The Impact of a Novel Integrated 1st Year Mechanical Engineering Curriculum

Practice Paper Recommended citation: Tarnowski, K., & Prisutova, J. (2025). The Impact of a Novel Integrated 1st Year Mechanical Engineering Curriculum. 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.17631844. 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. THE IMPACT OF A NOVEL INTEGRATED 1ST YEAR MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CURRICULUM Keith Tarnowski a,1, Jevgenija Prisutova b a University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 0000-0002-7870-7247 b University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom, 0000-0002-3806-1939 Conference Key Areas: Curriculum development and emerging curriculum models in engineering, Keywords: curriculum development, project-based learning, PBL, PrBL, integration ABSTRACT In 2021/22, The University of Sheffield introduced a novel 1st year curriculum across all Mechanical Engineering undergraduate programmes. This curriculum is based around 2 substantive projects (one per semester) that support students to integrate their knowledge and skills, providing them with a holistic view of the fundamentals of mechanical engineering, and a strong foundation on which to build in future years. It is also used to set expectations of behaviour early in the programme, helping them to thrive in higher education. This paper sets out the rationale for change, provides an overview of the new curriculum, and reviews the impact observed following 3 years of implementation. The new curriculum appears to be effective at developing self-motivated, independent learners who take responsibility for their own development, supporting them to develop problem-solving skills and giving them the confidence to tackle ambiguous, open-ended problems. Despite this, further work is required to improve the assessment and promote engagement with feedback. This is a common challenge with project-based learning. 1 Corresponding Author K Tarnowski [email protected] 1 INTRODUCTION In 2016 the Department of Mechanical Engineering at The University of Sheffield undertook a full undergraduate curriculum review supported by staff, students, and employers. This review identified the strengths and weaknesses of the current programmes, as well as trends within the sector, and specific innovations at peer institutions. It highlighted the need for us to update our curriculum to achieve the following strategic goals: • To generate more self-motivated, independent learners who take responsibility for their own development. • To support learners to develop problem-solving and value creation skills, giving them confidence to tackle ambiguous, open-ended tasks. • To implement efficient and effective assessment that is useful to students’ development and promotes engagement with feedback. • To embed employability throughout the programme, preparing learners for placement and job applications early in the programme. Achieving these goals required a significant change in the learning behaviours of our students. Taking a structured, programme-level approach to curriculum development, a new, evidence-based 1st year curriculum was developed that challenged current behaviours and set expectations for the rest of the programme in a supported and well-scaffolded manner. This curriculum was designed to be delivered at scale, with a cohort size of ~250 students. The aim of this paper is to review the efficacy of the new 1st year curriculum to deliver these goals. 2 LITERATURE REVIEW There is a skills shortage across the engineering sector, and employers “regularly highlight gaps in the skills of the graduate engineers coming into workforce” (IET, 2019). The Institute of Engineering Technology (IET) and the Engineering Professor’s Council (EPC) have identified six ways that engineering higher education should develop to address this problem. These are: incorporating creativity into engineering, broadening cohort diversity, emphasising project work, increasing industry engagement, providing workplace experience, and greater interdisciplinarity. To address this issue, many higher education establishments have implemented innovative approaches to their curriculum, often with a focus on “design-based project work” (RAEng, 2019). Project-based learning is generally recognised to improve student’s long-term retention of knowledge and skills as well their ability to apply them to unfamiliar situations (Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009). A study undertaken at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Graham, 2018) identified a key trend amongst “emerging leaders in engineering education” towards “integrated, student-centred curricula” where project-based learning was a major component. Specific case studies used to demonstrate this trend included Singapore University of Technology and Design (Sockalingam et al., 2021) and University College London (Mitchell et al., 2021). Many other engineering programmes around the globe are innovating in similar ways, e.g. (Tovey & Davies, 2011; Zhou et al., 2011). Despite the trend towards more project-based learning within engineering programmes, some common challenges associated with this pedagogical approach are often cited (Chen et al., 2021; Graham, 2010; Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009). These include: 1. How to teach. For project-based learning, the role of the academic(s) involved is more of a “facilitator” than a “lecturer”. This requires a different skill set that is less common in higher education institutions. 2. How to assess. Project-based learning often requires a range of summative assessments that result in high workload for staff and students. This is particularly true when the projects are highly structured. 3. How to equip students. Most students have not experienced this kind of learning prior to higher education and are likely to find it disorientating and, without appropriate support, demoralising. To overcome these challenges, an implementation strategy is required that takes a programme-level view, progressively developing staff and students alike (Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009). This, however, requires financial investment and resources which is a separate challenge given the current economic climate. 