Teaching a Materials Science Course Within Project-Based Learning Integrated Engineering: A Comparison of Three Approaches

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Siverling, E. A., Wang, Y., & Swanson, J. (2025). Teaching a Materials Science Course Within Project-Based Learning Integrated Engineering: A Comparison of Three Approaches. In Kangaslampi, R., Langie, G., Järvinen, H.-M., & Nagy, B. (Eds.), SEFI 53rd Annual Conference. European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI), Tampere, Finland. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17631710. This Conference Paper is brought to you for open access by the 53rd Annual Conference of the European Society for Engineering Education (SEFI) at Tampere University in Tampere, Finland. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 International License. TEACHING A MATERIALS SCIENCE COURSE WITHIN PROJECTBASED LEARNING INTEGRATED ENGINEERING: A COMPARISON OF THREE APPROACHES E. A. Siverling a,1, Y. Wang b, J. J. Swanson c, a Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, USA, 0000-0002-1806-7102 b Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, USA, 0000-0003-1614-9590 c Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, USA, 0000-0002-5086-1373 Conference Key Areas: Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering; Engineering skills, professional skills, and transversal skills Keywords: materials science, flipped classroom, Project-Based Learning (PBL) ABSTRACT The Iron Range Engineering (IRE), Twin Cities Engineering (TCE), and IRE-Bell Engineering (Bell) programs are project-based learning programs within a department of integrated engineering at a U.S. Midwestern university. In addition to Design and Professionalism courses, the junior and senior students in these programs take 1-credit Technical competency courses, with the goal of integrating knowledge and skills across the three types of courses. The Technical competency courses are built around Fundamental Principles of Engineering (FPs), and course content, assessment, and pedagogy are designed to support students’ conceptual understanding of these FPs. One of the Technical competency courses common to all three programs is Materials Science. In this practice paper, the authors did a self-study to explore three approaches for teaching for conceptual understanding of materials science FPs within the larger project-based learning programs. The data sources included evaluations of course planning documents (e.g., syllabi, lesson plans), as well as discussions with the instructors to further clarify those documents. The three approaches were compared to identify common content and deliverables and also contrasted to find differences that are related to the varying needs of the students, instructors, and program contexts. The results of this self-study are relevant not only to instructors of introductory Materials Science courses but also instructors of other technical engineering courses. 1 Corresponding Author E. A. Siverling emilie.sive[email protected]u 1 INTRODUCTION The Engineering Mindset Report: A Vision for Change in Undergraduate Engineering and Engineering Technology (American Society for Engineering Education [ASEE] & National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2024) is one of the latest calls for engineering education to change significantly. Two of its recommendations are to create more flexible programs and use student-centered pedagogies, which can attract a greater quantity and diversity of students to engineering and improve the understanding and abilities of all students. One way for curricula to be flexible and student-centered is through project-based learning (PBL), which has been used widely across age groups and discipline areas (e.g., Kokotsaki et al., 2016; Krajcik & Blumenfeld, 2006). Over the past 15 years, three programs in an Integrated Engineering department at Minnesota State University, Mankato (a U.S. Midwestern university) have been developed using PBL as the foundational model (Marra et al., 2011; Pluskwik, 2019; Ulseth, 2016). These programs also use other evidencebased practices to support student learning. This practice paper will focus on the content, assessment, and pedagogies used within the three programs for one specific class that is taught across all three programs: Materials Science. 2 CONTEXT AND METHODS 2.1 Context - U.S. Undergraduate Engineering Program Expectations In the United States, most undergraduate university (Bachelor’s) degrees require 120 credits, though engineering programs require a median of 128 credits and up to 136 credits (Johnson et al., 2012). The U.S. federal government defines one credit as at least 45 hours of work (including direct instruction and out-of-class activities) over a 15-week semester (Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act, 1988). The idea is that students complete 15 credits per semester over eight semesters (four years) to earn 120 total credits; most students take 12-18 credits in a semester. In a traditional university, most courses are each 3-4 credits, so students take 3-6 courses in one, 15-week semester. In the U.S., most engineering programs are ABET-accredited; ABET does not require exact degree plans or total number of credits, though it does define overarching student outcomes and minimum credit requirements for certain curriculum categories (ABET, 2025). As can be seen with a couple of example engineering plans in Johnson et al. (2012), the first two years of an undergraduate engineering degree tend to contain more courses about collegelevel mathematics and basic sciences, as well as general education courses (e.g., communication, humanities, social sciences), while the latter two years contain more courses about engineering sciences and engineering design. 