Studios Reshape Engineering Curricula at UTS

Abstract

As identified earlier, engineering curricula must develop three categories of skills and knowledge—(i) design and problem solving in complex, sociotechnical situations, (ii) the technical knowledge to support the design process, and (iii) the interpersonal skills to support engineering team processes. Traditional curricula, based on teaching the technical knowledge and skills, under-deliver developing the design and interpersonal skill sets. Studios are a place where all three categories of skills can be developed.

As identified earlier, engineering curricula must develop three categories of skills and knowledge—(i) design and problem solving in complex, sociotechnical situations, (ii) the technical knowledge to support the design process, and (iii) the interpersonal skills to support engineering team processes. Traditional curricula, based on teaching the technical knowledge and skills, under-deliver developing the design and interpersonal skill sets.

Since at least 1974, several universities worldwide have implemented various forms of project-based learning (PBL), although PBL has not become the norm in engineering curricula as it has in medicine (Kolmos et al., 2004). The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has embarked on a bold move to implement design studios in each of its engineering programs, extending the approaches originally developed in the Software Development Studio.

This chapter traces the development of the ideas and approaches and documents the several pivots in our thinking, through the development and rollout of the studio approach since 2016.

The chapter highlights the ways in which we have approached the big ideas in this book, namely the need for interdisciplinary, complex problem solving, the need to create active learning environments, supported by digital tools, in which reflection is a key part of the process, where students see their learning as part of their lifelong career trajectory, and where social, cultural, and environmental issues can be explored, and innovative solutions sought.

However, moving a faculty of 12,000 students and 1000 academic and professional staff in a new direction takes time. This chapter focuses on our implementation efforts from several perspectives—the curriculum restructuring required, the process of bringing academics along on the journey, switching their basic teaching habits, and the engagement of students as partners, which has been the source of considerable inspiration and delight. Hopefully, exposing our processes will provide some ideas for your own change journey.

Perhaps the big idea from all this work is to see curriculum change as a social process, in the same way that the learning process has already been emphasized as a social process. There is a wonderful indigenous word, yindyamarra, from the Wiradjuri people of what is now central New South Wales in Australia (Wikipedia, 2023). Loosely translated, it means to show respect, to give honor, to go slow, and to take responsibility (Sullivan et al. 2016; Wikipedia, 2023). This is a neat summary of our approach.

1 Acknowledgement

This chapter is adapted from several contributions from UTS teams and individuals: Hadgraft et al. (2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020).

2 Pivot 1—Why Studios?

2.1 The Context

We live in a world of constant change and students will likely experience several distinct careers during their lifetimes. There is increasing evidence that graduates will need to be innovative, with creative and critical thinking skills as well as the ability to engage others with their ideas (World Economic Forum, 2020). At a time of significant global challenges, we need to graduate engineering and information technology professionals who are future oriented, with an interdisciplinary approach to innovative problem solving.

UTS is committed to produce graduates who are equipped for ongoing learning and inquiry in their personal development and professional practice, who operate effectively with the body of knowledge that underpins professional practice, and who are committed to the actions and responsibilities of a professional and global citizen (UTS, 2015a).

To formalize these ideas, in late 2014, the university articulated the Learning.Futures model of learning (UTS, 2014) comprised of an integrated exposure to professional practice through dynamic and multifaceted modes of practice-oriented education professional practice, situated in a global workplace, with international mobility and international and cultural engagement as centerpiece, and learning that is research inspired and integrated, providing academic rigor with cutting edge technology to equip graduates for lifelong learning.

Many universities have similar commitments through their learning and teaching strategies. Learning.Futures, however, has mandated key shifts in classroom practice, toward flipped learning using the best of online materials (not necessarily creating them ourselves), collaborative learning activities, e.g., inquiry-based activities, labs, studios, projects, real-life experiences, e.g., internships, community projects, competitions, authentic assessment based on authentic tasks, and diagnostic feedback (UTS, 2015b).

This university-wide initiative ticks many of the requirements for new learning environments set out in this book, namely student centered, active learning with online support, learning as a social process, brought to life through a practice-oriented curriculum that connects students to their profession.

The initiative has been further supported by a huge investment in campus buildings over the last 10+ years, of the order of AU$1.5B, including a new Engineering and IT building opened in 2014, replete with team-oriented pod classrooms, in which each group table has a large screen monitor to support collaborative work. The building also contains a learning commons where students can study and collaborate between classes.

2.2 The Faculty of Engineering and IT Strategic Plan

The Faculty of Engineering and IT has interpreted these intended outcomes as.

To create, develop and disseminate world class technological knowledge, equip engineering and IT graduates to contribute in a global environment, and co-create value with industry and the community.

Within learning and teaching, our intent is to consolidate a flexible, practice-oriented, and inclusive learning environment that creates graduates who are sought after and globally competitive, integrate and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship into our courses and research, integrate teaching and research, focus on key areas where we can make a difference to the world through interdisciplinary approaches and the science of engineering.

We have interpreted the above needs to create a set of key requirements. Our learning environment shall be based on personalized learning as the heart of the student experience, practice-oriented learning based on inquiry (question asking is a key skill), development of global citizens with global perspectives, and access to the professional body of knowledge, which is linked to research.

2.3 Implementation—Studios, Online Learning and Assessment, E-Portfolios

There are three key ingredients to building a twenty-first century learning environment to deliver these requirements: first and foremost, it must be personalized. E-portfolios have emerged as a high impact practice in which students can co-create (and document) their emerging futures as global citizens (AAC&U, n.d.). Think of it as a continually evolving CV. Whereas a CV is backwards looking—this is what I have achieved in my previous roles—an e-portfolio is also forwards looking—what do I now need to achieve? Where are the opportunities (work placement, studios) where I can build those skills?

This step is all about personalization through reflection. Each student continually reflects on their activity to identify learning achieved and learning yet to be achieved. Helpful and unhelpful behaviors are identified. Students consider and adapt these new experiences to their intended career trajectory.

