Learning Through Design

Mr Michael Liebelt
Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering

"I wanted to give students a holistic view of the design process"




Background | Aims | Process | Evaluation | Contact



Background



In my third year Microprocessor Systems subject (about 140 students) I was faced with a dilemma common to many educators in a design field. I needed to convey basic concepts and theory so that the students had the intellectual tools to engage in microprocessor system design, but focussing on the theory and concepts created an arid and dull subject. This was dissatisfying for me as a lecturer as I knew that microprocessor system design is a creative and challenging practice involving complex trade-offs. I felt the subject as I was teaching it ignored the reality that in practice theory is in the service of design. Instead I was seeing students approach knowledge and skills as compartmentalised and isolated. Rather than motivated to learn, the students appeared motivated to pass the exam. The better students weren't extended and I wasn't challenged either.

In 1998 I decided to develop and present a subject that moved away from a focus on information for its own sake (or rather for the sake of passing an exam) and toward a focus on a holistic view of the design process. This entailed changing the subject delivery from fact-based lectures to a more interactive process with design as the focal point and information playing a support role.

To achieve this I used a Project Based approach. I set a project - to design a microprocessor system to operate a robot. Students developed a paper-based hardware and software design for the microprocessor system in first semester. In second semester most students took a lab work subject in which they could realise their design in an actual robot. Ultimately I believe the change in teaching focus and process enabled the students to appreciate the artistry and compromises involved in a creative design-like practice. They could begin to see how exciting the implementation of engineering knowledge could be.

Aims

to -

• get students to learn about the complexity and multifaceted nature of the design process
• allow students to appreciate how enjoyable engineering can be when you are creating something
• reinvigorate my teaching practice with a fresh approach

Process

Through discussions with other lecturers in the department about these kinds of issues, in particular Neil Burgess who had developed his own problem based design subject, I began to formulate an approach that I thought would deliver the aims I had set.

A group based, project centred approach was taken. Working in groups of four the students were to produce a project report detailing their design. To get there they had four homework worksheets, staged to ensure that they were motivated to acquire knowledge at the appropriate time. The process was facilitated by a weekly discussion where students could ask questions and talk about their difficulties. This, and a short talk of 10-20 minutes duration that gave an overview of a particular technique or issue, took the place of lectures. Often the topic for the talk was determined by student questions during the preceding week and was decided upon only on the day before the discussion session. A comprehensive set of notes that covered the essential knowledge but not the complete range of design techniques was also given. A web site held reference material - notes, project specification, copies of worksheets and sample solutions for worksheets. Students were encouraged to submit questions to me by email, in which case I would post my replies on the web site for all to see, or to ask questions face to face after our weekly discussion sessions or at any other time.

This innovation in teaching practice was first tried in 1998. My satisfaction in teaching improved markedly as the students were asking questions relevant to their needs rather than simply acquiring disconnected facts. The good students were able to get deeper into the topic than they had previously as they were no longer constrained by the lecture material. The class as a whole began to come to grips with the trade-offs intrinsic to a design practice. The project is worth 25% of the final grade, with a confidential peer assessment contributing 5% of this. Each group's worksheets accounted for 20%. Individual assessment is through a final exam worth 55% of the final mark.

The exam perhaps doesn't fit ideally with the overall strategy but it is important to obtain a reliable individual assessment and it is impossible in practice to eliminate plagiarism from the worksheet assignments and difficult to identify passengers in project groups.

In designing the learning and assessment activities in the course one of my aims was to keep my overall workload approximately the same, given that it was bound to involve some increased assessment time but less lecturing and preparation time. Overall I almost got it right - I feel that the workload has increased slightly, but the upside is that whereas previously many hours would have been spent preparing and delivering lectures, now those hours are spent in interactive engagement with the students, which I find much more satisfying.

Evaluation


A SET evaluation in 1998 found satisfaction with the new course was slightly higher though the students' comments were quite polarised. Many students loved the independent learning and creative aspects of the subject, but others felt the lecturer had abdicated responsibility.

In the course of weekly discussions I was able to explore a wider range of issues in microprocessor systems design than I had previously, and feedback from the class, both immediate and through subsequent questions, indicated a good appreciation of those issues.

Relatively few students submitted questions by email, but most appeared to be reading my replies. Some of the questions showed a very good appreciation of the engineering issues and I found this to be very satisfying. Clearly, some students were acting as spokesperson for their groups. Many students preferred to ask questions face to face - particularly, it seemed, those who were less confident of their knowledge.

Exam marks were not significantly different from what I had previously seen, but the exam did explore student understanding of a wider range of issues than previously. There was evidence that the students had at least as good a grasp of the informational content as in previous years, as well as an appreciation of the design subtleties.

Improvements as a result of this feedback and my reflections on the first implementation have consisted of fine-tunings rather than any significant overhaul. Topics are now presented in a slightly different order to maximise their usefulness. The lecturer can now anticipate the junctures in the subject where students can go "off the rails", pursuing inappropriate solutions, and can guard against this by introducing a discussion of related issues at the appropriate point. More technical and administrative information is now provided on the web site.

As an indication of external validation I was asked in 1999 by the Advisory Centre for University Education to present my experiences at an Introduction to University Teaching course.

Contact
Mike Liebelt can be contacted on:

Tel: +61 8 8303 5114
Fax: +61 8 8303 4360
E-mail: mike@eleceng.adelaide.edu.au

Adelaide University, Australia 5005

last updated 2/8/01