Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Integrating innovation skills in an introductory engineering design-build course

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Modern engineering curricula have started to emphasize design, mostly in the form of design-build experiences. Apart from instilling important problem-solving skills, such pedagogical frameworks address the critical social skill aspects of engineering education due to their team-based, project-based nature. However, it is required of the twenty-first century engineer to be not only technically competent and socially and culturally aware, but also innovative and entrepreneurial. This paper discusses a reformulated first-year engineering course at the University of Pretoria, which was adopted 6 years ago to better address the required innovation skills of engineering students. This design-build-innovate course employs a unique creative problem-solving strategy in designing and building solutions to set technological problems. The students further investigate the provisional patenting of their design concepts. Mini business plans are developed and the students participate in a university- and in a national innovation competition. This introductory engineering course has been successful as measured by overwhelmingly positive student feedback, several provisional patents, and a number of small start-up companies that emanated from the students’ work.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Council on Competitiveness. (2005). Innovate America: Thriving in a world of challenge and change. The national innovation initiative. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. http://www.compete.org (last accessed April 2010).

  • Innovation Fund. (2009). The national innovation competition. National Research Foundation, Pretoria, South Africa. http://www.innovationfund.ac.za/ (last accessed April 2010).

  • The Innovation Hub. (2010). Blue IQ initiative. Pretoria, South Africa. http://www.theinnovationhub.com/ (last accessed April 2010).

  • ABET. (2003). Accreditation policy and procedure manual. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Baltimore, MD, http://www.abet.org (last accessed March 2010).

  • Blanchard, B. S., & Fabrycky, W. J. (1998). Systems engineering and analysis (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordogna, J. (2006). Round, flat, or spiky: The world turns on an axis. Washington, DC: IEEE-USA Leadership Workshop, IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordogna, J., Fromm, E., & Ernst, E. W. (1993). Engineering education: Innovation through integration. Journal of Engineering Education, 82(4), 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard business review, June, http://www.unusualleading.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/HBR-on-Design-Thinking.pdf (last accessed April 2010).

  • Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard Educational Review, 31(1), 21–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlson, L. E., & Sullivan, J. F. (2005). Bridging the gap between invention and innovation. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 205–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chubin, D. E., May, E., & Babco, E. L. (2005). Diversifying the engineering workforce. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Continental. (2006). In search of global engineering excellence: educating the next generation of engineers for the global workplace. Continental AG, Hanover, Germany, http://www.conti-online.com (last accessed April 2010).

  • Crawley, E., et al. (Eds.). (2007). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2002). Creative cognition in design: Processes of exceptional designers. In T. T. Hewitt & T. Kavanaugh (Eds.), Creativity and cognition (pp. 14–19). UK: Loughborough University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. London: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning, P. J., & Dunham, R. (2006). Innovation as language action. Communications of the ACM, 49(5), 47–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. (2008). Engineering design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditcher, A. K. (2001). Effective teaching and learning in higher education, with particular reference to the undergraduate education of professional engineers. International Journal of Engineering Education, 17(1), 24–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downey, G. L., et al. (2006). The globally competent engineer: Working effectively with people who define problems differently. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1993). Innovation and entrepreneurship. New York, NY: Harper Business.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. J. (2008). Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millennium Project, The University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L. (1994). Teaching design to freshmen: Style and content. Journal of Engineering Education, 83(4), 303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L. (2008). Educating engineers for a flat world. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 214–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., et al. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Brent, R. (2004). The intellectual development of science and engineering students; part 2: Teaching to promote growth. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(4), 279–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(2), 674–681.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fogler, H. S., & LeBlanc, S. E. (2008). Strategies for creative problem solving. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garris, C. A. (2001). The United States patent system: An essential role in engineering design education. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(2), 239–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, K.-H., & Antonson, E. K. (2009). Springer handbook of mechanical engineering. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, W., et al. (2009). Analysis of results of application of a student-centered learning system to improve performance of first-year students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann, N. (1990). The creative brain. Lake Lure, NC: Brain Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirleman, E. D., Groll, E. A., & Atkinson, D. L. (2007). The three axes of engineering education. Proceedings of the ICEE 2007—international conference on engineering education, Coimbra, Portugal.

  • Hockfield, S. (2010). Paving the way back to growth: Innovation and the Research University, Eurobank dinner remarks. The Acropolis Museum, 22 March. http://web.mit.edu/hockfield/speeches/2010-acropolis-museum.html (last accessed April 2010).