Second, studios, projects, and work placements are all experiential learning opportunities to develop skills and knowledge. Research from Prince and Felder (2006) supports active, experiential learning. Whereas traditional teaching and learning is often used in teaching engineering fundamentals, the complexity of modern design challenges, e.g., designing and building a National Broadband Network, are not amenable to lectures and tutorials as if there is a right answer. This step is all about professional practice.

Finally, we need to recognize that if you can ask the right question, you can find the answer (or answers). Online learning is increasingly the norm (see Lynda.com, Khan Academy, Codecademy, Udacity, …) and we can expect that all fundamentals will soon be available online with appropriate assessment tools. Students will be expected to demonstrate mastery of certain modules (beyond a 50% pass) before they can complete certain studios where that knowledge will be required (Lindsay & Morgan, 2016). This is all about flexible knowledge and skill acquisition and creation.

If online learning itself hasn't been challenging enough for most academics, ChatGPT has now completely upended our educational system—the next giant step in online tools and online learning. If we can ask an AI agent to solve simple engineering problems, why do we spend so much time teaching the fundamentals? Our basic curriculum assumptions are suddenly challenged. The next few years must see radical change in how we think about teaching engineering.

2.4 Some History and Context

UTS Engineering has a long history of engagement with practice-based learning (Parr et al., 1997). The revised 1998 curriculum emphasized professional formation, personal development, and academic development. The curriculum became practice oriented and learner centered, embodying environmental and social sustainability:

The course components [would] be mutually informing and synergistic, in order that the students experience their development as professional engineers, citizens, and lifelong learners in a holistic and supportive environment. (Parr et al., 1997)

Many of the elements of the core subjects remain: Mathematics 1 and 2, Physical Modelling, Engineering Communication, Engineering Computation, Economics and Finance, Engineering Management (now two subjects: Project Management, and Commercialization and Entrepreneurship). Sadly, ‘Engineering through History and Toward Sustainable Futures’ has gone and Technology Assessment is an option rather than core (now known as Interrogating Technology). ‘Uncertainties and Risk in Engineering’ has been replaced by ‘Design and Innovation Fundamentals’.

Almost 20 years on we are still grappling with the issue of what is the core of engineering practice.

2.4.1 The Professional Practice (Internship) Program

UTS also operates the largest internship program in Australia, now almost 50 years old. More than 1000 students complete an internship each year. Internship is mandatory for all local students. For these students, two six-month placements stretch their four-year degree to five years. Internships are usually taken in second and fourth years, and many students are already employed by the end of their second internship.

2.4.2 Software Development Studio (SDS)

Our Faculty’s Software Development Studio was designed to emulate a real software development practice, where student teams work on industry-initiated projects. Team members are not peers, but come from different subjects, years of study and degree courses. This mixed team approach mirrors the diverse experience in a real workplace and encourages peer learning and peer mentoring. The teams also have half-a-dozen industry mentors who spend one to two hours weekly, working face-to-face collaborating with the teams. The students learn how to use sophisticated software development tools, such as GitHub, which they may encounter in the workplace, to share code and assets, and HipChat, Jira, and Confluence for communication and project management. Students can get credit toward their degrees through partner subjects or special project subjects.

A recent Grattan report into Australian higher education states that ‘IT graduate skills and attributes are mismatched with the labor market’ (Norton & Cakitaki, 2016). The report goes on to state that IT graduates often lack the necessary communication and interpersonal skills, which puts them ‘at a disadvantage.’ One of the SDS’s purposes is to address just this issue. Strong emphasis is placed on the deliberate development and formative assessment of teamwork skills, particularly communication and collaboration—learning and working as a social process.

Key characteristics of studio learning environments are real projects, industry mentors, and reflective practice. There is a long tradition in the use of this approach in the creative arts disciplines, which is firmly based in Schön (1983)’s work on the reflective practitioner.

The faculty’s definition of a studio is shaped by these Software Development Studios and adapted from the Australian Learning and Teaching Council’s Studio Teaching Project Team (2015): ‘The studio is a learning community of students, teachers and others such as industry mentors and practitioners, interacting in a creative, reflective process to develop some kind of product, in a physical space that enables collaboration.’

The key ingredients here are real projects leading to real products, with industry mentors, using collaborative and reflective practice. Whereas Project-Based Learning (PBL) aims to integrate complex learning through deep involvement in a team-based project, involving design/construction of some object or system, a studio is a learning community of students, teachers, and others such as industry mentors and practitioners. PBL is mostly about completing the product or project, with some focus on the development of capabilities, which are usually technical. Studios are mostly about achieving capabilities, which go beyond the technical, with some focus on the final product. The development of the product is the journey; it is not the destination.

2.5 How Do Academic Staff See Studios?

Two workshops were organized during 2016 to grapple with the introduction of studios in Engineering and IT. The first workshop was mostly aimed at Deputy Heads of School for Learning and Teaching, together with some other key teaching staff. The second workshop cast the net more widely for those who had an interest in exploring the issue.

At the first workshop, staff were asked to identify key issues that they felt needed to be addressed. They then worked on some of these issues in small groups, with results as follows:

Purpose is a key issue. What are we trying to achieve? Some of the ideas presented include the getting of wisdom (by both staff and students); learning through doing, to enable the development of professional practice skills; allowing and supporting excellence—students can/will exceed scope and expectations; exploring (and stretching) boundaries—institutional structures and systems currently constrain our understanding of teaching, learning and assessment; integrating a number of existing subjects, e.g., across a semester, or longitudinally across several semesters.

Real projects are seen as vital for studios, including design and build an artifact for a competition, e.g., the Warman competition (Warman Design & Build Competition 2022); cross-disciplinary projects versus subject specific or discipline specific projects; open source (software) projects; research-based projects; Engineers Without Borders (EWB) and other NGOs; greater engagement with industry.

The student experience is a key ingredient in the UTS learning model (above). Studios can improve the student experience through flexibility for student (career) directions; students need to investigate on their own; they need to move outside of their comfort zones; we need to define student roles and support them to achieve the intended capabilities and attributes.