2.2 Context - Overview of the Programs The Iron Range Engineering (IRE), Twin Cities Engineering (TCE), and IRE-Bell Engineering (Bell) programs have upper-division (3rd year/junior and 4th year/senior) students who have completed their first two years of pre-engineering education at community colleges (Marra et al., 2011; Pluskwik, 2019; Ulseth, 2016). Two of the programs primarily serve students from the local area, while the third program recruits students from across the U.S. Within all programs, there are three major parts to the curriculum: technical, design, and professionalism. Students work on engineering projects every semester, either working in paid engineering internships or co-ops in industry or working as “consultants” on a project for a client from industry. These projects serve as the foundation for the PBL model in these programs. In the 3-credit Design and Professionalism courses students take each semester, many of the assignments are tied to these real engineering projects (e.g., design reports and presentations). Additionally, students take a number of 1-credit Technical competency courses each semester. These technical courses may or may not be aligned with their projects, depending on which required technical courses they have yet to take. Students are encouraged to integrate knowledge and skills across design, professionalism, and technical courses, which sometimes means referring to previous or upcoming technical courses. Within all three programs, there are 16, 1-credit technical competency courses that all students are required to take before graduation. (They also need to complete 16 elective credits, but these are more flexible because students choose which courses they want to take based on their engineering interests and projects.) The Technical competency courses are built around Fundamental Principles of Engineering (FPs), which are the main ideas of the course topic, similar to Big Ideas or Enduring Understandings (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998). (The TCE program does not use the term FPs but uses the idea of it.) Course content, assessment, and pedagogy are designed to support students’ conceptual understanding of these FPs so they gain a deep understanding of the most important technical ideas in engineering. One of the required Technical courses is Materials Science. 2.3 Methods - Self-Study The goal of this study is to answer the question: How do three instructors of 1-credit Materials Science courses within a PBL, integrated engineering program approach content, assessment, and pedagogy? The three participants in the self-study, also the authors, are the primary instructors of Materials Science in each of the programs. In terms of prior education, one author has a Mechanical Engineering background, one has a Materials Science and Engineering background, and one has degrees in Mechanical and Materials Engineering. At the time of data collection, all authors had taught the 1-credit Materials Science course at least five times. There were two main sources of data. First, we shared course documents (e.g., syllabi, lesson plans, certain assignments, reflections). Then, we met four times for a community of practice-type conversations. We clarified various aspects of the documents and discussed other aspects to our approaches that were not represented in the documents. Ultimately, we compared and contrasted our approaches to the content and deliverables of our Materials Science courses. 3 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS 3.1 Content As stated earlier, two of the instructors use the terminology of FPs and one does not; thus, we will refer instead to the main ideas of each course. In reducing a typically 3credit introductory Materials Science course to 1-credit, we each had slight variations in what we kept or cut but mostly were similar. In terms of material types, we all primarily focus on metals. We all have partial lessons about applications and properties of polymers and ceramics, though two of us also briefly describe microstructure of these latter materials. None of us teach about composites or semiconductor materials in this course, but two of us cover composites in one of our elective courses (Materials Selection and Design), and one of us focuses on semiconductor materials in a different elective (Non-Mechanical Materials Properties). Another slight difference that came up was that although we all teach theory and application, the instructors for the IRE and TCE programs focus more on application of materials, while the instructor for the Bell program focuses more on the theory of connecting processes, microstructures, and properties. Beyond material types, our main ideas for Materials Science are very similar. We assume students have pre-requisite knowledge about the periodic table and atomic bonding, so we build on that by discussing basic crystal