Session 11a2 Projects for the Differently-Abled – Laboratory Innovation and Assessment for

Projects for the Differently-Abled – Laboratory Innovation and Assessment for

Undergraduate Students

Kathleen L. Kitto

Engineering Technology DepartmentWestern Washington University

Bellingham, WA 98225

Abstract - The Department of Engineering Technology atWestern Washington University has emphasized concurrentengineering principles and team based projects during thelast five years within the curriculum and within studentteams that are entered in competitions sponsored by variousprofessional societies. Similarly, individual classes too arestructured with laboratory projects that emphasizeteamwork and creative endeavors. Creative laboratoryexperiences are part of most classes within the threeengineering technology programs: Electronics EngineeringTechnology [EET], Manufacturing Engineering Technology[MET] and Plastics Engineering Technology [PET]. Often,classes contain students from more than one discipline sothat cross-discipline projects and teams can be accentuated.Students from the Industrial Technology programs and fromthe Industrial Design program are often used as “student”consultants to a wide variety of projects to add to this cross-disciplinary approach. Students from Westerns’ College ofBusiness and Economics are also called upon to provideadditional expertise. Industry and/or “real world” projectsfor the differently-abled add additional importance to thecreative endeavors. Technical report writing and oralcommunication of project designs are also highlighted.

This paper describes specific example projects from theComputer Integrated Manufacturing [CIM] class (which ispart of the MET curriculum) at Western WashingtonUniversity during the last three years. These projects haveinvolved students from all six academic programs within thedepartment and all have resulted in projects that have beenuseful to differently-abled individuals in the localcommunity. In addition to describing the projects, the paperdescribes the assessment methods used to evaluate thestudents and the course. In addition, the objectives thatwere used as goals for the team based project are described.Faculty time issues are also assessed. The paper concludeswith a methodology for creating reasonable opportunitiesfor creative projects within the curriculum as part of specificcourses.

teams that are entered in competitions sponsored by a varietyof professional societies. Similarly, individual classes arestructured with laboratory projects to emphasize teamwork,design and creative problem solving techniques. Creativelaboratory experiences are part of most classes within thethree engineering technology programs: ElectronicsEngineering Technology [EET], Manufacturing EngineeringTechnology [MET] and Plastics Engineering Technology[PET]. Often, classes contain students from more than onediscipline so that cross-discipline projects and teams can beaccentuated. Students from the Industrial Technologyprograms and from the Industrial Design program are oftenused as student “consultants” to a wide variety of projects toadd to this cross-disciplinary approach. Students fromWesterns’ College of Business and Economics are alsocalled upon to provide additional team expertise.

This paper describes specific example projects from theComputer Integrated Manufacturing [CIM] class (which ispart of the MET curriculum). These projects have involvedstudents from a variety of academic programs within thedepartment and have resulted in projects that have beenuseful to differently-abled individuals in the localcommunity. Technical report writing and oralcommunication of project designs are important componentsof each project. This paper describes the projects, the teamapproach to the projects as well as the assessment methodsused to evaluate the creative activities.

Team Based Projects

There is widespread agreement, both in industry and inacademia, that active and productive teams that are capableof producing creative technical solutions and/or products inshort periods of time are essential to ensure success intoday’s highly competitive world based economy. In fact,proposed ABET [Accreditation Board of Engineering andTechnology] criteria for Engineering Technology programs[Criterion 1] specifies that programs are expected to preparegraduates who “must function effectively on teams [1].”Similar goals are already established for engineeringprograms in the ABET 2000 standards. Industrial partnersexpect universities to provide technically proficientindividuals with excellent communication skills who canimmediately perform in a quick paced concurrentengineering team-based environment. Both engineering

Introduction

The Department of Engineering Technology at WesternWashington University has emphasized concurrentengineering principles and team based projects during thelast five years within the curriculum and within student

0-7803-53-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEENovember 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico

th

29 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

11a2-19

Session 11a2

design and engineering teaming can not be learned in oneclass or in one isolated experience. Understanding of andpractice in engineering design in team environments must befostered throughout the curriculum. The EngineeringTechnology Department at Western Washington Universityhas integrated team projects within individual coursesthroughout the curriculum and through participation incompetitions for students that are sponsored by a widevariety of professional societies. Industrial partners haveprovided resources to foster this integration starting thisacademic year with the freshman experience. The projectsdescribed here, however, are from upper divisionexperiences that have been integrated within the curriculumfor a longer period of time – approximately five years.