Students should be able to communicate in several modalities and work in teams, including across multiple year levels. No two students will have the same experience and mapping diverse student achievement will be a challenge, particularly around technical skills. Studios should support in-depth technical learning in threshold subjects.

Student success is a necessary motivator: exciting projects lead to infectious motivation, as many have experienced. The value proposition is that students build a portfolio to get a job, with valuable artifacts to show at a job interview. They demonstrate their interdisciplinary skills, their technical knowledge, their client focus, their ability to work well with others, and their self-awareness through reflection.

Failure needs to be reconsidered. Would we be better to speak instead of ‘not achieved yet’? Nevertheless, we will need to help students deal with freeloaders in teams or dysfunctional team members and with students with differing levels of commitment.

Reflective practice is not well understood by engineering educators; this and other aspects of studio approaches make it difficult to understand ‘studio.’

There are some key curriculum design issues: Studios should be supported by online modules to develop knowledge and skills. We will likely need a limited number of non-studio subjects to build core technical capabilities in each discipline. We need a good supply of projects, including bigger picture, world/societal problems and issues—industry backed, mentored, open ended. We want to support different ways of learning—guided, not taught; learning on demand (and sometimes teaching on demand); shorter, high intensity, rather than spread over the semester; collaborative; rule breaking; pull, rather than push learning; enduring projects may work best; lots of learning paths; teacher (and students) negotiate objectives. We want to cross-fertilize from studios to other subjects.

Assessment is a key issue. Assessment should be authentic and contribute to the student’s portfolio. Assessment should also be holistic and not based on the sum of a series of assessment marks. There should be credibility (both validity and reliability) in demonstration of learning outcomes. Students will need to negotiate intended learning outcomes, particularly when multiple disciplines are involved.

Grading is an issue that we need to consider or, more to the point, ungraded passes may be a better way forward. Grading leads to teachers’ values being imposed on student learning. That may not sit well with a true, student-directed environment built around individual portfolios.

Workload for staff must be accounted for, both academic and professional staff. One concern is scalability for large numbers of students. Is there an ideal number for a studio? Space demands will be significant, particularly by encouraging more students to spend more time on campus. Where will they all sit, stand, and work?

Staff skills will need to be enhanced. Tutor training will be required for large classes. These include facilitation skills—students are guided, advised, taught on demand (pull learning); professional skills, e.g., resolving team conflicts; and IT skills.

Engagement of others is essential, e.g., industry, as guests and mentors. Motivation will be generated by bringing the faculty together, across disciplines, teaching, research, etc. We need to determine whether we will get buy-in from research-only academics. We will also create a learning environment that is broadly inclusive—team focused: staff and students, young and old; academic, professional, industry mentors working collaboratively—team learning and team teaching.

Timetabling/scheduling faces several challenges—formal classes versus informal team meetings (and space for both); open access to laboratories and equipment—we need a booking system and a certification system for laboratory and equipment access. Fortunately, there is development already happening on this front to allow students access equipment using certification based on their student card.

Space includes the physical, metaphysical as well as tools and resources. Spaces include creative spaces; laboratory space for design, build, test; open access, easily configurable; setup for human interaction rather than overloaded with technology—ambience and atmosphere are important. How specifically does a space need to be furnished and configured? What are the key attributes (group addressable TV screens, large writeable walls)?

Space is also metaphysical or logical; after all, it includes many other spaces, e.g., students’ homes, as well as transport, cafes, etc. Tools and resources should provide seamless integration of the physical and virtual worlds, e.g., provide a range of computing tools to support team projects, e.g., Trello, Confluence, etc.

It is clear then, that there is much to think about as we introduce studios to our programs.

2.6 Reimagining Curricula with Studios

The initial studios were introduced into data engineering (a new program replacing ICT Engineering) and biomedical engineering, each with a different story.

Biomedical Engineering offered distinct challenges. It had already been decided that students would complete two out of four specialties: medical and assistive devices; biomaterials; genomics and bioinformatics; health economics, and innovation. Each of these sequences would be made up of three standard subjects. An easy approach to studios in this case was to combine two of the three subjects into a studio, with the third subject serving to develop necessary skills and knowledge in readiness for the studio.

Students also have four free electives that allow them to undertake a third specialty if that is of interest. Alternatively, they can broaden their knowledge in areas of business management and entrepreneurship, or they may deepen their knowledge in a technical domain such as mechatronics or data science.

These long studios (half the semester’s work), of course, come late in the program (third and fourth years). We wanted to include an introductory studio, which would help students to understand why they were studying a broad range of subjects such as cell biology, genetics, physiology, anatomy, healthcare systems, biomedical regulation, and ethics, as well as circuits, signals, programming, and chemistry.

A Fundamentals of Biomedical Engineering studio was proposed to run across semesters 2 and 3 (actually two studios), with the intention of students engaging in simple problems from each of the four specialties listed above. This studio introduces the four key areas of biomedical work and creates the reason to learn the medical, engineering, and data sciences needed for work in the specialty studios in years 3 and 4.

The new Data Engineering program was introduced in 2017. It represents a rethink from a focus on the tools (ICT) to a focus on data, which underpins our business systems, such as the World Wide Web, Google, Facebook, banking, electronic ticketing, accommodation booking, and e-government.

Each of these data engineered systems must satisfy a set of business requirements, and it must be built in a user-centered way. The engineered system itself is represented in four parts: data gathering (the user interface); data preprocessing, transmission, and storage; data analysis and decision making; and data presentation and action.

Like biomedical engineering, data engineering is interdisciplinary. Students must learn from several disciplines to create the complex systems required by our modern society. Similarly, both new disciplines have a strong focus on the social context—what is the problem to be solved? How will people use this system or product—the social and cultural aspects? Innovation is critical in these relatively new fields, where new products and systems are being created constantly.

Within this interdisciplinary context, specializations include advanced data analytics, real-time systems, image processing and computer vision, Internet science, and cybersecurity. There are three studio pairs (six individual subjects), called Fundamentals, Applications, and Professional, which run across semesters two to eight.