  • Hollingsworth, J., Hollingsworth, E., & Hage, J. (2005). Fostering scientific excellence: Organizations, Institutions, and Major Discoveries in Biomedical Science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Innovate. (2009). Easy ice does it. Innovate, 3, 91. www.innovate.up.ac.za (last accessed April 2010).

  • Innovation. (2010). Website of the “Innovation” module at the University of Pretoria. http://www.ee.up.ac.za/main/en/undergrads/subjects/snv111/index (last accessed April 2010).

  • King, J. E. (chair). (2007). Educating engineers for the 21st century. London: The Royal Academy of Engineering.

  • Kjersdam, F., & Enemark, S. (1994). The aalborg experiment: Project innovation in university education. Aalborg, Denmark: Aalborg University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleppe, J. A., & Wang, E. L. (2001). Teaching invention, innovation and entrepreneurship in engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(4), 565–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koen, B. V. (1985). Definition of the engineering method. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koen, B. V. (1994). Toward a strategy for teaching engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 83(3), 193–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koestler, A. (1964). The act of creation. London: Hutchinson and Co.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolmos, A. (2009). Problem-based and project-based learning. In O. Skovsmose, P. Valero, & O. R. Christensen (Eds.), University science and mathematics education in transition. Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamancusa, J. S. (2008). The learning factory: Industry-partnered active learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T., & Zuga, K. F. (2007). A conceptual framework of ideas and issues in technology education. Columbus, OH: Technology Education Program, School of Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liebenberg, L. (2006). Innovation provides the competitive edge. Innovate (1):10. www.innovate.up.ac.za (last accessed April 2010).

  • Lumsdaine, E., & Binks, M. (2006). Entrepreneurship, from creativity to innovation: Thinking skills for a changing world. Victoria, BC: Trafford Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsdaine, M., & Lumsdaine, E. (1995). Thinking preferences of engineering students: implications for curriculum restructuring. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(2), 193–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsdaine, E., Lumsdaine, M., & Shelnutt, J. W. (1999). Creative problem solving and engineering design. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCowan, J. D. (2002). An integrated and comprehensive approach to engineering curricula, part two: Techniques. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(6), 638–643.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCowan, J. D., & Knapper, C. K. (2002). An integrated and comprehensive approach to engineering curricula, part one: Objectives and general approach. International Journal of Engineering Education, 18(6), 633–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middendorf, W. H., & Engelmann, R. H. (1998). Design of devices and systems. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oakley, B., et al. (2004). Turning student groups into effective teams. Journal of Student Centered Learning, 2(1), 9–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, K. N., & Wood, K. L. (1996). A reverse engineering and redesign methodology. Research in Engineering Design, 10(4), 226–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozkul, T. (2008). Using patents as a tool for reinforcing constructivist learning environment in engineering education. International Journal of Education and Information Technologies, 2(1), 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petroski, H. (1998). Polishing the gem: A first-year design project. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 445–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pugh, S. (1991). Total design. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Research Channel. (2010). Creamer Media’s research channel. Johannesburg, South Africa. http://www.researchchannel.co.za/ and at http://www.saiipl.org.za/masiphembe.htm (last accessed April 2010).

  • Rubinstein, M. F. (1975). Patterns of problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutherford, R. J. D., & Rowe, G. W. (1987). Teaching innovation in engineering: Theory and practice. European Journal of Engineering Education, 12(4), 377–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S., & Jenison, R. (1997). Examples of freshman design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 13(4), 248–261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S. D., et al. (2009). Educating engineers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, D. (2003). The mechanical design process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2000). Product design and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, C. M., Cagan, J., & Boatwright, P. (2005). The design of things to come: How ordinary people create extraordinary products. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voland, G. (2004). Engineering by design. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, K. L., Saintive, D., Hager, D., Nowé, M., & Sathianathan, D. (2001). Reverse engineering and redesign: Courses to incrementally and systematically teach design. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 363–374.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, P. W., & Hällstrom, S. (2007). Design-implement experiences and engineering workspaces. In E. Crawley, et al. (Eds.), Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zull, J. E. (2002). The art of changing the brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the following people who reviewed the manuscript and offered helpful advice: Col. (USAF ret.) Peter Young, Dr Johan Gouws, Mr Robert Pyle, Ms Raine Lidbetter, and Dr Ruaan Pelzer.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Research and Continued Engineering Development (Pretoria), North-West University, Suite no. 93, Private Bag X30, Lynnwood Ridge 0040, Pretoria, South Africa

    Leon Liebenberg & Edward Henry Mathews

Authors
  1. Leon Liebenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward Henry Mathews
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leon Liebenberg.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 2.