However, managing student team design experienceswithin the curriculum and within courses is difficult andtime consuming for the faculty involved in those projects.But, with sufficient department-wide goal and missionstatements, and discussions of common objectives for thoseexperiences, the process becomes both manageable andmeaningful. Assessment discussions of both upper- andlower-division experiences naturally result from thosediscussions surrounding course, program and departmentobjectives.

During several department meetings, the faculty withinthe six programs within the Engineering TechnologyDepartment established desired attributes of graduates thatwere common to all programs. These are described in moredetail later in this paper, but included the followingoutcomes related to teaming: creative problem solvingabilities, critical thinking, project management skills such asgoal setting, task management and time prioritization, visual,written and oral communication abilities, system levelthinking, individual responsibilities, team participation,cooperation, encouragement and understanding.

Much has been written and researched about teamingwithin organizations. Effective team attributes include suchitems as: open, spirited and respectful communications,respect for and acceptance of others and their ideas, clarityin the roles for all team members, clarity in missions andgoal statements, understanding of the decision makingprocess within the team, individual responsibilities andaccountabilities, sound team leadership, clarity of time-lines,acceptance of team assessment methods, and balancedcomposition of abilities of team members [2,11]. Inaddition, much has been written about team centeredprojects in engineering and engineering technologyprograms and courses. Difficulties with team projects withinacademic environments include: individual versus groupgrades/rewards, difficulty in developing unconstrainedproblem solving skills, constraining open ended problemswithin the academic calendar, coping with emergingcommunication and interpersonal skills, engaging all teammembers in student groups, fostering team growth whilemaintaining individual accountability, evolving design

strategies by students, fairly assessing “failed” team projectsand designs, having insufficient time to reflect upon and selfassess the projects within the quarter or semester[6,9,10,12,13].

Team size is 2 to 4 students per project per CIM labsection depending on the number of students enrolled in anyparticular section. Student teams are encouraged to useother students within the department or university as teamconsultants to obtain a particular expertise necessary forsuccessful completion of the project. Bonus points are givenboth for identification of the needed expertise and for actualutilization of the necessary expertise. For example,Industrial Design majors are often sought to gain furtherteam expertise in human factors and ergonomics when theteam is designing a product for the differently-abledcommunity. Rehabilitation therapists from the local vicinityare sought to gain understanding of their clients needs andlimitations of current products. EET students provideexpertise in the controls area and Vehicle Design studentsprovide expertise in transportation type issues. The facultymember selects the team members, with input from the classparticipants, so those team characteristics as described aboveare as balanced as possible within a given team.

Student team members are given the opportunity to rateboth themselves and other team members on a scale of 1 to 5on items identified by the teams as attributes being importantto the success of the team. Student team members are alsogiven the opportunity to evaluate the team as a whole, on thesame scale [1 to 5], on agreed upon objectives for the team.Since the students have agreed upon both the attributes of a“good” team member and have also agreed upon theattributes and objectives for their teams at the beginning ofthe design exercise or project, this works well. Rating ofthemselves and other team members have been found to beimportant for effective teamwork [12], but can also causesuspicion and dissention within teams [9,13]. However, therating system in this particular course has worked very welland has not caused any obvious or serious team difficulties.In addition, this does not eliminate the difficulty the facultymember has assessing the actual performance of the team orcompletely eliminate complaints from students surroundingindividual workload issues within teams. Even in the “best”team, not all individuals perform at identical levels; thisusually causes concern, especially with students who will begraded on this team performance.