structures. We also cover crystalline defects, with emphasis on dislocations because of their importance in describing the microstructural effects of various metallurgical processes. In terms of properties, we all focus on mechanical properties, especially those that can be derived from tensile testing (e.g., elastic modulus, yield strength, ductility, toughness). In addition, we all mention hardness, fatigue, and creep, though the amount of time spent on each of these topics depends on the instructor. We all identified a few of the same metallurgical strengthening and heat treating processes as most important: cold working/work hardening, solid solution strengthening/ alloying, and steel quenching and tempering. As part of alloying, we all also identified phase diagrams as a main idea of materials science. Beyond that, there are slight differences in processes addressed: the TCE program instructor also teaches precipitate hardening, while the Bell program instructor teaches process annealing and grain size reduction. The main difference in processes covered is, again, the focus: two of the instructors emphasize application (e.g., how to use a TTT diagram), while the other instructor emphasizes the connections between processing, crystal structure, and properties (i.e., how a process changes the microstructure and how that affects properties of strength, hardness, and ductility). The final major difference among all three of us is how we introduce materials science to the students. The IRE program instructor starts the class with a brief history of materials science, the TCE program instructor starts with example uses of materials in mechanical engineering contexts, and the Bell program instructor starts with the materials paradigm (which states that microStructure, Properties, Processing, and Performance of materials are interconnected). To compare and contrast our content coverage to topics that might be covered in a 3-credit Materials Science course, we refer to Callister and Rethwisch’s (2018) 10th edition of Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction, which is a common textbook for introductory materials science courses. For the three of us, our main ideas overlap with ideas from many of the chapters in the first half of the textbook: atomic bonding and crystal structures, mechanical properties, various metallurgical strengthening and heat treating processes, and phase diagrams. In a 3-credit version of the course, instructors would likely include an additional breadth of topics, such as diffusion, composites, corrosion, and various non-mechanical properties (e.g., electrical, thermal, magnetic, optical). In addition, these courses would likely also cover a greater depth of information about ideas we teach in our 1-credit versions of the course, especially additional theory and application content related to polymer and ceramic materials. Although two of us include some of this information in our optional elective materials science courses, we are unable to address it all in our required Materials Science course because it is only 1-credit. Another way to compare and contrast our content coverage with other introductory materials science courses is to refer to materials concept inventories and common misconceptions (e.g., Krause et al., 2003; Varun & Krishnan, 2021). For example, Krause et al. (2003) identified four major areas of common student misconceptions in materials science: background geometry knowledge and crystal structures, basic chemistry knowledge and phase diagrams, impact of material changes on electrical conductivity, and the mechanism of plastic deformation in metals. In all three of our 1-credit versions of materials science, we teach three of those four areas, all but electrical properties. Our course content also overlaps with much of the common materials misconceptions identified by Varun and Krishnan (2021). None of the three of us have given students concept inventories during our materials science courses; therefore, we are unable to directly compare our students’ conceptual understanding to that of students who completed 3-credit courses which covered more content. However, it is worth noting that even though our 1-credit Materials Science courses include less content than 3-credit versions, we are still able to address many of the areas of common materials science misconceptions. 3.2 Summative Assessments Within the integrated engineering department, all technical competency courses - regardless of program - have two main summative assessments: a verbal exam and a deep learning activity (DLA). Though we all ask slightly different questions in our verbal exams, they are similar in the sense that students should be able to describe, verbally and symbolically, the main ideas of the course. These exams allow us to evaluate the holistic conceptual understanding of a student because we can ask students to explain engineering applications of materials science, solve problems, draw concept maps, etc. (For additional information about how different instructors in various types of courses across the Integrated Engineering department approach verbal/oral exams, refer to [Christensen et al., 2023].) In addition to the verbal exam, one of us gives a written exam focusing on the common misconceptions of Materials Science, but the other two do not. In reducing the