engineering graduate attributes: moving...

This is the published version: Hall,W.andPalmer,S.2015,Studentopportunitiesinmaterialsdesignandmanufacture:Introducinganewmanufacturingwithcompositescourse,Journalofmaterialseducation,vol.37,no.3‐4,pp.155‐168.

Available from Deakin Research Online: http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30078401 Reproducedwiththekindpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Copyright:2015,InternationalCouncilonMaterialsEducation

Journal of Materials Education Vol. 37 (3-4): 155 - 168 (2015)

STUDENT OPPORTUNITIES IN MATERIALS DESIGN AND

MANUFACTURE: INTRODUCING A NEW MANUFACTURING

WITH COMPOSITES COURSE

W. Hall a † and S. Palmer.b

a Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia. b Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.

† Corresponding author: [email protected].

ABSTRACT

The shift towards strong and lightweight fibre reinforced polymer-matrix composites for many high

performance applications has resulted in an increasing need to expose students to composite design

and manufacture courses in the undergraduate curriculum. In contrast, student exposure to composite

materials is often still limited to a topic within a materials or manufacturing related course (unit).

This paper presents the initial offering of a composite materials elective at Griffith University in

Australia. The course also addresses environmental concerns through the inclusion of natural fibre

composites. An evaluation of student perceptions is considered from Griffith’s Student Experience of

Course (SEC) and separate Student Experience of Teaching (SET) surveys. These evaluations

demonstrate the high level of student engagement with the course, but also highlighted areas for

improvement, including the need to incorporate even more hands-on practical work. Interestingly,

the inclusion of natural fibre composites and the related discussion surrounding environmental and

societal issues are not focused on in student feedback.

Keywords: composite materials; engineering education; evaluation

1. INTRODUCTION

In recent years, fibre reinforced polymer-matrix

composites have found application in a number

of sectors including the automotive, aerospace,

marine, renewable energy, sporting and leisure

industries. Synthetic fibres such as glass,

aramid and carbon fibres are commonly used,

but renewable natural fibres 1, 2 are emerging as

a sustainable alternative. The use of bio-based

resins 3 offers further potential environmental

benefits. The recent shift towards fibre

reinforced polymer matrix composites has

resulted in the need for current undergraduate

students to be exposed to composite design and

manufacture courses in their undergraduate

curriculum 4. The emergence of natural fibre

composites offers the potential to include a

sustainability theme as a feature in these com-

posite courses. As noted by Dekeyser et al. 5,

Hall and Palmer

Journal of Materials Education Vol. 37 (3-4)

156

sustainability issues should form a main

element in a modern engineering programme.

The need for undergraduate students to consider

sustainability issues in their curriculum is

widely accepted. Moreover, the relevance of

composite materials in technology applications

has been recognised for some time 6, 7, even if

specialist composite materials programmes are

more frequently offered only at postgraduate

level. Examples of successfully implemented

composite materials programmes at the

undergraduate level include the University of

Plymouth in the UK, Winona State University

in the USA and Wuhan University of

Technology in China. There are currently no

composite specific programmes in Australia 8.

Student exposure to composite materials in

undergraduate programmes is often limited to a

topic within a materials or manufacturing

related course (unit) 9-11, although some under-

graduate students may also get exposure

through electives, optional extra-curricular

activities, or personal topic selections in free-

choice projects 12-14. At Griffith University, all

students are exposed to a composite materials

topic in the first year course: 1502ENG

Engineering Materials. Moreover, this course

allows students to select a group project related

to natural fibre reinforced composites –

embedding research related teaching in the first

year, first semester of the curriculum. Details of

1502ENG Engineering Materials have been

reported elsewhere 15.

Composite materials are a technology driving

innovation in engineering and design, and are

one important element in the education of new

generations of engineering graduates 16. Boyles

et al.. 4 note the educational advantages of stud-

ent involvement with composites in an

“inquiry-based, hands-on lab setting”, whilst

Lisson et al.17 report student motivation

improvements in a composite project activity

focused on the design and manufacture of a

skateboard. The inclusion of composite design

and manufacture courses in an undergraduate

curriculum therefore has the potential to

enhance student motivation and broaden project

activities in design-orientated courses

(particularly those requiring a practical

component), as well as in other specialist

teaching/research themes relevant to the

institution or local industry (for example, bio-

inspired product development 18, 19, aeronautics

and astronautics 4 and space technology 20. The

inclusion of natural fibre composites in the

framework of a composite course has the

potential to add further student and curriculum

benefits through consideration of environmental

related materials selection issues 9.