Although the in-class time spent on understanding teamattributes and gaining further understanding of teamobjectives and assessment methods are essential to thesuccessful completion of these team design projects, time forthe technical content of the course is decreased. As moreand more of these team experiences are integrated earlierwithin the curriculum, the time devoted to teaming basicswithin particular courses will decrease, although the depth ofunderstanding of these issues should increase with theincrease in time actually spent in teaming and design. It will

0-7803-53-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEENovember 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico

th

29 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

11a2-20

Session 11a2

be interesting to assess the development of true teaming asthis integration occurs throughout the four-year experience.Student feedback was positive regarding the on-goingcurriculum evolution within the department.

• digital, liquid measuring cup for individuals with

vision impairments

• visual indicators of telephone and doorbells

• strain gage device to measure fluid retention of

individuals confined to bed

• a mono-ski for individuals with difficulties with leg

motor skills

• a door alarm for Alzheimer patients

• an open door alarm for refrigerators/freezers• foot operated computer mouse• sip and puff computer mouse• visual assisted smoke alarm

• interactive toys for children with motor function

disabilities

• low cost automatic door opener• all wheel drive wheelchair• a side car bicycle

• a mobile prone stander

Many of the projects from the CIM class have been usedby a wide variety of clients in the local communities or havebeen published so that local volunteer agencies can use thebasic design for their clients in other locations. One of thestudent teams won a national design competition from theRehabilitation Society of North America [RESNA].Students have reported a high degree of satisfaction withtheir involvement in these projects, especially after they seethe project actually being useful to a client. Some studentsreported that their initial fears of working with differently-abled clients disappeared by actually working with theclients or rehabilitation therapists/specialists. A fewstudents [<5%] reported that they were not comfortableworking with real clients on these projects. Over 80% of thestudents surveyed reported satisfaction with the results fromtheir design experiences. In a few instances, students werefrustrated when they could not solve a particular problem fora client within the given time or budget constraints. Overall,the projects have been rewarding and have served to beexcellent vehicles for the students to gain team basedconcurrent engineering design experience. In addition, theyhave been excellent vehicles to assess the progress withdesired attributes within the curriculum. Since there is alarge base of experience now with these upper-divisiondesign experiences, they should also serve as excellentbenchmarks for the curriculum now that team based designis being integrated into lower-division courses.

Student Projects and Creativity

The TRIZ method of encouraging creative solutions todesign problems was used during this academic year[3,4,5,6] in the CIM class. The point of adding the TRIZmaterial to the design/teaming content of the course was tofoster creativity in the student teams. A TRIZ book [3] thatwas written for practicing engineers was used to supplementthe traditional course text materials. The student feedbackfrom using this material was very positive. The TRIZmethod enables creativity by showing how innovative and“new ways of thinking” can be used to solve what at firstseems to be insurmountable technical problems. TRIZ issimply a method of looking at design differently – “do itinversely, do less, do it sooner, do it later, change the stateof matter, etc. There are numerous short design examples toillustrate how to examine problems with “new eyes” whiletrying to forget about traditional or obvious solutions.Several problems and associated solutions are given so thatthe student teams can practice brainstorming while assistedby the TRIZ methodology.

The design projects that are used in the CIM class aremostly projects for differently-abled clients, who are eitherin the university community or who are in the local region.Having real problems to solve with real clients adds a senseof importance to the design project. Of course, not alldesign projects succeed in the delivery of an actual device,but they all succeed in the lessons that are learned fromteam-based concurrent engineering problems. Some projectsare concept projects only in that the design is meant to begeneric enough for volunteer groups within localcommunities to complete for various clients.

Projects that have been completed must include adetailed engineering mechanics type design and verificationcomponent. The students use the ANSYS software packageto complete a finite element analysis [FEA], but must alsocomplete manual calculations to prove that their FEA resultsare reasonable. Students must select an appropriate factor ofsafety based on standards or accepted and documentedindustry practices.