introductory Materials Science course to 1 credit, we all removed many of the labs that might be found in a typical 3-credit version of the course. However, we all require one major lab which requires an experiment and a written technical report; this activity is the DLA. In the Bell program, students all do the same DLA about tensile testing. (All instructors have access to a tensile tester of some kind.) In the other two programs, students generally choose between a tensile testing DLA and a heat treating materials DLA, though a few propose other DLAs that are related to their co-op or industry design projects for that semester. The IRE program also gives a “Research Paper and Tour” option, which does not require students to conduct an experiment, but the written report is more of a literature review, and they are required to visit a related industry location for a tour. This difference between requiring one option vs. allowing students to select between a few options is partially due to equipment availability but more so due to class sizes. The two instructors who provide more flexibility in DLA choice tend to have smaller classes (5-10 students per section), while the instructor who prescribes one type of DLA tends to have larger classes (15-25 students per section). Another difference about the DLA is the amount of guidance given for the written report. The Bell program instructor provides very detailed instructions because this program’s students transfer from community colleges across the U.S. This yields a large range of technical and experimental report writing experiences and skills, depending on their community college class requirements and instructors. In contrast, the instructors from the IRE and TCE programs give some but much more limited guidance about writing reports. Most of their students transfer from the same few community colleges, so they have similar technical writing skills. 3.3 Pedagogy and Deliverables All of us use a modified flipped classroom approach (e.g., Kerr, 2015). All students acquire the main information before class. Two of us primarily do this through videos, with one of us creating videos ourselves and the other finding publicly available videos. The IRE instructor refers to public videos occasionally but prompts textbook readings more often. Two of us do not evaluate the pre-work directly but instead have a grade for “Learning Conversation Participation” or “Preparation for Class and Attendance.” The Bell program instructor has two pre-work assignments, one which asks students to submit questions about the videos and one which requires students to contribute 1-2 new terms to a larger, class crowdsourced dictionary of materials science terms. Once the students are in class, we all do some combination of small group and other active learning activities and supplemental mini-lectures (answering students questions, giving additional information to the pre-reading or videos). By giving students time to work with the main ideas during class, we are able to immediately gauge their understanding, provide feedback, and address misconceptions. As with any engineering course, a main type of homework assignment is closeended problems. These numerical problems are meant to enhance students’ understanding of the main ideas, as well as their analytical skills. To give students more well-rounded practice about the main ideas, the instructors for the IRE and Bell programs also give “Describe” sheets. In a Describe sheet, students write a Word Description, draw a Sketch, include relevant Equations and Units, write about an Engineering Application, and Describe a Connection to Other Engineering Learning. Students fill out a Describe sheet for each of the 2-5 most important main ideas identified by the instructor. The goal is for students to develop a holistic, conceptual understanding about each of the main ideas. In addition, for the last two sections, students are encouraged to find applications and connections that are meaningful to their engineering goals and interests; this personalization can help them appreciate and gain a deeper understanding of the main ideas. Finally, we all each have assignments that the other two instructors do not have. The IRE program’s instructor uses a gallery walk activity to teach toughness, hardness, fatigue, and creep. Each team of 2-3 students is given one of these topics, and they research and develop a poster about that topic; students then present their posters to each other, effectively peer teaching. The TCE program’s instructor includes a metacognition memo at the end of the course. This requires students to reflect on their technical learning, strategies they used, how they monitored and controlled their learning, and their plans for transferring their learning to future endeavors. Somewhat similar to this, the Bell program’s instructor includes learning journals throughout the class, which are reflective activities that prompt students to think about the main ideas of the course in a different way or reflect on their learning goals and outcomes. In addition, this instructor gives students quizzes with Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) Exam-type problems; many of this program’s students take the FE Exam eventually. The FE exam is the first exam that is required to be passed in order to eventually become a licensed professional engineer (P.E.) in the U.S. (National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying [NCEES], n.d.). Many engineers work in the U.S. without a P.E. licensure, but it can be important for certain engineering fields (e.g., almost all of civil engineering, some environmental, mechanical, and electrical engineering). 