The fundamentals stage is the first three semesters, which develop fundamental skills—design, technical, and professional. As well as the usual mathematics and physics, this stage includes Engineering Communication and Introduction to Data Engineering to develop basic design and professional skills such as teamwork and communication skills. Technical subjects included are C programming; information and signals; sensing, actuation, and control; network fundamentals; and introduction to data analytics.

The fundamentals studio, which stretches across semesters two and three, gives students an early chance to integrate the various aspects of data engineering. They might design a 4G network for a sports stadium, analyze data from the public transport ticketing system to streamline bus services, or design an app for a new online service.

In the applications stage (semesters 4–6), students dive deeply into one or more of the technical specializations above. They may work in a group across the specializations, for example, on an image processing application with aspects of data analytics and cybersecurity.

At the professional stage (semesters 7 and 8), students undertake two further studios, this time concentrating on the total problem, carefully investigating organizational and user requirements. This stage is supported by the core subjects in Design and Innovation; Project Management; Economics and Finance; Entrepreneurship; and Interrogating Technology.

2.7 Discussion and Conclusions

Engineering education is on the cusp of major change. Fundamental knowledge will soon be learned and assessed online. The free availability of such knowledge from websites such as Lynda.com, Khan Academy, Udacity, and now ChatGPT, is ample proof that the price of such materials is approaching zero.

This fundamental knowledge is also already captured in complex and sophisticated software, which means that students do not need to know how to solve the governing equations, though they do need to know how such analytical tools work, at least in principle, and be able to check that the answers that they have received are reasonable. Miscalculation leading to poor design can be fatal.

Studios are intended to give students the opportunity to apply the basics and use the sophisticated tools to solve reasonably complex, real problems. Students will work with industry mentors, in collaborative teams, using reflective practice as a key ingredient to draw out, for themselves, and with guidance, what has been their key learning during the semester. The learning, not the project, is the central activity.

Finally, the big challenge is to redesign our curricula for these trends. Will curricula eventually be only studios, with online learning supporting each one? Some of them would build basic competencies, such as structural design or design of circuits. Others would extend these skills into more complex applications using advanced computing tools. Other studios would immerse students in even more complex situations, such as resolving transport issues in any of our large capital cities. Other studios would be entrepreneurial, or humanitarian or research oriented. Many or most of the studios would be conducted with an industry sponsor.

Whatever we do, we need to move away from thinking that teaching standard solutions to standard problems is any kind of preparation for the complex future our graduates will face.

3 Pivot 2—Students as Partners

In 2017, a new imperative forced the teaching and learning design team to reconsider our approach to studios. The faculty had received unfavorable student evaluations of teaching, which forced us to rethink many of our teaching activities, to ensure high quality student outcomes (QILT, 2018). We decided to aspire to a gold standard, and, from that idea, MIDAS was born—More Innovative Design Able Students. (You’ll remember that Midas was the king that turned objects into gold.)

Through MIDAS, we intended to engage students and staff in authentic learning, focused on design-rich curricula with a studio spine. Through MIDAS, we wanted students and teachers to be their authentic selves in a true teaching and learning partnership. MIDAS doesn’t see students as numbers, but as partners, as people who can learn, contribute, inspire, teach, and create, and it sees teachers as people who also learn, contribute, inspire, teach, and create.

So, MIDAS became a particular focus on learning as a social process, as discussed earlier in this book, to create learning environments that are student centered, active, collaborative, experiential, and reflective. It built on our emerging studio experience and on the UTS model of learning discussed earlier.

3.1 MIDAS—More Innovative Design Able Students

MIDAS became a 5-year cultural transformation project that is reinventing curricula, learning and teaching practices, through student and stakeholder engagement, to prepare graduates for the new world of work in the twenty-first century, requiring a focus on innovative design practices.

Many reviews of engineering education in the last 20 years have urged transformation of engineering education (National Academy of Engineering, 2004, 2005; Spinks et al., 2006; King, 2008; Sheppard et al., 2008; Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching 2009; Beanland & Hadgraft, 2014; Institute for the Future, 2015).

These international reviews recommended several issues to be addressed such as: complex challenges, interdisciplinarity, creativity and invention, leadership, sustainability, global ethics, and lifelong learning, all of which have been elaborated in this book (Hadgraft, 2017). Curriculum changes suggested included a professional spine, teaching for connection between topics, approximate engineering practice, use case studies, and situate problems in the world. The Henley Report (Spinks et al., 2006) recommended three different kinds of engineers: the technical specialist, the integrator, and the change agent.

Through the MIDAS project, staff and students are engaged as partners in activities and conversations to build capacity for a better learning experience, one that prepares students and staff for these challenges in the future workforce. The Learning Design Team in FEIT is building a sense of urgency to improve the student experience. How might staff create shared values—to discover, engage, empower, deliver, and sustain? The team aims for heightened awareness and traction—traction for transformation of mindset, beliefs, values, and behaviors.

In every conversation we have, in every action we take and in all our endeavors, we aim to create a place where students are at the center of these transformative conversations. Together we aim to graduate students as successful engineers and information technologists of the future, who are more innovative in their approaches, who use design thinking at the core of their practices.

3.1.1 Studios and MIDAS

Engineers and Information Technologists use design processes to solve complex problems and to develop new product opportunities (Koen, 2003). The Faculty’s Graduate Attributes, adapted from Cameron and Hadgraft (2010), embody the capabilities necessary for professional practice. A graduate is expected to be able to.

• A. Investigate the client’s needs (with social responsibility),

• B. Use a systematic design process,

• C. Apply disciplinary technical skills,

• D. Communicate and coordinate tasks with co-workers and stakeholders, and

• E. Self-manage tasks, projects, and career development.

Studios provide students with open-ended project opportunities to develop the full range of these professional capabilities. Each student defines a set of intended outcomes in a learning contract and then works to satisfy them, which they then document in a personal, reflective e-portfolio. Studios require graduate attribute E in action—self-management and self-learning.