3 NEW FIRST YEAR CURRICULUM A schematic representation of the new first year curriculum is shown in Figure 1. The academic year consists of 2x 12-week semesters (Autumn & Spring). Each semester primarily consists of an engineering science module which runs in parallel with a project module that integrates the engineering science with fundamental intellectual, practical and professional skills expected of professional engineering students. Fig. 1. Schematic representation of the new first year curriculum across the Autumn and Spring semesters (week numbers shown). In the engineering science modules, the content is delivered via traditional lectures and tutorial sheets. Large group tutorials are provided to support the students’ learning. Each engineering science module is delivered as multiple, parallel lecture series, e.g. in Autumn there is a separate lecture series for statics, solid mechanics and manufacturing. These lecture series are ‘front-loaded’ so that students develop their knowledge and understanding early in the semester and can apply it directly to the integrative project running in parallel. The novelty in this 1st year curriculum lies in these integrative projects. Whilst many programmes have implemented “design-based project work”, these modules are much more than design projects. They are carefully curated and scaffolded learning experiences that provide a real-world context to support students to integrate fundamental engineering science with intellectual skills (e.g. engineering analysis, design processes, etc.), practical skills (e.g. experimentation, workshop skills, etc.), and professional skills (e.g. teamwork, communication, etc.). They consist of variety of linked learning and teaching activities, where students work individually and in teams, before tackling a diverse range of assessments. The Autumn project is based around reaching aids for mobility impaired people. Students develop sketching and CAD skills to produce models and engineering drawings to manufacture a basic reaching aid. They calculate the capability of that reaching aid, accounting for the uncertainty associated with analysing real artifacts, using the knowledge gained from the parallel engineering science lectures (statics & solid mechanics) and experimental data they obtain from uniaxial tensile tests and friction labs. To validate their calculations, they physically test the reaching aid. This project culminates in a group design task where they develop a mass-produced reaching aid for a specific purpose, requiring them to selection appropriate materials and manufacturing processes, supported by a reverse engineering exercise where they dissect a competitor’s product. The Spring project is related to water bottle rockets. Students learn programming to predict the trajectory of a water bottle rocket using the knowledge gained from the parallel engineering science lectures (dynamics, fluids & thermodynamics). They validate this code through a combination of lab-based experimentation and field testing. They develop practical workshop skills manufacturing a water bottle rocket launcher that incorporates a diverse range of manufacturing techniques and write a risk assessment for using the launcher safely. This project culminates in a group design task where develop a water bottle rocket based solution to deliver short-term emergency aid to stranded households in a flood zone. The entire cohort tests their designs on the final day of the semester where we also celebrate their work. Having two projects in series (one in Autumn, and one in Spring) provides excellent opportunities to promote the skills and behaviours required to succeed in higher education and beyond. The Autumn project is highly scaffolded, and contains many formative assessments whilst in Spring, where the majority of the summative assessment takes place, some of the scaffolding is removed. The Autumn project therefore provides a low consequences environment for students to make mistakes and ‘learn through failure’, and the feed-forward between the projects promotes a positive relationship with feedback early in the programme. Both projects incorporate multiple points for reflection on personal development. This helps address the challenge of “how to equip students” identified in the literature review, providing them with a solid foundation on which to build in future years. 4 METHODOLOGY To assess the impact of the new 1st year curriculum, including its ability to deliver the goals set out in the introduction, a two-stage approach was taken: 1. A review of student behaviour later in the programme 2. A review of student feedback for the project modules 4.1 Review of Long-Term Student Behaviour To determine whether the new 1st year curriculum has successfully supported students to become self-motivated, independent learners who take responsibility for their own development, a review of their behaviour later in the programme was performed. Two metrics were selected as a proxy for the desired student behaviour:: 1. The number of self-initiated final year projects, i.e. students who propose their own project rather than selecting one proposed by an academic. 2. The number of students taking a placement year, i.e. a “year in industry” Both are optional to all students but clearly valuable to their personal development. It is hypothesised that students are more likely to demonstrate these behaviours if they are engaged with the programme and engineering more broadly. Both metrics have been monitored since 2019/20, before the implementation of the new 1st year curriculum. 4.2 Review of Student Feedback At the end of each semester all students are encouraged to provide anonymous feedback on their modules via a survey administered by the university. This survey includes two text-based questions: 1. What did you like about this module? 2. How could this module be improved? The responses to these questions have been analysed using NVivo software to identify any common themes and provide insight into how students perceive the new 1st year curriculum. This review has focused on the two project modules. It has been performed for all three cohorts that have undertaken the new 1st year curriculum, so there are 6 sets of student feedback (Autumn and Spring for each cohort). Each cohort is between 184 and 243 students and the makeup is broadly in-line with the UK average (EngineeringUK, 2023). 