4 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In this paper, we described the similarities and differences in three instructors’ approaches to teaching a 1-credit introductory Materials Science course within PBL programs. By being situated within a PBL model that emphasizes not only technical but also design and professionalism learning, students are more easily able to make connections between the content of Materials Science and their industry clientor co-opdesign projects. An advantage of this 1-credit approach is the emphasis on the main ideas of materials science. A potential disadvantage when compared to a traditional 3-credit course is that we cannot cover as much content. However, we believe that by strongly developing a deep understanding of the main ideas, as well as using pedagogies and deliverables that develop students’ self-directed learning skills, our students are able to teach themselves additional content if and when they need it in their future engineering contexts and projects. Although some of our deliverables and assessments are slightly different, they all use evidence-based teaching practices (e.g., flipped classroom, collaborative learning). This allows us to meet the needs of a greater variety of students. Some of these ideas, such as identifying the main ideas (or FPs) of a course and Describe sheets, are transferable to other engineering courses, regardless of the course title and number of credits. REFERENCES ABET (2025). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2025-2026. https://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accreditingengineering-programs-2025-2026/ American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), & National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2024). The engineering mindset report: A vision for change in undergraduate engineering and engineering technology education. ASEE. https://mindset.asee.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/The-Engineering-MindsetReport.pdf Callister, W. D., & Rethwisch, D. G. (2018). Materials science and engineering: An introduction (10th ed.). Wiley. Christensen, D., Singelmann, L., Sleezer, R., & Siverling, E. A. (2023, June). A selfstudy of faculty methods, attitudes, and perceptions of oral engineering exams [Paper presentation]. 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore, MD, United States. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--42501 Institutional Eligibility Under the Higher Education Act, 34 C.F.R. § 600.2 (1988). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-600/subpart-A/section600.2 Johnson, N., Reidy, L., Droll, M., & LeMon, R. E. (2012). Program requirements for associate’s and bachelor’s degrees: A national survey. Complete College America. https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/files/Program%20Requirements% 20-%20A%20National%20Survey(1).pdf Kerr, B. (2015, September). The flipped classroom in engineering education: A survey of the research. In 2015 International Conference on Interactive Collaborative Learning (ICL) (pp. 815-818). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICL.2015.7318133 Kokotsaki, D., Menzies, V., & Wiggins, A. (2016). Project-based learning: A review of the literature. Improving Schools, 19(3), 267-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480216659733 Krajcik, J., & Blumenfeld, P. (2006). Project-Based Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317-333). Cambridge University Press. Krause, S., Decker, J. C., & Griffin, R. (2023, November 5-8). Using a materials concept inventory to assess conceptual gain in introductory materials engineering courses [Paper presentation]. 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, Westminster, CO, United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2003.1263337 Marra, R., Palmer, B., Ulseth, R., & Johnson, B. (2011, November 28-29). The Iron Range Engineering PBL curriculum: How students adapt to and function within PBL [Paper presentation]. 3rd International Research Symposium on PBL, Coventry University, UK. https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/ie-fac-pubs/4/ National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES). (n.d.). FE exam. Retrieved June 10, 2025, from https://ncees.org/exams/fe-exam/ Pluskwik, E. (2019, June). An overview of design and open-ended problem solving activities in an interdisciplinary, project-based learning program [Paper presentation]. 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Miami, FL, United States. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--31913 Ulseth, R. (2016). Self-directed learning in PBL. [Doctoral dissertation, Aalborg University]. https://doi.org/10.5278/vbn.phd.engsci.00091 Varun, A., & Krishnan, S. (2021). A test to assess students’ conceptual understanding of engineering metallurgy subject. Journal of Engineering Education Transformations, 34(4), 22-29. https://doi.org/10.16920/jeet/2021/v34i4/150060 Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.