A challenging task requires first an understanding of its context, the system in which it is embedded; the client needs must be identified, and formally recorded as the requirements to be delivered (point A above). These authentic project tasks will usually be developed with industry partners and develop students’ social, cultural, and environmental awareness, usually in an interdisciplinary context.

Students use the design process (point B), empathizing with the stakeholders to understand the problem as deeply as possible. The initial focus is on problem definition. Is the problem clear? Are the requirements clear and deliverable? (Brown, 2008; IDEO, 2017; Stanford University d.school, 2017). In the process of developing a set of potential solutions and in evaluating them against the requirements, various kinds of technical (abstraction and modeling) skills will be required (point C).

Engineering and IT rarely happens as individual activity—teams are required almost always. Communication and coordination are key skills (point D), likely the most important skills across a career (Trevelyan, 2014). Technology professionals spend around 60% of their time communicating both within the team and across team boundaries.

Self-management (point E) is the key ingredient. Engineers and IT professionals must be able to manage their work, learning, and time to become reliable and productive team members. The studios require students to maintain a reflective journal that will help them to identify strengths and weaknesses, to shape their learning across technical and non-technical capabilities.

Finally, studios help students to see the global nature of engineering and IT practice, both in the context of problems and design opportunities but also in the nature of the teams in which they will work, blending cultural and disciplinary perspectives.

The studio is the vehicle for each individual’s learning, as part of their overall career development at the university. Their personal e-portfolio will be a record of their achievement of the graduate capabilities and of their readiness to step into the world of work. It will contain many examples that might be discussed at a job interview, demonstrating the graduate is work ready. Importantly, development of an e-portfolio requires self-reflection, a key professional capability already discussed.

3.2 Student Involvement

The key part of the MIDAS project is involving students as partners in their own education. Things get done to students in the current university environment. We wanted to change that.

The core MIDAS team is working with the University Innovation Fellows (UIFs), four students from third, fourth, and fifth years across different engineering disciplines. They are the students selected as part of a Stanford University program empowering students to become agents of entrepreneurial change at their universities using design thinking as a tool (d.School, 2017). Each of these students undertake online training, followed by a week of immersion in design thinking at Stanford, though COVID disrupted the overseas component in 2021–2022.

The MIDAS team invited the UIFs and friends of UIFs to participate in conversations pertaining to Curriculum Renewal Projects, including a new Mechanical and Mechatronics Program, a new civil engineering program and related submajors, a new Master of Engineering (Robotics), Renewed Core subjects, Innovation studios, and a Student Communication package.

In the next section, students tell their side of this partnership in more detail.

3.2.1 Student Run Workshops Using Design Thinking

To uncover the hidden pains and unfulfilled desires of students within our current education system, an adaptation of the design thinking process (Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, and Test) has been used in student-led forums and workshops. These forums are developed and run by student leaders to engage their peers and allow them to pinpoint key elements of the current university experience that need improvement. By allowing students to manage these workshops, a friendly and casual environment is established, allowing honest thoughts and ideas to be uncovered and discussed—a crucial element to the success of the workshops thus far.

The data gathered from these workshops has been invaluable in uncovering some true desires of the students. It also allows students to take ownership of problems they are facing and gives them the power to generate solutions, resulting in a sense of pride, satisfaction, and productivity.

This design process can be viewed on a much larger scale and forms a core process within the MIDAS project. By working with students as partners, a very deep level of empathy has been achieved as the students themselves are creating solutions to problems they are facing. In essence, it can turn the university experience into an open resource platform where students are provided with the resources they need to conduct their studios and projects. Students can develop a greater understanding of their own thoughts to allow for reflection on the situations that they face.

3.2.2 Outcomes from Student Run Workshops

Student run workshops have uncovered numerous problems which students consider of high importance at UTS: the need for increased study spaces on campus for both quiet study and for (noisier) group activities, desire for a greater university-social balance, greater support for student entrepreneurs, and more project-based learning.

Overall, one of the biggest insights into the current student mindset is that students are eager to learn and have a large desire to be challenged and to do well in their studies, but they feel as though they are sometimes lacking the resources and necessary support.

With this comes some surprises, however, as many students are also unaware of some of the opportunities and resources already available to them. It is possible that one of the key outcomes from these workshops is that resources need to be more visible and actively promoted to students to give them the greatest opportunity to make use of what is available.

The second biggest insight from these workshops is the interest that students take once they are exposed to the design process. Once they have gone through a few iterations of the process, many have been very eager to participate in following sessions and are open about their desire to continue shaping the university to suit their needs. This again comes back to the core principle of students as partners.

A university is much more than a business selling education, although some of the same principles apply. When developing any product or selling any service, the business will flourish if its customers are satisfied, and they feel as though they are the company’s number one priority. If students can see that they are being put first and that the university is there to benefit them and grow with their needs, the success of those students and the reputation of the institution will follow.

3.3 Summer Studios

Summer studios emerged in our conversations with students to simultaneously address student dissatisfaction at having few subject offerings over the summer term, and as a high profile means to launch the MIDAS project. 360 students expressed an interest in participating in a summer studio experience. The summer studio experience is discussed in full in the next section, Pivot 3.

3.4 Conclusions to Pivot 2, Students as Partners

MIDAS is about the future state of engineering education at UTS. We believe education strategies and practices need to continuously adapt to a rapidly changing world. Our new curricula will be based on transformative, collaborative, and continuous renewal. Our studio-based curricula embody the key ideas from the international reviews: a professional spine of projects modeled on engineering practice, using real scenarios from industry and community partners.

In MIDAS, students and academics will get to be their true and authentic selves. Our students and academics will engage in genuine, mutual, and authentic partnerships. MIDAS respects that students and academics are on a journey together, both seeking meaning and both teaching and both learning. This is a process of continuous and transformative change for everyone.

MIDAS aims to build the support system required to enable the drivers of our future education. It has a positive vibe that harnesses and attracts staff and students and the wider community. Together, we rely on the design thinking process to help us achieve remarkable feats.