The importance of analysing, and reporting on,

new course offerings in engineering education,

as well as providing continuous evaluations of

existing courses 21, 22 is clearly of interest to

educators. This paper presents comprehensive

details, and an evaluation, of the initial offering

of a new composite course ‘4505ENG

Manufacturing with Composites’ at Griffith

University in Australia. The course seeks to

address the perceived composite materials

knowledge gap that is common in a ‘typical’

engineering undergraduate curriculum and

focuses on development of undergraduate

composite skills for use in other extra-curricular

student activities – Griffith University is in the

process of developing a racing team to compete

in Formula SAE, but is also developing a

complementary alternative student activity that

focuses on the design and manufacture of a

high performance natural fibre reinforced

racing bicycle. The natural fibre composite

bicycle is used as a medium to teach sustainable

product development. Both projects focus on

project development activities in a non-trad-

itional Project-Based Learning (PBL) mode 23.

2. CONTEXT –

4505ENG Manufacturing with Composites

A Mechanical Engineering programme was

introduced by Griffith School of Engineering

on the Gold Coast campus in 2012. Mechanical

Engineering is one of five specialist

engineering majors offered on the Gold Coast

campus 24. The others are: Civil Engineering;

Electrical and Electronic Engineering; Mecha-

tronic Engineering; and Electronic and Biomed-

Student Opportunities in Materials Design and Manufacture


157

ical Engineering. These majors share a common

first year and all students are introduced to

composite materials as a topic in the course

‘1502ENG Engineering Materials’. Additional

student exposure to composite materials is

offered as an elective in 4505ENG Manufac-

turing with Composites. 4505ENG was offered

for the first time in Semester 1, 2014.

4505ENG aims to provide students with a

theoretical and practical understanding of fibre

reinforced composite materials. The course is

offered as an elective for students, but assumes

prior knowledge in mathematics and physics.

An understanding of materials (1502ENG

Engineering Materials) and engineering

mechanics (Griffith courses 1501ENG

Engineering Mechanics and 2101ENG

Mechanics of Materials 1) is considered

essential to afford students the opportunity to be

successful. These restrictions, in real terms,

limit opportunities to study composites to those

undergraduate students enrolled in the

Mechanical, Civil or Mechatronic Engineering

programmes. Even then, course timetable

clashes can limit student opportunities.

4505ENG introduces the fundamentals of

composite design and manufacture. The design

module focuses on the relationship between

mechanical properties and fibre length,

orientation and volume fraction. Short fibre and

long fibre composites and their laminates are

considered. Composite manufacturing pro-

cesses including basic wet layup, spray up,

vacuum bagging, Resin Transfer Moulding

(RTM), Vacuum Assisted Resin Transfer

Moulding (VARTM) and compression mould-

ing are addressed in detail. An introduction to

filament winding and pultrusion is also

provided. Definitions of these processes are

given elsewhere 25. Laboratory and/or practical

demonstrations and movie clips (DVDs

purchased from www.sme.org) are used to

reinforce student understanding of the manu-

facturing processes introduced in the lecture

theatre and tutorial classes. The laboratory

practical tasks practiced by the students are

carefully selected and managed. There is also a

composite design and manufacture project to

underpin the theoretical concepts presented in

the classroom within a project-based learning

mode.

The 4505ENG course assessment is via a test

valued at 15% of the course grade (after the

design module), a series of laboratory practical

exercises (10%), composite project work (25%)

and a final examination (50%). An outline of

the course content and assessment is given in

Table 1. In laboratory activities, materials

safety issues need to be comprehensively

addressed, and therefore to minimise risk, there

is a temptation to reduce student exposure to

practical composite manufacturing, especially

the exposure to volatile organic compounds

(VOCs). In 4505ENG, rather than remove

practical work, the focus has been on managing

student exposure - allowing students to develop

their practical skills in a safe environment. In

the first offering, student interaction with

composite materials has been limited to pre-

impregnated fibres (prepreg). The intention is to

progressively include more practical oppor-

tunities over time. Wet layup techniques (where

handling of liquid resin is required) were

demonstrated by the laboratory demonstrator in

this first offering, but not practiced by the

students. Moreover, in the composite project,

students were asked only to investigate and

provide a written report on possible manu-

facturing processes for creating a high

performance composite structure, rather than

actually manufacturing the part. The students

were asked to investigate a carbon fibre racing

bicycle seatpost, but also to consider the

provision for manufacturing this part from

potentially more sustainable material options

(natural fibre composites).

