June 15, 1997
June 15, 1997
June 18, 1997
2.248.1 - 2.248.8
Integrating Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing at Sophomore Level
Massoud Tavakoli, Gary Hammond, Jawaharlal Mariappan, Henry Kowalski GMI Engineering & Management Institute
This paper describes the innovations implemented in a traditional sophomore-level introductory design course at GMI over the last three years. The evolution of the ideas, the philosophy behind the innovations and the effects of the changes are discussed. Particular attention is paid to the integration of engineering design, manufacturing and analysis in an introductory course. Also, a series of constraints which are developed to induce more realism into the pedagogical environment are described. Finally, quality control, time and budgetary issues are addressed.
For more than 20 years, the Mechanical Engineering sophomores at GMI have been taking a course entitled "Introduction to Design." The main objectives of this course have always been to learn the design process and apply it to a realistic design project where a device is designed, manufactured and entered into a competition. This is a 3-credit course (1 hour of lecture and two two-hour labs) offered every term, which consists of 11 weeks of instruction and one week of finals.
For the past three years, we have been scrutinizing the effectiveness of this approach in teaching/learning engineering design. We have also studied design processes practiced at several companies, learning from their good and bad design practices. As a result, without deviating from the original intentions of this course, we have significantly modified it based on what we recognized as obstacles to effective learning of the design process.
After nearly three years of implementation, improvement, and student feedback, we now believe that we have an effective approach for learning design. We also have learned that teaching design is an ever-changing process which demands continuous re-design.
If one accepts the premise that teaching is an art, then it could be said that teaching design is one of the most abstract forms of this art. This statement basically implies that every teacher of design brings his/her own unique design philosophy to the class. Perhaps that is why there are so many different practices of teaching design among the engineering curricula.
Tavakoli, M., & Hammond, G., & Mariappan, J., & Kowalski, H. (1997, June), Integrating Engineering Design, Analysis And Manufacturing At Sophomore Level Paper presented at 1997 Annual Conference, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. https://peer.asee.org/6634
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 1997 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015