4 Pivot 3—Summer Studios

As explained above, summer studios developed out of our MIDAS strategy to create the next generation engineering and IT programs at UTS, using a sequence of studios in every program. More Innovative Design Able Students (MIDAS) is a response to industry demands for graduates who can respond more innovatively to the complex challenges in our world.

The 2016 national Quality Indicators for Learning and Teaching (QILT, 2018) also highlighted the need for summer offerings; it was decided to test our studio concept across a range of disciplines. Summer studios were born. The Associate Dean for Teaching and Learning’s vision was that ‘students will be transformed by the summer studio experience and will want that learning to continue all year long.’ This intention came to fruition, as demonstrated by the data.

4.1 Learning Intent

Summer studios are designed to be high energy, high collaboration, project-based subjects where students can engage in real-world design challenges. The studios enable students to negotiate the ways in which they will demonstrate achievement of professional skills while working on real-world projects. Facilitated by a mixture of academic experts, industry and community partners, students work in teams to define problems and develop and implement projects.

Using a design thinking framework, students regularly engage in pitching and critiquing work among peers. Assessment is pass/fail and comprises a mixture of reflective writing and portfolio compilation and discussions.

The subject learning outcomes were modeled on FEIT’s graduate attributes (UTS, 2018):

• 1. Engage with stakeholders to identify a problem.

• 2. Apply design thinking to respond to a defined or newly identified problem.

• 3. Apply technical skills to develop, model and/or evaluate a design.

• 4. Demonstrate effective collaboration and communication skills.

• 5. Conduct critical self and peer review and performance evaluation.

4.1.1 Student Response

18 teams of academics volunteered to conduct a studio in a range of topic areas (Fig. 11.1). Four of the topics were proposed by students and three of them were ultimately led by students, with academic assistance. 168 students subsequently enrolled and completed (20% women and 16% international), across 13 final topic areas. 5 topics did not attract enough enrolments.

Fig. 11.1

Studio topics

Students were able to choose any topic that interested them, creating multidisciplinary classrooms for the first time in our studios. There were no prerequisites for any studio.

4.1.2 Facilitator Training

Thirteen studio leaders and 21 tutors attended four facilitator training workshops:

Workshop 1—The focus was on transformative experience and how to facilitate beauty in subjects. Three powerful ideas: we learn better by experiencing things; we learn better when we connect new experiences to our past experiences; the experience of art can produce profound shifts in perspective; how might you notice or inject beauty in your studio? This workshop was run by Dave Goldberg as part of his ongoing engagement with our team (Goldberg et al., 2014).

Workshop 2—What does success look like in a summer studio? 3 big ideas: The importance of NLQ—Noticing, Listening, Questioning (and the power of ‘what’ questions); what is the ‘sticky story’ of your studio? Why might a student give up their summer to do it? Defining studios. What are they? What are they not?

Workshop 3—Logistics of the Subject—Matters of Assessment. 3 big ideas: Being clear about subject learning objectives (SLOs); understanding the portfolio assessment—how will the SLOs be expressed in your studio? Backward mapping—What will students be doing each week?

Workshop 4—Timing and Mapping out sessions: Structure learning sessions around design thinking stages as inspiration; facilitation from very structured to a large single project with guidance; documenting the interplay between knowledge and skill acquisition and engagement through the project.

The common thread throughout the workshops was to offer practical language and steps to unleash behaviors where it is safe for the studio leader not to know everything about the project. Students would need to become active learners.

There’s a new language around design that academics need to acquire to complement the technical knowledge. This impacted the first 2 weeks, where students felt a bit rudderless, not knowing quite what they needed to be doing to understand the problem they had been set.

4.2 Key Learning Activities

The summer studios were run intensively, from 22 January to 1 March, with 3-hour workshop sessions on Monday and Thursday afternoons, and informal, group-oriented work in the mornings of those days. The first Monday was an all-day launch activity, including a design thinking workshop conducted by our University Innovation Fellows (UIFs).

4.2.1 Sprints and Scrums

The 6-week period was divided into three, two-week sprints: (i) explore the problem, (ii) explore the solutions, and (iii) develop and test a prototype solution.

Students were initially apprehensive about working in the studios with a ‘mixed bag’ of students of different ages, degree majors, as well as overall background. Their only prior experience was working in ‘groups’ to complete an assignment in a traditional class. After the studio learning experience, students asked for more opportunities during the year, to integrate with others in pursuit of a common goal, because they realized that the ‘differences within a group allowed us to bring more to our diverse skill sets to complete a project at a higher degree.’

The design thinking approach was a new concept for most students because they realized they had always tried (and been trained) to think of a single, perfect solution when completing coursework; however, they were challenged ‘to gather information and study the real causes of the problem [which] helps solve it in a more appropriate way.’

Bringing in this approach to class projects was overwhelmingly promoted by this cohort of students. ‘Small teams working together is very powerful and we can be inspired by other people’s creativity.’ One student put it very neatly: ‘Being in a creative environment that promotes and nurtures a design thinking framework has led to an increase in creativity in other parts of my life: creativity breeds creativity.’

Students also want the delivery mode of ‘traditional’ subjects to include the narrative of how the technical knowledge will help in the future engineering subjects as well as future jobs. Students said that ‘being able to get a good contextual background of the capabilities and higher-level structure of the topic enabled them to find a wide range of resources to investigate and thus find their own path to become proficient at an otherwise very technical and difficult-to-understand area.’ They want lecturers to invite industry speakers as guests into the teaching space because ‘that helps to improve thinking and change strategies to get a solution.’

Each week, staff also met in a Studio Scrum, to debrief what was working and not working and what needed to improve. Data were collected every week from staff and students and used as feedback in the next classes, through iterative conversations. The final day included both formal presentations within each studio as well as an Expo of all student work on the final afternoon.

4.3 Student Feedback

The following statements from the Student Feedback Survey summarize some of the key student reactions:

The subject provided a whole new unique perspective to collaborate and come up with a solution, which really helped me a lot to step outside my comfort zone and just have a go at it. I would really encourage students to undertake this subject.

