor were used to analyse the data. P & design using members as different students have different priorities.
F factor enables to establish the relationship between the the PBL • Design for manufacture and assembly was not formally
different categories: knowledge, skills and values. The smaller method thought on the lecture hours. However, the tutorial
the “P” value, the smaller the probability of making mistakes sessions were helpful to make design corrections that
facilitate ease of manufacture and assemble.
by rejecting the null hypothesis, and consequently, the larger
• Lack of practical and commercial information for the
the corresponding coefficient. By evaluating the P-values of the sub-systems and standard machine components delay the
parameters: knowledge and skills, it is found that the P-values design project completion. However, the tutors and
which is smaller than 0.05 confirms a larger satisfaction on lectures support were immensely useful to stay in the
right track.
knowledge than the values. On a similar note it was observed
that there exists different level of satisfaction between skills and
This discussion has enabled us to deepen our understanding of
values. The values of “F” in Table 4A & 4B which is >1
the challenges and opportunities experienced by the students
570 Ramesh Kuppuswamy et al. / Procedia CIRP 91 (2020) 565–570
6 Ramesh Kuppuswamy, Duncan Mhacure / Procedia CIRP 00 (2020) 000–000
during the PBL method adopted in the product design course.
The student’s past performance on design subjects were
considered to establish the focus group composition. The focus
group comprises of three students of each group: best, average
and marginal students of the class. At the start of the focus
group discussion, the course convener had introduced the topics
such as: problem formation, concept development, concept
evaluations, life cycle costing and the detailed design. The
focus group discussion was devised to be exploratory in nature
seeking to identify and explain thought processes and
experiences on the PBL adopted for their product design course.
Flexibility were also introduced through allowing the
interactions between participants to bring out the values, beliefs
and perceptions of the PBL method. Every effort was taken to
avoid conflict and non-participation of less articulate students.
5. Conclusion
The use of PBL, as an instructional strategy, on the product
design course has helped the students to implement the
knowledge learned both in the engineering science and design
courses to evolve a practical product design solution. Both the
lectures and tutorials with the assistance of the tutors have
become an integral part of the learning process especially on
the practical aspects of design and manufacturing. The product
design course through the PBL instructional method has
enriched both hard and soft skills of the designer and the
satisfaction feedback clearly reflects this conclusion. The
respondents survey indicates that there is scope for
improvement on skill aspects of the product design course. In
addition, a one-way ANOVA test shows that there were strong
associations observed in the development of skills between:
knowledge and skills (p = 0.001); and skills and values (p =
0.0008).
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank Professor - Chris Redelinghuys,
University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa for the
important contributions made to this research in the form
discussion and suggestions. This project was supported by fund
NRF GRANT: INCENTIVE FUNDING FOR RATED
RESEARCHERS (IPRR) –South Africa through Reference:
IFR150204113619 and Grant No: 96066. The views expressed
and the conclusions drawn in this paper are those of the authors
and cannot necessarily be attributed to the supporting
organization.
References
Banios, E. W. (1991). Teaching engineering practices. In
Frontiers in Education Conference, September 1991. Twenty-
First Annual Conference. 'Engineering Education in a New
World Order. 'Proceedings. (pp. 161-168). IEEE.
Barroso, L. R., Nite, S. B., Morgan, J. R., Bicer, A., Capraro,
R. M., & Capraro, M. M. (2016, March). Using the engineering
design process as the structure for project-based learning: An
informal STEM activity on bridge-building. In 2016 IEEE
Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) (pp. 249-256).
IEEE.
Boelens, R., De Wever, B., & Voet, M. (2017). Four key
challenges to the design of blended learning: A systematic
literature review. Educational Research Review, 22, 1-18.
Duston, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D.
(1997). A review of literature on teaching engineering design
through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of
Engineering Education, 86(1), 17-28.
Kupusuz, K. Y., & Can, S. (2014). A survey on lifelong
learning and project-based learning among engineering
students. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 116,
4187 – 4192. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.914.
Gratchev, I., & Jeng, D. S. (2018). Introducing a project-based
assignment in a traditionally taught engineering course.
European Journal of Engineering Education, 43(5), 788-799.
Holley, E. A. (2017). Engaging engineering students in
geoscience through case studies and active learning. Journal
of Geoscience Education, 65(3), 240-249.
López-Querol, S., Sánchez-Cambronero, S., Rivas, A., &
Garmendia, M. (2014). Improving civil engineering education:
Transportation geotechnics taught through project-based
learning methodologies. Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education and Practice, 141(1), 1-7.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EI.1943-5541.0000212.
Martín-Gutiérrez, J., Fabiani, P., Benesova, W., Meneses, M.
D., & Mora, C. E. (2015). Augmented reality to promote
collaborative and autonomous learning in higher education.
Computers in human behaviour, 51, 752-761.
Nair, C. S., Patil, A., & Mertova, P. (2009). Re-engineering
graduate skills–a case study. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 34(2), 131-139.
Neo, M., & Neo, T. K. (2009). Engaging students in
multimedia-mediated Constructivist learning–Students'
perceptions. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,
12(2), 254-266.
Nicolai, L. M. (1998). Viewpoint: An industry view of
engineering design education. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 14(1), 7-13.
Shekar, A. (2014). Project-based learning in engineering
design education: sharing best practices. In ASEE Annual
Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceeding (1-18).
Uziak, J. (2016). A project-based learning approach in an
engineering curriculum. Global Journal of Engineering
Education, 18(2), 119-123.
Wei, X., Weng, D., Liu, Y., & Wang, Y. (2015). Teaching
based on augmented reality for a technical creative design
course. Computers & Education, 81, 221-234.
Yadav, A., Shaver, G. M., & Meckl, P. (2010). Lessons
learned: Implementing the case teaching method in a
mechanical engineering course. Journal of Engineering
Education, 99(1), 55-69.
Yadav, A., & Barry, B. E. (2009). Using case-based instruction
to increase ethical understanding in engineering: What do we
know? What do we need? International Journal of Engineering
Education, 25(1), 138-143.
Yadav, A., Subedi, D., Lundeberg, M. A., & Bunting, C. F.
(2011). Problem‐based learning: Influence on students'
learning in an electrical engineering course. Journal of
Engineering Education, 100(2), 253-280.
Zhou, C., Kolmos, A., & Nielsen, J. F. D. (2012). A problem
and project-based learning (PBL) approach to motivate group
creativity in engineering education. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 28(1), 3-16.