Revising a Mechanical Engineering Curriculum: The Implementation Process

Abstract

In early 1990, motivated largely by concern for the highly structured nature of engineering education, the faculty of Purdue's School of Mechanical Engineering initiated a two‐year assessment of its curriculum. A principal conclusion of this assessment was that students should have more exposure to open‐ended, cross‐functional problems and that design, interpreted broadly, provided the best platform for launching appropriate curriculum changes. Specific plans for curriculum revision included a) early exposure to design and the product realization process, including issues such as marketing, manufacturing and economics, as well as concept generation, evaluation and documentation; b) integration of design and open‐ended problem solving experiences across the curriculum, including the core engineering sciences courses; c) development of the softer skills associated with communication and teamwork; and d) greater emphasis on engineering practice through increased linkages with industry. To varying degrees, progress has been made on each of the foregoing objectives, and the purpose of this paper is to describe the nature of the curriculum revisions, as well as the process by which an implementation plan was developed. A retrospective assessment of the revisions and the implementation process is also provided.

Undergraduate Students' Beliefs about Engineering Problem Solving

“…Anything goes, so you have to see what you have first.Students' beliefs in the difference between classroom and workplace problems aligns with other studies that have examined the structures of these problems. Jonassen et al () found that one of the primary characteristics of workplace problems is that they are ill‐structured, whereas most classroom problems are well structured and have only one correct solution (Incropera & Fox, ; Sheppard et al, 2009). Regarding the difference in structure between classroom and workplace problems, Sheppard et al (2009) argued that “Solving right‐answer problems is not necessarily problem solving: the problems that students are typically asked to solve do not build the kind of problem‐solving skills they will need later in their program or in practice” (p. 48).…”

A Topical Analysis of Mechanical Engineering Curricula

“…They require design in two or three different courses. This emphasis reflects the pre-2000 engineering accreditation requirement for a specific number of credits of design content, the ABET engineering outcomes, and numerous other recommendations for design in the engineering curriculum [26][27][28][29][30][31].…”

Integrating the Boyer Report into Architectural Engineering Technology Education at the University of Hartford

“…The challenge of working on industrial problems (and projects), and in close contact with architects and engineers who (themselves) are concurrently working on the same or similar problems (and projects), provides valuable experience which can ease the post-graduate transition from student to employee [6].…”