Illustrations of completed projects include:

• support devices/crutches for land mine victims in

third world countries

• strength monitor for patients with MS

• robust polycarbonate AC and DC switches for

children with cerebral palsy

• big button remote control modifications for

individuals with limited motor functions• temperature alarm for drawing bath water

Faculty Issues

Faculty from the six academic programs within theEngineering Technology Department at Western participatedin a series of meetings for the past two academic years todevelop a comprehensive department strategic plan and todevelop assessment tools that could be used at the university

0-7803-53-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEENovember 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico

th

29 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

11a2-21

Session 11a2

level for graduates from the department’s programs. As partof those discussions, the faculty developed a list of desirableattributes for all students graduating from the department.Appropriate and meaningful assessment of those desiredattributes is the current focus of department meetings, and itis anticipated that those discussions will be on-going as thedepartment itself reflects upon its own performance.

As a result of those discussions, the ability to integrateteam-based design experiences into the curriculum wasenhanced because the basic objectives of the individualprograms were clarified as issues were debated. Industrialadvisors also played an important role in that they providedinformation to us on what they considered desirableattributes of new graduates as well as desirables attributesfor their own employees. In fact, a large aerospace firm inthe region even held focus sessions where these variousattributes as discussed between industry interests andacademic leaders. It was clear that team-skills,design/creative skills, communication skills, projectmanagement skills and life long learning were veryimportant to our industrial partners. Most industry partnerswere satisfied, with minor exceptions, to the analytical andtechnical skills of graduates.

It was interesting to note that the list of desiredattributes from the faculty matched the desired list ofattributes from our industrial partners closely, even thoughthey were arrived at independently. Of course, both sets alsomatched the proposed Criterion 1 for EngineeringTechnology programs from ABET as they were not arrivedat independently.

Even though all parties agree on what the desiredattributes of graduates should be, there is not yet widespreadagreement on the best methods to obtain these characteristicsor on what is the appropriate method to assess thesecharacteristics before and after graduation [6-15]. It seemseasier to assess technical competency basics in specificcourses than to assess students’ proficiency in team basedconcurrent engineering design after graduation. Most agree[6-15] that the students need multiple team baseddesign/creative activities within the curriculum to obtain anyproficiency or depth of in team based concurrentengineering. Faculty, however, must still assure that thetechnical depth of the program remains intact as additionalcompetencies are added to engineering and engineeringtechnology programs. Compounding these concerns aretime-to-degree pressures, which are felt at every level ofeducation today.

However complex the situation, the faculty felt thatcertain fundamental changes were needed within ourcurriculum. Industrial partners and sponsors were sought tohelp fund these changes. Our industrial partners haveresponded and are very supportive of these changes.Starting this academic year, concurrent engineering designissues are part of our first year experience. A new three

phase concurrent engineering project has been funded by ajoint venture between Western and key industrial partners.

Four new faculty members were hired during thisprocess making curriculum reform somewhat easier as eachnew hire was told about the process and had the opportunitylater to add to the program. A fifth faculty member will behired this academic year using a similar hiring strategy. Allfaculty positions were either growth or replacementpositions.

As a result of all these factors, the curriculum has beenand will continue to be dynamic with revisions occurring atthe course, program and department levels. Team baseddesign and creative experiences have been integratedthroughout all four years of the curriculum now, and it isanticipated that projects over multiple courses will be nextacademic year's addition to this philosophy. Two or threecourse sequences will have pilot links.

Although the time spent developing strategic plans,mission statements, goals, desired attributes of graduates andassessment tools is enormous, the resulting effect on thefundamental quality of the programs and courses is equallylarge. Much is gained by earnest discussions on what thefundamental objectives of any program or course are, evenwhen not all parties agree initially. The EngineeringTechnology Department met every week for the past threeacademic years working on these issues, but there isagreement within the faculty that the gains have been worththe time investment. Industrial support for the changes hasbeen positive and has made possible facilities that were notpossible before this time.

Another attribute of the programs at Western that hasenabled change is that the Engineering TechnologyDepartment has the support of an excellent GeneralUniversity Requirement [GUR] structure. This GURstructure emphasizes written and oral communication skills,self-learning, system level thinking, critical analysis,appreciation of diverse cultures and thinking andundergraduate research. The basic philosophy of the GURstructure at Western already embraces the very fundamentalsimportant in teaming and creative design. In fact, Western isincreasing the writing component of both the lower-divisionand upper-division writing courses at this time.