5 RESULTS AND INSIGHTS 5.1 Review of Long-Term Student Behaviour Fig. 2. Students undertaking self-initiated final year projects and placement years from before and after the introduction of the new Y1 curriculum in 2021/22 (highlighted green). Figure 2 shows what proportion of students have undertaken self-initiated final year projects (solid lines) and placement years (dotted lines) in recent academic years. The blue and red lines correspond to students on the BEng and MEng programmes respectively. In all four criteria, there appears to be an upward trend suggesting that students are becoming more engaged with the programme and their career. It is worth noting that the 2020/21 was the academic year most affected by the COVID19 global pandemic. There are multiple factors that may influence the trends observed in Figure 2 which makes it difficult to isolate the impact of the new 1st year curriculum, but the following observations are promising: 1. In 2023/24 (highlighted blue in Figure 2), there was an increase in the percentage of placement year students and self-initiated final year projects on the BEng programmes. This is the first year that BEng students doing their project or undertaking a placement year will have experienced the new 1st year curriculum. This upward trend has continued into 2024/25. 2. In 2024/25 (highlighted red in Figure 2), there was an increase in the percentage of placement year students and self-initiated final year projects on the MEng programmes. This is the first year that MEng students doing their project or undertaking a placement year will have experienced the new 1st year curriculum. 5.2 Review of Student Feedback Figure 3 shows the main themes from the student feedback across the three cohorts covered by this study. Positive comments are shown in blue and negative comments are shown in red. Each of these themes are discussed in more detail below. It should be noted that professional skills were also a prominent theme in the feedback (103 comments) but that is a focus of a separate paper and will not be reviewed here. Fig. 3. Main themes highlighted in the student feedback Links between theory and practice This theme focused on feedback related to the presence of explicit links between different elements of the project modules, as well as between project modules and engineering science modules. This theme was the most widely mentioned in students’ comments, resulting in 132 comments, with the majority of them (93%) being positive. Some examples include links between the project and engineering science modules, e.g. “The way it fits in with the fundamental engineering science in that the theories learnt are applied quickly after learning them”, and links to the wider study programme. A minority of comments (7%) found the explanation of links between the different parts of the module insufficient. Practical work and labs Related to the previous theme of linking the engineering theory and practice is the practical aspect of the curriculum, mentioned in 86 comments, with 97% of them positive. Students talked about the practical side of the course being fun, interesting, hands-on, as well as enhancing their understanding of theory, e.g. “The experimental part of this module interests me because it allows me to learn and understand some of the theoretical knowledge by doing it”. The negative comments focused on the need for more instruction on data analysis and interpretation. Organisation and clarity This was the second most widely mentioned theme, with 127 comments and 70% of them were negative. These focused on such issues as improving the usability of the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE), information being provided more in advance, and better guidance on what to do next. Looking at the feedback in more detail (shown in Figure 4), it can be seen that (a) most of the negative feedback happened in the first two years of the new curriculum, which can be attributed to “teething issues”, and (b) the amount of negative feedback is consistently smaller in in spring compared to autumn. This can be due to two reasons: the spring module leader incorporated the student feedback received for the autumn semester, and students got more familiar with the curriculum structure (a challenge widely acknowledged with project-based learning (Strobel & Van Barneveld, 2009). Fig. 4. The student feedback on the organisation and clarity Support This was the third most widely mentioned theme, with 104 comments, and 70% of them were negative. Positive comments highlight the approachability of staff and Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs), support via drop-ins, weekly updates, and the quality of feedback. The negative comments, interestingly, touched on similar topics. The most highlighted issue was tutor feedback on formative and summative assessments. Students complained about inconsistencies, e.g. “Lots of feedback on work varied between people who got the same score – some was a few lines and another person's was pages”. To address this, measures were taken to improve the consistency of feedback, such as carrying out assessment standardisation for written work, and running briefing sessions ahead of marking oral work. Whilst this appears to have had an impact, it is difficult to completely avoid some level inconsistency when assessing ~250 students undertaking open-ended projects involving multiple assessors. Students also mentioned wanting more feedback e.g. “more opportunities for individual feedback on work”. It should be noted that this kind of comment could apply to any 1st year curriculum delivered to a large cohort, as students are getting used to university-style feedback, which is a big change from what they were used to previously. 6 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS In 2021/22, The University of Sheffield introduced a novel 1st year curriculum across all Mechanical Engineering undergraduate programmes. The evidence from the first 3 years of implementation, suggests that this new curriculum is mostly achieving its goals. The students appear to be more self-motivated and are more likely to take responsibility for their own development, as demonstrated by an increased engagement in optional (but valuable) activities such as a year in industry and selfinitiated final year projects. They also demonstrate an improved ability to learn independently by successfully tackling ambiguous, open-ended problems much earlier in the programme. Despite these promising observations, further work is required to improve the assessment to promote engagement with feedback. Results from the student survey demonstrate that, whilst some students recognise the links between formative assessment and summative assessment, the majority do not. It is likely that this is partially linked to the difficult transition from further education to higher education however, similar challenges, related to the assessment of project-based learning, are echoed across the literature. 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the Centre for Engineering Education for providing the funding to attend the conference. REFERENCES Chen, J., Kolmos, A., & Du, X. (2021). Forms of implementation and challenges of PBL in engineering education: a review of literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 46(1), 90–115.