Open ended scope, freedom, and creativity. I liked how I had freedom to learn using my own practical experiences instead of a regimented assessment schedule.

[Specific studio leaders] should both be commended on their teaching and mentoring styles. They were very approachable and always eager to steer us in the right direction whenever we encountered difficulty.

This is the standard that should be set for all the engineering faculty’s teaching staff. … we [will] have … better learners and ultimately top-class engineers.

I really enjoyed the opportunity to work as a multidisciplinary team on a large problem.

[Specific studio leaders] made the processes of learning really fun and effective. Both offered really inspiring ways to enhance my learning. I found the subject rewarding as it enabled me to work with a stakeholder in Nepal and to help communities to improve crop production on their farms.

The humanitarian studio gave me a lot of opportunities to develop my innovation and human centered design thinking as well as expand my network.

4.4 Staff Reflections

For most of the academics involved in summer studios, this was the first time that they had conducted a project-oriented class where there were no prerequisites and where there was a mixture of students from different disciplines and different years, which meant quite a range of background knowledge in each studio cohort.

4.4.1 About Students

There were mostly positive comments about the students’ engagement in the projects: students were highly motivated and open to new ways of thinking; they were interested in the learning materials and transformed their knowledge; they mastered practical problems and enjoyed the hands-on experiences; they asked many questions (most of the time) though some students became quite frustrated in a couple of studios where they felt they were overwhelmed by new concepts. We hypothesized that many students are not used to asking questions in class. Students grew in confidence, excitement, and courage.

4.4.2 The Teaching and Learning Process

Many aspects of project-based learning were identified: There was a steep learning curve in most studios at the beginning; design thinking was key in most of the studios, but this needs greater emphasis; many student groups developed genuine collaboration and group identity through solving the complex problems. They became supportive of each other and made decisions for the benefit of the group. Some students were reluctant to explore alternative solutions, tending to fixate on their first idea.

There were some negative aspects: In some studios, there was a big learning step to get started. However, proper scaffolding of the early stages of the design process is essential.

4.4.3 Assessment

The portfolio form of assessment was not well understood by students and some studio leaders. The intention was that students would add to their portfolio each week, including evidence of attainment of each of the learning outcomes as they proceeded through the design thinking process. Portfolios are a measure of progress. Most academics and students need training in understanding assessment as a measure of growth as opposed to evaluation. Assessment should be formative using constructive feedback and not just summative with grading.

4.4.4 Facilitators

The workshop sessions run in the months prior to the commencement of the summer studios were described earlier. Despite the workshops, some studio leaders seemed unprepared for some of the challenges, particularly the need to help students get started from their existing knowledge base.

Four of the 13 studios had significant involvement by students as facilitators. The Space, Humanitarian, and Vivid studios were effectively led by senior students, with academics providing overall coordination. The smart cities studio was initiated by a senior student who then provided the industry partner for the project as well as some student facilitation in the sessions. The student-led studios had very high levels of engagement and satisfaction.

4.4.5 Outcomes

At the end of the 6-week session, we asked our studio leaders what they should stop and start with their normal teaching, based on their summer studio experience. They said they wanted to ‘stop strictly following the topics in a syllabus while putting more effort into integration with other subjects and other disciplines; stop giving too much structure; stop lecturing; and start facilitating.’

Other things leaders wanted to ‘start’ were ‘more curiosity; multidisciplinary learning opportunities; collaborate with peers more; give students more independent work such as projects; start giving students more structure around design thinking and systems engineering; start getting engineers to communicate better; start co-designing studios with students and academics.’

Overall, it was clear that the studio leaders favor providing students with a transformative learning experience. They realized that not every subject must teach students to master the fundamentals before they have the chance to solve real problems in that area. Why wait? They observed that students have the ‘capability to master a practical problem from their perspective in terms of the fundamentals, the hands-on skills, the research and development, while contributing as an individual member to a collective project’: ‘Observing this capability and the pleasant feelings from the students in their acquisition of knowledge through studio learning remains the best and unique reward for me as an educator.’

4.4.6 Final Comments

Our first aspiration for summer studios was to create a community of practice. We believed we were entering the very first stages of cultural change to achieve curriculum renewal. We all know that it takes much longer than one long hot Aussie summer to change teaching and learning practices. Nonetheless, in a small way, we have introduced new language into the faculty through the summer studio experience.

Moreover, we know the quickest way to change a system or build a new system is to use this new language. The new language encourages academics to embrace this idea of active learning, turning up authentically, and working together to try to improve something. Once we use sticky language to tell a new story and be prepared to change the story as people react to it, we teach people that it is okay to bring about change.

People will have their own stories. In every case, the new language will be rehearsed and communicated repeatedly. This process creates transparency, that we are working on things together to make things better, and that we are listening to students. There is a partnership.

Our second aspiration is to create a studio where academics can enroll and get the ‘experience of the experience’ while training how to be an effective studio facilitator. The biggest learning outcome is that studio leaders need to be better trained and certified. Once they themselves qualified as a studio leader, they earned the opportunity to run a studio in summer 2019. We might frame the chosen as an elite team of advanced facilitators of the future. They will design and facilitate the learning experiences of the future.

5 Pivot 4—Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering

5.1 Introduction

Summer studios became a great introduction to studios for both students and academics. In 2018, we began the work of transforming the mechanical and mechatronics programs to include a studio spine, to embed complex problem solving and emerging educational technologies and pedagogies.

This section serves as a roadmap for similar transformations elsewhere. In many ways, curriculum design is not the major issue. Curriculum change is the major issue, first for our academic staff who are used to teaching in a particular way, and second for our students, who are often comfortable with an exam-driven system that does not serve them well in the long term. Learning the standard solutions of the past does not prepare a graduate to invent new solutions for a changing, complex future.