3. METHODOLOGY

Griffith University employs a Student

Experience of Course (SEC) survey and a

separate Student Experience of Teaching (SET)

survey as part of its student evaluation of

teaching, quality improvement and staff

performance management processes. Inform-

ation about the structure of the SEC survey has

Hall and Palmer


158

Table 1. 4505ENG Manufacturing with Composites: Course Content and Assessment

Topic Topic Description Assessment Marks

Weighting Assessment Notes

Design Module

1 Introduction to Composites

(including fibre types and forms, matrices, composite applications)

2 Mechanical Properties of Long Fibre Composites

Laboratory 1 2.5 Mechanical Testing of Unidirectional Composites

Analysis of tensile test data and calculation of composite mechanical

properties.

3 Mechanical Properties of Laminates

4 Short Fibre Composites

In-class test (Composite

Design)

15

Manufacturing Module

5 *Introduction to Composite Moulding (wet

layup, vacuum bagging etc.)

Laboratory 2 2.5 Basic Wet

Layup and Vacuum Bagging

Demonstration of wet layup and vacuum bagging. Students practice

vacuum bagging component only.

Assessment considers vacuum bag practical and descriptive procedural

write-up of wet layup.

Laboratory 3 2.5 Prepreg Moulding

Students practice prepreg moulding.

Assessed on vacuum bagging method

and short laboratory quiz.

6 *Compression Moulding Laboratory 4 2.5 Compression Moulding

Compression moulding

demonstration and design task.

Students are asked to consider a method of manufacturing a

composite part (bicycle saddle) using

compression moulding. This includes consideration of mould design issues.

7 *Liquid Moulding (RTM, VARTM etc.)

8 *Filament Winding & Pultrusion

9 Sandwich Structures

10 *Composites: Post Fabrication and Joining

11 Thermoplastic Composites (processing) –

independent study

PROJECT 25 Bicycle Seatpost Project

(2 students work together).

FINAL EXAM

50 Written Examination

(multiple choice, 10 marks, plus written solutions, 40 marks)

*www.sme.org movie clips (DVDs) were used to assist teaching these components



159

previously been reported elsewhere15. For

clarity, this SEC information is included here

together with the new information relating to

the structure of the SET survey. Both of these

survey instruments contain scale items and

open-ended response items for students’

feedback. These surveys are administered on-

line for students to voluntarily complete

towards the end of the teaching period, but prior

to the examination period. Following the

completion of the SEC/SET survey period, a

‘SEC Detail Report’ and ‘SET Detail Report’,

which tabulate the student response data, are

provided to the course convenor. These Detail

Reports contain no information capable of

identifying any student respondent, and include

the following data:

■ the distribution of individual item rating

scores;

■ the mean item ratings;

■ the standard deviation of the mean item

ratings;

■ the median item ratings;

■ a set of benchmark comparison mean item

ratings based on the 25 per cent, 50 per cent

and 75 per cent quartile mean item ratings

for the group of comparable courses (from

the same Faculty group and of a similar

sized enrolment); and

■ a tabulation of all of the student comments

received for the open-ended response items.

Approval was sought from the Griffith

University Human Research Ethics Committee

to use the data presented on the SEC and SET

Detailed Reports for the course 4505ENG in

semester 1, 2014. Approval was granted. The

SEC survey instrument contains six scale items

and two open-ended response items for

students’ feedback. Each scale item is

presented as a statement, to which students

indicate their level agreement on a five point

scale of the form: Strongly agree (5); Agree (4);

Neutral (3); Disagree (2); and Strongly disagree

(1). The two open-ended response items are

presented as a question to which students can

provide a text response. The SEC items are:

■ SEC1 - This course was well-organised.

■ SEC2 - The assessment was clear and fair.

■ SEC3 - I received helpful feedback on my

assessment work.

■ SEC4 - This course engaged me in learning.

■ SEC5 - The teaching (lecturers, tutors,

online etc) on this course was effective in

helping me to learn.

