The main outcomes of an engineering course should be for the students to achieve the educational goals, enhance their problem solving capabilities and develop essential skills for their future career. In that context, it is important to understand what motivates the students and what helps them develop an engineering mind-set. This paper discusses the improvement of a course with the use of student feedback to motivate students and help them develop essential skills. The purpose of the paper is to provide insight into how different aspects of the course are linked to the students’ growth. Different activities have been integrated in the course over the past years. The effect these have on the student motivation to follow the course and develop skills, knowledge and interest in the subject is discussed through the analysis of student performance, student feedback and the experience of the lecturers. The improvements in the course based on the student feedback were received positively by the students, whose learning experience improved, even though the workload of the course was high. Their motivation to successfully complete the course has also increased through the changes in the delivery of the course and the support by the teachers. The combination of student feedback and teacher experience is key for the improvement of a course, while ensuring that the students develop their engineering knowledge. Therefore, the teachers should strike a balance between helping the students find the solution and encouraging them to think on their own in order to develop essential skills.
NathanMJSrisurichanRWalkingtonCet al.
Building cohesion across representations: a mechanism for stem integration. J Eng Educ2013;
102: 77–116.
2.
PrinceMVigeantMNottisK.Development of the heat and energy concept inventory: preliminary results on the prevalence and persistence of engineering students’ misconceptions. J Eng Educ2012;
101: 412–438.
3.
BrownSMontfortDPerova-MelloNet al.
Framework theory of conceptual change to interpret undergraduate engineering students’ explanations about mechanics of materials concepts. J Eng Educ2018;
107: 113–139.
4.
KirnABensonL.Engineering students’ perceptions of problem solving and their future. J Eng Educ2018;
107: 87–112.
5.
DunsmoreKTurnsJYellinJM.Looking toward the real world: student conceptions of engineering. J Eng Educ2011;
100: 329–348.
6.
CapobiancoBMDiefes-DuxHAMenaIet al.
What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. J Eng Educ2011;
100: 304–328.
7.
LongLLMejiaJA.Conversations about diversity: institutional barriers for underrepresented engineering students. J Eng Educ2016;
105: 211–218.
8.
StumpGSHusmanJCorbyM.Engineering students’ intelligence beliefs and learning. J Eng Educ2014;
103: 369–387.
9.
MamarilNAUsherELLiCRet al.
Measuring undergraduate students’ engineering self-efficacy: a validation study. J Eng Educ2016;
105: 366–395.
10.
MarraRMRodgersKAShenDet al.
Leaving engineering: a multi-year single institution study. J Eng Educ2012;
101: 6–27.
11.
BiggsJTangC.Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th ed.
New York:
McGraw-Hill, 2011.
12.
RouserKP. Oral assessments of student learning in undergraduate aerospace propulsion and power courses. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Charlotte, NC, USA, paper no. GT2017-64082, 2017.
13.
CardilloLCorsiniADelibraGet al. Axial flow fan design experience for a project based turbomachinery class. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Vancouver, Canada, paper no. GT2015-42172, 2015.
14.
KyprianidisKGGrönstedtTBarbosaJR.Lessons learned from the development of courses on gas turbine multidisciplinary conceptual design. J Eng Gas Turbines Power2013;
135: 072601.
15.
MathioudakisKPolitisEStamatisA.A computer model as an educational tool for gas turbine performance. Int J Mech Eng Educ1997;
27: 113–125.
16.
TianZ.Teaching and enhancement of critical thinking skills for undergraduate students in a computational fluid dynamics course. Int J Mech Eng Educ2016;
45: 76–88.
17.
GrönmanABackmanJJaatinen-VärriAet al. Experiences from changing the study platform of turbomachinery course from blended education to problem based learning. Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Seoul, South Korea, paper no. GT2016-56200, 2016.
18.
DenizS. A laboratory based course on energy systems in a mechanical engineering undergraduate program. Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Seoul, South Korea, paper no. GT2016-56186, 2016.
19.
FosheimJGagneAJohnsonPet al.
Enhancing the undergraduate educational experience: development of a micro-gas turbine laboratory. Int J Mech Eng Educ2014;
42: 267–278.
20.
Aus der WiescheS. Development of a course on gas and steam turbines supported by cost-efficient turbomachinery experiments. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Dusseldorf, Germany, paper no. GT2014-25076, 2014.
21.
QattawiAAlafaghaniAAblatMAet al. A multidisciplinary engineering capstone design course: a case study for design-based approach. Int J Mech Eng Educ. Epub ahead of print 24 October 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0306419019882622.
22.
BesemFLennieMChavezC. Student perceptions on the new teaching methods for engineers: the influence of podcasting on education. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, San Antonio, Texas, USA, paper no. GT2013-95011, 2013.
23.
VogtDMFranssonTH. Podcasting the whiteboard – a new way of teaching engineers. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Copenhagen, Denmark, paper no. GT2012-70154, 2012.
24.
ZanderLTannebergerTPeukertJet al. The implementation of WikL – an educational Wiki supporting collaborative learning in engineering university courses. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Charlotte, USA, paper no. GT2017-64664, 2017.
25.
WislerDC. Engineering – what you don’t necessarily learn in school. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Atlanta, USA, paper no. GT2003-38761, 2003.
26.
LockGDWrightC.An undergraduate design exercise at Rolls-Royce plc. Int J Mech Eng Educ2008;
36: 37–47.
27.
DalySRMosyjowskiEASeifertCM.Teaching creativity in engineering courses. J Eng Educ. 2014;
103: 414–449.
28.
PlumbCScottC.Outcomes assessment of engineering writing at the University of Washington. J Eng Educ2002;
91: 333–338.
29.
SchunkDH.Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educ Psychol1990;
25: 71–86.
30.
SmithCComerD.Self-organization in small groups: a study of group effectiveness within non-equilibrium conditions. Hum Relat1994;
47: 553–581.
31.
MandalN.Importance of student feedback in improving mechanical engineering courses. Int J Mech Eng Educ2019;
47: 227–245.
32.
CentraJ.Will teachers receive higher student evaluations by giving higher grades and less course work?Res Higher Educ2003;
44: 495–518.
33.
GainsburgJ.Engineering students’ epistemological views on mathematical methods in engineering. J Eng Educ2015;
104: 139–166.
34.
WedgeTEvansJ.Adults’ resistance to learning in school versus adults’ competences in work: the case of mathematics. Adults Learn Math2006;
1: 28–43.
35.
FinelliCNguyenKDeMonbrunMet al.
Reducing student resistance to active learning: strategies for instructors. J Coll Sci Teach2018;
47: 80–91.
36.
TharayilSBorregoMPrinceMet al.
Strategies to mitigate student resistance to active learning. Int J Stem Educ2018;
5: 7.
37.
GhommemMGunnC. Toward better learning opportunities for undergraduate mechanical engineering students: a case study. Int J Mech Eng Educ. Epub ahead of print 31 July 2019. DOI: 10.1177/0306419019858099.
38.
MarkopoulosAPFragkouAKasidiarisPDet al.
Gamification in engineering education and professional training. Int J Mech Eng Educ2015;
43: 118–131.
39.
PontikaEKalfasAIAslanidouI. Aeroengines: multi-platform application for aero engine simulation and compressor map operating point prediction. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Phoenix, AZ, USA, paper no. GT2019-91961, 2019.
40.
AslanidouIZaccariaVPontikaEet al. Teaching gas turbine technology to undergraduate students in Sweden. In: Proceedings of the ASME Turbo Expo, Oslo, Norway, 2018.