5.2 Consultation

5.2.1 Step 1: Industry

At the November 2016 Program Advisory Board meeting, we laid the foundation for revising the mechanical and mechatronics engineering programs. Four key questions were addressed: global trends, the changing nature of work and projects, the kinds of capabilities required in this changing environment, and the kinds of graduates for the future. Among the 18 industry representatives at the meeting, there was collective agreement that skills that the university should provide included ‘hard’ competencies such as costing; contracts; commercial/legal/regulatory; designing to specification; hands-on, prototyping skills and ‘soft’ skills such as confidence; critical thinking; arguing your case; persistence; remote communication; customer centricity; teamwork and leadership; interpersonal skills.

5.2.2 Step 2: Students

A small group of student representatives also provided input during 2017. They saw positives in the old, more traditional approach as one that’s familiar, coming from high school. They recognized that the current design and build subjects were helpful (Introduction to Mechanical Engineering, Mechanical Design) with a hands-on approach in some other subjects (e.g., Manufacturing Engineering, Advanced Manufacturing).

They saw negatives in the old curriculum, which they saw as not as hands-on as students are led to believe. Hands-on workshop time is lacking. Design philosophy is not well implemented in most subjects. The degree as it is, is not a realistic representation of real-world engineering.

They saw the positives of a new project-based, studio-based curriculum as modeling real-world mindset for engineering: learn the fundamentals first and develop advanced skills when necessary for completion of projects, maybe with the assistance of online modules. Academics should mentor students in the projects as required. This mentorship is what happens in engineering workplaces; why not start at university?

5.2.3 Step 3: Staff Input

A subsequent staff meeting sought to gather input from as many of the staff (academic, technical, administrative) as possible, using the themes of: Trends, Strengths, Methods, Concerns, and Opportunities.

The discussion of Trends affecting mechanical and mechatronics engineering quickly opened the breadth of the challenges and opportunities for these disciplines—safety, robotics, energy systems, autonomous vehicles, data-driven systems, Internet of Things, and environmental sustainability. The breadth of these challenges highlights the difficulty of designing mechanical and mechatronics programs to enable graduates to move into any of these fields.

Our teaching Strengths were seen to be well aligned with the proposed direction for more studio-based programs. It was felt that student interaction is already structured to provide a reason to come to campus/class/lab (with room for improvement). There are small group, face-to-face learning activities, supported by blended learning in a friendly environment. This is the essence of learning futures (discussed earlier in this chapter). Academics endeavor to provide constructive feedback and offer many teamwork activities in which time management skills, critical thinking, and independent learning are encouraged.

Graduate employability is at the forefront of curriculum intentions across the university. (This Faculty has an internship program that gives all single degree students 2 × 6-month industry placements during their degree). Industrially relevant projects and hands-on practical, active learning joins theory and practice.

5.3 Curriculum Design

The current mechanical engineering program runs over 10 semesters, including two, 24-week work placements (Fig. 11.2). A key insight has been to divide the curriculum renewal into five main themes: structural design; machines and mechanisms; system dynamics, vibration, and control; thermofluids; and manufacturing. This reduces the complexity of the task, with each theme assigned two subjects that prepare students with the basic knowledge in that theme.

Fig. 11.2

Current mechanical engineering program

Consequently, Fig. 11.2 has been color-coded to indicate the themes (groups of subjects) that make up the curriculum: mathematics/computation (pink), thermofluids (green), materials and structures (blue), core management (brown), machines (gray), design and project subjects (yellow), and electives (white).

Some other engineering programs in our Faculty have used three pairs of studios: fundamentals, applications, and professional stages (data, electronics, electrical disciplines, discussed earlier). This model was adopted during the development of the final version (Fig. 11.3). There is now a continuous ‘spine’ of projects and studios (the yellow subjects in Fig. 11.3) through all eight taught semesters.

Fig. 11.3

Proposed studio model for mechanical engineering

Note that the theme-based subjects and studio sequence have absorbed former ‘silo’ subjects such as Chemistry and Materials Science and Fundamentals of Mechanical Engineering and the former Design subjects. There are now two Introduction subjects, for Mechanical and for Mechatronics. These are project-based subjects that introduce basic design and build concepts and skills alongside fundamental knowledge and competency development in mechanical and mechatronics engineering.

The new program is made up of the five technical themes: structural design; machines and mechanisms; system dynamics, vibration, and control; thermofluids; and manufacturing. Each theme has two subjects (A and B) to cover basic theoretical concepts, in practice-based contexts. There are small projects in each of the A and B subjects.

The school is currently engaged in a process of collaborative design whereby teams of academics associated with each theme propose names, topics, design/practice projects and references to relevant standards for each subject and studio within a theme. Providing students with increased and more authentic exposure to and familiarity with engineering standards has been a recurring recommendation from our industry partners. This aligns well with the overall framework from the university and the Faculty, as described earlier.

Two introductory studios (Mech Studio A & B) then immerse students in basic design around machines and thermofluids systems. In the Application and Professional studios across stages 6–10, students choose from several topic/project options within the studios. These topics/projects could be from one of the five themes or from a related theme, e.g., robotics or acoustics. The open nature of the studios provides the opportunity to engage with industry and have students working directly on industry-based projects with industry mentors or to work in a similar way with research groups in the faculty.

5.4 Summary

Curriculum transformation is difficult. We have applied design thinking to the process and engaged our key stakeholders—industry friends, students, and staff. Key questions for our industry supporters have included: what are the big trends affecting your company? How is the nature of work changing? What capabilities will graduates need in your new workplace? Our studio-based curricula provide students with the complex challenges typical of the twenty-first century. Students begin their studies in their discipline and broaden themselves as they progress through the studio spine. This approach has transformed student learning and also academic teaching.

Through these curriculum changes and staff development, we have moved toward more multidisciplinary, complex problem solving that embraces the human-social-environmental aspects of engineering and IT. The new learning environment is more student centered, requiring active engagement with problems requiring sophisticated solutions. Students use a range of online tools to support their learning, their analysis, and their team processes. Learning in this environment is very much a social process. Reflection, for each student, and each team, is critical to students developing self-awareness of their strengths and weaknesses and areas for improvement. Students have become much more aware of the importance of the full range of skills, particularly collaboration and communication skills.