Table 2 Course structure, “innovation” (MNV 100, University of Pretoria)
Full size table

Appendix 2

Survey of design-build-innovate course: Students’ perceptions about their training in design-build-innovate competencies

  1. 1.

    Meeting of expectations and course outcomes

Students were asked to comment on the course meeting their expectations. Nearly the whole group (94%) was of the opinion that their expectations had been exceeded or met very well, whilst the rest of the group (6%) reckoned that their expectations had only slightly been met.

Students also had to compare the course with their other five engineering courses in terms of meeting of their expectations. Only 2% of the students indicated that this course did not meet their expectations compared to the other subjects. In contrast, 84% of the students indicated that the course exceeded their expectations compared to the other subjects. For the rest of the group (14%) all the courses met their expectations.

  1. 2.

    Interest in design-build project

Nearly all the students (99%) experienced the course as being very interesting. Only 1% of the students experienced the course as totally boring.

In comparison to other subjects, 86% of the group indicated that this course was more interesting, whilst 8% were of the opinion that their other subjects were more interesting. The remaining 6% of the students experienced the level of interest as similar to that of their other subjects.

  1. 3.

    Level of difficulty

On the question of how easy or difficult the students experienced the course, 68% of the group assessed the course as being easy; 32% of the group assessed the course as being difficult or very difficult.

Only 6% of the group considers the course to be more difficult than their other courses, whilst 36% viewed the course as being easier. The fact that the students do not view this course as too difficult is confirmed by the fact that nearly two-thirds of the group (65%) that there is agreement in all their subject marks, whilst 8% were of the opinion that they performed better in their other subjects.

  1. 4.

    Understanding engineering

In answering the question whether the course helped the students to better understand engineering, 82% indicated that it had indeed helped them. The remaining 18% indicated that the course only helped a small amount.

  1. 5.

    Course contents

The students were asked whether they would be able to quickly (within 5 min) explain to an outside person what they had learnt in the course. Ninety-two per cent (92%) of the group were of the opinion that they would be able to convey easily to an outside person, whilst the balance (8%) reckoned that it would be difficult for them. This aspect tests students’ complete view of the course contents. It is apparent that a holistic course perspective was established.

  1. 6.

    Career value of the course

Students were requested to provide a short evaluation of the perceived value that the course would have on their future careers, if at all. Students’ evaluations were strongly correlated to their study disciplines and there is definite unanimity that the course established a great measure of general career preparation. This does not concern course contents, but rather student disposition and method of work (creative problem-solving) in which the modern technological society can be understood.

All students were of the opinion that this course would indeed form an important part of their future engineering careers. Some of the abbreviated responses were:

  • “Teaches you a mental way to solve problems.”

  • “Simple, down to earth concepts that help you understand and address engineering problems.”

  • “Course material is generally interesting/useful. The practical application of the course material is stimulating.”

  • “Certain theoretical concepts could be understood even better during team discussions.”

  • “I am excited about the prospect of combining my future engineering knowledge with the learnt methods to bring about innovation.”

  • “I like the way in which engineers are taught to think differently and creatively. We are encouraged to think out of the box.”

  • “I understand the importance of effective time management and organization skills in creative problem solving to bring about effective engineering products.”

  1. 7.

    Meaningfulness of design-build-innovate project

The students were asked to indicate whether they experienced the practical (design-build-innovate) project as meaningful. Ninety-four per cent (94%) of the group indicated that they experienced the project as very meaningful, 4% as to a slight extent, and 2% did not experience it as meaningful in any way. Some of the provided reasons were:

  • “It was an executable challenge.”

  • “Not really what I wanted to do.”

  • “All innovation principles had to be applied.”

  • “You design and build based on what you learnt in the lectures.”

  • “Learned how other students think due to sharing of ideas among team members.”

  • “Good teamwork was essential in completing the project on time.”

  1. 8.

    Connection of practical work and theory

The students were asked to what extent the practical course component coincided with the theoretical part; 96% of the group was of the opinion that it linked to a great or to a large extent; 3% were of the opinion that it linked slightly, and 1% reckoned that there was no connection.

  1. 9.

    Self-confidence in communicating with practicing engineer/entrepreneur/innovator

Last, the students were asked to indicate to what extent they would have the confidence to communicate with a practicing engineer/entrepreneur/innovator. Forty-six per cent (46%) of the students indicated that they would have great self-confidence, whilst 48% indicated that they would have reasonable self-confidence; 4% have slight and 2% have no self-confidence.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Liebenberg, L., Mathews, E.H. Integrating innovation skills in an introductory engineering design-build course. Int J Technol Des Educ 22, 93–113 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9137-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9137-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation