Keywords

1 Introduction and Rationale

A transition towards sustainable and digital value creation is at the core of Europe’s new industrial policy [1]. This so-called Twin Transition is leading to new competitiveness challenges throughout Europe’s manufacturing companies. They are required to adopt flexible, and circular value networks while also utilizing novel Industry 4.0 technologies. Consequently, curricula in higher engineering education must adapt to these new manufacturing trends. Manufacturing engineering students must learn how to design, manage, and implement complex innovation projects in manufacturing, cooperate in teams efficiently and effectively, communicate with different stakeholders, and apply methods and tools in the areas of sustainability and digitalization. Thus, new perspectives of teaching and learning in higher manufacturing engineering education are required that holistically combine teaching and research. This combination poses some complexity challenges to the planning and implementation of curricula: specific research objectives must be translated into specific learning activities which eventually comply with the intended learning objectives of the students. The paper aims at presenting a teaching framework for combining research- with project- and case-based learning in higher manufacturing engineering education.

2 Theoretical Background

The proposed framework addresses three constructivist and inquiry-oriented approaches to education: research- (RBL), project- (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL).

RBL or the research-teaching nexus puts the focus on the research process. Students are participating in real-life research. RBL can be distinguished from research-led, research-tutored, and research-oriented teaching and learning [2,3,4,5]. Other authors mention self-regulatory and self-guided learning as relevant aspects of RBL [6]. RBL originates in Humboldt’s vision for higher education by integrating research and learning [7]. RBL in higher engineering education often focuses on developing research skills such as analyzing data, interpreting, and reporting findings, or conducting experiments [3]. Hoskins and Mitchell introduce ingredients for creating a knowledge-together culture of students and researchers [8]. In manufacturing engineering, learning factories are proposed as a suitable didactical concept for realizing RBL [7].

PBL allows students to learn by doing and applying ideas through meaningful questions emulating what professionals in their field do and which are applied within real-world challenges [9, 10]. Thus, students work in groups to solve real and often interdisciplinary problems that culminate in a product and reflect on their learnings from the project experience [10,11,12,13]. The students decide how to tackle the problem [12]. PBL can cultivate innovative thinking [14], and there are indications that it facilitates students’ motivation and cooperation [15]. For higher manufacturing engineering education, Stock and Kohl [16] discuss a transnational PBL approach utilizing Kolb’s learning cycle [17]. Other approaches combine PBL with learning factories [18, 19] or with the design and operation of products and equipment or manufacturing processes and value networks [20,21,22].

CBL or case-based reasoning is a more guided inquiry approach compared to PBL [23]. In CBL, students create reasoning based on previous experience by typically using lessons learned from previous situations to understand and navigate new challenges [13, 24]. Kolodner et al. propose case-based learning aids to support the learning experience [25]. Research also indicates that discussion groups or group work can facilitate the learning experience in CBL [26]. In manufacturing engineering, CBL is a commonly used approach to convey relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies, e.g., through the co-creation of manufacturing artifacts [27].

The paper intends to contribute to knowledge gain in the research field of higher manufacturing engineering education by efficaciously combining RBL, PBL, and CBL within a teaching framework to prepare engineering students for a more and more complex working environment in the European Twin Transition.

3 Teaching Framework

This research in higher manufacturing engineering education follows a qualitative research approach. The teaching framework (Fig. 1) is conceptualized by utilizing state-of-the-art approaches in higher education. Primary building blocks are RBL, PBL, and CBL. It consists of three main teaching and learning artifacts that serve as key elements for curriculum development: 1. Research project, 2. Didactic concept, 3. Case(s). The research project is determined by a scoped research task that the students should carry out following the idea of RBL and PBL. The didactic concept specifies relevant teaching and learning elements for executing the course while also incorporating the scoped research project. The case(s) address the structure of concrete case-based learning and teaching activities that reflect relevant learning goals for the research project while following the idea of CBL. Each of these main artifacts is in turn coined by specific sub-artifacts (1.1 to 3.3) described in Table 1.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Teaching framework for higher manufacturing engineering education.

Full size image
Table 1. Description of sub-artifact of the teaching framework.
Full size table

The development process of the teaching curriculum is divided into four phases (A-D): Design, Implement, Evaluate, and Improve. It follows the idea of a continuous improvement cycle [28]. The design is coined by creating all sub-artifacts 1.1 to 3.3. Usually, the design process can be structured into a fuzzier earlier phase where solutions for the sub-artifacts are conceptualized. This phase is followed by the detailed design of the conceptualized solutions. Implementation aims at executing the course with the research project, didactic concept, and the case(s). It covers the realization of the designed artifacts within a real learning environment. Evaluation aims at evaluating the quality of the designed artifacts based on empirical data from the implementation. It further allows deriving measures for the improvement of the framework for the next teaching and learning cycle. Improvement focuses on translating these measures into concrete re-design actions for the teaching framework’s artifacts and sub-artifact.