Attributes the faculty identified as desirable include:• creative problem solvers• critical thinkers

• visual, verbal and written communicators• self-learners, life-long learners• team skilled• research skilled

• broad based technically competency• analytically skilled• system level thinkers• professional and ethical• entrepreneurial spirit

0-7803-53-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEENovember 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico

th

29 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

11a2-22

Session 11a2

• project managers

• knowledgeable about environmental problems andtechnical solutions

• solid foundation in the liberal arts – art, literature,diversity and cultures, religions, history, worldeconomics, respect and tolerance, social skills andissues, mathematics, physics and chemistryFinding appropriate and meaningful ways to measure andassess these attributes before and after graduation will beanother three or more years on ongoing effort and reflection.

• share in the documentation and oral presentation of

the project

• perform assigned roles effectively and within

established time lines

• communicate effectively within the team

• cooperate to resolve conflicts and make decision• promoting joint success

• assist other team members as needed

• shares information effectively and in a timely

manner

• cooperates with team leaders and respects their

decisions

• respects team time lines

• takes corrective actions in the best interest of the

team’s success.The attributes that were used to evaluate the team thisacademic year were:

• development of a clear and concise mission

statement

• defined roles and responsibilities for individual

team members

• establish team management including an

identifiable team leader

• document team processes including the

establishment of a team recorder and team reflector• develop meaningful time lines• deliver product on time

• documentation of team evaluation and reflection• joint performance and encouraging common goals• documentation of corrective actions necessary to

complete the project.The attributes that were used to assess thedesign/creative process this academic year were:

• documentation of information gathering/research• documentation of creative/alternative solutions• documentation of TRIZ thinking

• documentation of constraint setting and problem

decomposition

• evaluation and decision making process for design

selection

• design iterations and evaluation• documentation of key constraints• evolution of product structure• documentation of detail design

• documentation of system level thinking.Individual quizzes and tests were used to evaluate eachstudent’s understanding of the technical material covered inclass. Thus, about 60% of an individual student’s grade wascomposed of individual and independent work, rather thanteam work. The feedback from the students indicated that

Assessment

At the end of the CIM course, students are required to makeboth an oral presentation of their projects and providedetailed documentation of their design process. Written selfevaluations of the team and individual assessments are alsorequired, but are based upon the agreed upon criteria andstandards from the beginning of the course. The addition ofthis rating step to the team projects has eliminated much ofthe concern that the students have always had regardingindividual grades versus team grades and have providedneeded tools for self-reflection and evaluation. However, itis still difficult within the limited academic time frame tocomplete any in-depth self-reflection process for the teams.Emerging maturity from team members usually results in theassignment of blame rather than true understanding of thecauses of any difficulties. Gaps between self-perception andteam perception of individuals will be used as a feedbackloop at midpoint of the project next academic year in hopesthat team maturity levels can be further enhanced. Summaryinterviews of the individual teams will also be conductednext academic year, although faculty workload issuesbecome problematic. Individual team member interviewswere considered, but were eliminated because of facultyworkload concerns. Formative assessment must become alarger component of assessment in this course, however.

The documentation from the CIM projects are used asitems for their portfolios, although the department does notyet require a formal Student Portfolio Review. Discussionof this assessment technique is currently underway and willmost likely be used both as a department level and universitylevel assessment technique.

The attributes that were used this academic year toevaluate these projects are based upon agreed upon desirableattributes by the faculty of the Engineering TechnologyDepartment at Western. This approach eliminated much ofthe individual faculty members concerns over team basedinstruction since all faculty have agreed upon objectives andgoals. The attributes that were used to evaluate the teammembers during this academic year were:

• share in day-to-day activities of the team

0-7803-53-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEENovember 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico

th

29 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

11a2-23

Session 11a2

including individual assessment and responsibility fortechnical content alleviated most of their concerns withgrades resulting from team projects.

References

1. ABET, Proposed Criteria for Accrediting Engineering

Technology Programs, 1999.

2.Quirk, M., Manufacturing, Teams, and Improvement;

The Human Art of Manufacturing, Prentice-Hall, 1999.3.Altshuller, G., And Suddenly the Inventor Appeared,

TRIZ, the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving,Technical Innovation Center, 1996.

4.Altshuller, G., 40 Principles: TRIZ Keys to Technical

Innovations, Technical Innovation Center, 1991.

5. Terninko, J., Systematic Innovation: An Introduction to

TRIZ, Saint Lucie Press, 1998.

6.Martinazzi, R., “A Team Centered Grading System

Based Primarily on the Team’s Performance,” FIE 97Proceedings, 1997.

7.How Do You Measure Success? Designing Effective

Processes for Assessing Engineering Education, ASEEProfessional Books, 1998.

8.Transferable Integrated Design Engineering Education,

TIDEE, Annual Report, February 1996 – January 1997.9.Rover, D. and Fisher, P., “Cross-Functional Teaming in

a Capstone Engineering Design Course,” FIE 97Proceedings, 1997.

10.Allen, J., “Assessment of Engineering Design by

Design,” FIE 97 Proceedings, 1997.

11. Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D., The Wisdom of Teams,

Harper Business School Press, 1993.

12. McGourty, J., “Performance Measurement and

Continuous Improvement of Undergraduate EngineeringEducation Systems,” FIE 97 Proceedings, 1997.

13.Newsetetter, W. and Khan, S., “A Developmental

Approach to Assessing Design Skills and Knowledge,”FIE 97 Proceedings, 1997.

14.Nichols, J., A Practitioner’s Handbook for Institutional

Effectiveness and Students Outcomes AssessmentImplementation, Agathon Press, 1995.

15.Mazur, E., Peer Instruction: A User’s Manual, Prentice-Hall, 1997.

16.Schwartz, R., “Improving Course Quality with Student

Management Teams,” ASEE Prism, ASEE, pp. 19-23,January 1997.

Conclusions

The Department of Engineering Technology at WesternWashington University has emphasized concurrentengineering principles and team based projects during thelast five years within the curriculum and within studentteams that are entered in competitions sponsored by variousprofessional societies. Similarly, individual classes arestructured with laboratory projects that emphasize teamworkand creative endeavors because there is widespreadagreement, both in industry and in academia, that active andproductive teams that are capable of producing creativetechnical solutions and/or products in short periods of timeare essential to ensure success in today’s highly competitiveworld based economy.

However, managing student team design experienceswithin the curriculum and within courses is difficult andtime consuming for the faculty involved in those projects.But, with sufficient department-wide goal and missionstatements, and discussions of common objectives for thoseexperiences, the process becomes both manageable andmeaningful. Assessment discussions of both upper- andlower-division experiences naturally result from thosediscussions surrounding course, program and departmentobjectives. Even though all agree on what the desiredattributes of graduates should be, there is not yet widespreadagreement on the best methods to obtain these characteristicsor on what is the appropriate method to assess thesecharacteristics before and after graduation.

Industry and/or “real world” projects for the differently-abled added additional importance to the creative endeavorswithin the CIM class and were used to develop the desiredcharacteristics of team based design projects within the METcurriculum. Student team members were given theopportunity to rate both themselves and other team memberson a scale of 1 to 5 on items identified by the teams asattributes being important to the success of the team.Student team members were also given the opportunity toevaluate the team as a whole, on the same scale [1 to 5], onagreed upon objectives for the team. Since the students hadagreed upon both the attributes of a “good” team memberand had also agreed upon the attributes and objectives fortheir teams at the beginning of the design exercise or project,the approach worked very well. Individual quizzes and testswere used to evaluate each student’s understanding of thetechnical material covered in class. The feedback from thestudents indicated that including individual assessment andresponsibility for technical content alleviated most of theirconcerns with grades resulting from team projects

0-7803-53-8/99/$10.00 © 1999 IEEENovember 10 - 13, 1999 San Juan, Puerto Rico

th

29 ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

11a2-24