4 Proof-of-Concept

The development of the teaching framework was carried out jointly with its ad-hoc implementation and evaluation within a master’s course. The course is part of the master’s program in Engineering Operations Management at the University of Southern Denmark (SDU). Seven third-semester master’s students participated in the 2022 cohort of the course. The three main artifacts of the framework, the research project (4.1), didactic concept (4.2), and the case(s) (4.3), were designed and implemented.

4.1 Research Project

The research project aims at developing an automated and digitalized additive manufacturing (AM) system embedded in an Industry 4.0 environment. This includes the automation of the value creation in the context of an AM system from setting up and equipping the 3D printer with materials, to quality control, and all material handling steps. Seven work packages based on a DEV-OPS project management approach [29] are created with related deliverables. Table 2 exemplarily shows the description of work package 3. A Gantt-Chart for executing the work packages within 24 months as well as the expected time frames for realizing three intended project milestones are defined. Since the duration of the master’s course is only five months, the course allows an effective coverage of the first three work packages.

Table 2. An exemplary description of work package 3 (WP3).
Full size table

4.2 Didactic Concept

The learning goals of the course address relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies required for successfully designing, managing, and implementing complex technology projects. The learning activities are divided into two categories. Firstly, 12 individual teaching sessions à three hours are defined related to the following topics: (1) Technology trends; (2) management of technology projects; (3) technology assessment. Each of these topics includes a sequence of individual teaching sessions. Secondly, a project assignment is created for the students. The project assignment covers the first three work packages of the research project and is to be carried out as group work. The students must hand in a group report about the results of the project including a reflection on their contributions to the project. The teacher needs to fulfill different roles, such as a presenter of knowledge or a moderator of exercises. Another relevant role is the project sponsor role for the project assignment to facilitate the project’s progress. The quality assurance of the course is conducted in two ways. The learning outcomes of the students are evaluated based on a final oral exam. Additionally, the students can give feedback within an anonymous mid-term and final evaluation of the course. Relevant stakeholders for the course are the head of SDU’s Industry 4.0 lab, who needs to support the practical implementation of hardware and software solutions as well as guest lecturers who can deliver specific knowledge or practical experiences supplementing the learning goals. Besides, the vendors of the equipment, e.g., the 3D printers, must be considered. For communicating with the students, SDU’s eLearning platform is used in which all learning materials as well as the description of the research project are made available. Most of the course-related discussions are taken during the 12 teaching sessions.

4.3 Case(s)

For transferring the planned teaching activities, i.e., the 12 teaching sessions into concrete learning experiences, two cases are designed: one case addressing the development process of a tower system for wind turbines, the “SmarTower” case, while the second case is based on a sharing platform for consumer tools, the “Toolbot” case. Both cases intend to deliver the necessary knowledge, skills, and competencies which are required for the research project. Throughout the case-based teaching sessions, the students need to interpret, reflect, and transfer the results from the cases to their project assignments. Especially, the transfer of knowledge from the case to the research project seems to substantially support the learning outcomes. Table 3 provides an overview of the agenda for an individual case-based teaching session.

Table 3. Agenda of a case-based teaching session as part of the technology assessment topic.
Full size table

4.4 Evaluation of Learning Outcomes

For measuring the efficacy of the proposed teaching framework, different qualitative and quantitative empirical data were collected and evaluated. Firstly, the students of the course participated in an anonymous midterm and final course evaluation survey. Selected results from the final course evaluation are presented in Table 4. Secondly, for the “Toolbot” case, a separate case evaluation was conducted. This evaluation was twofold. It was based on an anonymous student survey as well as on observations from two external consultants in the field of higher education and case-based teaching.

Table 4. Selected results from the final course evaluation (number of participants, n = 5).
Full size table

4.5 Discussion of Results and Limitations

The proof-of-concept verifies that the conceptualized teaching framework can be applied for designing, implementing, and evaluating a course in higher manufacturing engineering education. The evaluation of the learning outcomes demonstrates a solid efficacy of the framework. The self-assessment of the students’ increase in skills and competencies shows satisfactory improvements. The students partially agreed that the research project supported their learning outcomes. Thus, improvements to the course design might focus on scoping the research project with its work packages. Limitations are linked to comparing the efficacy of the framework to other teaching and learning approaches and frameworks. For example, it remains unclear if a mere research-, project-, or case-based learning approach would have led to similar learning outcomes.

5 Summary and Outlook

A teaching framework for combining research-, project-, and case-based learning with three main teaching and learning artifacts and four development phases was presented. A proof-of-concept discussed the design, implementation, and evaluation of a concrete course of a master’s program at SDU while following the proposed teaching framework. The evaluation of the students’ learning outcomes demonstrated the basic efficacy of the teaching framework. A self-assessment by the students showed a sufficient increase in skills and competencies for managing complex technology projects by the end of the course. The author believes that the proposed teaching framework can contribute to realizing the Humboldtian idea of integrating research and teaching at universities by providing a detailed guideline for developing curricula in higher manufacturing engineering education. Future research will investigate the beneficial design of the research project for providing a high-quality learning experience to the students.