■ SEC6 - Overall I am satisfied with the

quality of this course.

■ SEC7 - What did you find particularly good

about this course?

■ SEC8 - How could this course be improved?

Similarly, the SET survey instrument contains

five scale items and two open-ended response

items for students to respond to. The SET

items are:

■ SET1 - This staff member presented

material in a clearly organised way.

■ SET2 - This staff member presented

material in an interesting way.

■ SET3 - This staff member treated students

with respect.

■ SET4 - This staff member showed a good

knowledge of the subject matter.

■ SET5 - Overall I am satisfied with the

teaching of this staff member.

■ SET6 - What aspects of this staff member's

teaching were most valuable to your

learning?

■ SET7 - How could this staff member's

teaching be improved?

Using the data from SEC and SET Details Reports the mean rating for each scale item was compared to the corresponding 75 per cent comparison mean to benchmark the overall student evaluation performance of 4505ENG. Confidence intervals were computed for each scale item mean rating and the data were charted to identify any significant differences in the mean ratings between the scale items on each survey instrument. Word clouds are a

Hall and Palmer


160

visual representation of the ranked frequency of occurrence of words in a text source 26. In a word cloud image, each unique word from the text source appears once, and the font size of the word represents the relative frequency of the occurrence of the word in the text source – the larger the font size, the more frequently that word occurs in the text source 27. Word clouds have been used across a range of engineering education evaluation contexts to provide a visual summary of student free text comment feedback in a form that highlights, in a straightforward manner, the relative importance (based on frequency of occurrence) of key words/terms 28, 29, 30, 31. The Wordle web site (www.wordle.net/) is a popular free service that can transform a block of text into a word cloud, based on a range of adjustable parameter settings 26, 29, 30. The text data received for the open-ended response items (SEC7, SEC8, SET6 and SET7) were visualised as word clouds to identify the key themes reported by students in those items. The most frequently occurring words in the text data received for the open-ended response items were also tabulated in rank order of frequency. The use of both quantitative and qualitative student evaluation data allows for triangulation and confirmation of important perceptions/themes reported by students 17. The results obtained and a discuss-ion of the observed results are presented. We acknowledge that the underlying SET and SEC ratings provided by students are derived from response scales and are fundamentally ordinal in nature. However, students are generally aware that the data, for practical

purposes, are treated as originating from a five point interval scale, and are reported and used via the SEC/SET system as a mean rating out of five. The use of ordinal data in many parametric statistical procedures, while commonplace in the social sciences, is not universally accepted as valid 32. However, there is a significant body of research that has demonstrated the practical utility of analysis of ordinal data, based on the robustness of many parametric methods to significant departures from assumptions about the underlying data, including departures from normality and ‘intervalness’ that might be present in ordinal scale data 33, 34. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION In 2014 the enrolment in 4505ENG was 23. From this enrolment, 17 students completed both the SEC and SET surveys, providing a response rate of 73.9 per cent. The SEC and SET surveys are voluntary and reported data are anonymous, so it is not possible to test the representativeness of the respondent group against the overall course enrolment. However the relatively high response rate provides some assurance that the respondent data is representative of the overall course enrolment. Table 2 presents the mean rating, corresponding standard deviation and the applicable 75 per cent comparison mean rating for each scale item on the SEC survey for 4505ENG. Figure 1 presents the mean ratings and 95 per cent confidence interval estimates for SEC scale items.

Table 2. Mean ratings, standard deviation and 75% CM ratings for SEC scale items.

SEC Item Mean Std Dev 75% CM

1. This course was well-organised. 4.88 0.332 4.4

2. The assessment was clear and fair. 4.24 0.752 4.3

3. I received helpful feedback on my assessment work. 4.53 0.514 4.3

4. This course engaged me in learning. 4.65 0.493 4.4

5. The teaching (lecturers, tutors, online etc) on this course

was effective in helping me to learn. 4.71 0.588 4.4

6. Overall I am satisfied with the quality of this course. 4.59 0.507 4.3



161

Figure 1. Mean ratings and 95 per cent confidence interval estimates for SEC items.

It can be seen that the mean ratings for all SEC

items were comparatively high, and only one

item (SEC2) was slightly less than the upper

third quartile benchmark mean rating based on

all other units with SEC ratings from the same

Faculty group and of a similar sized (21 ≤

enrolment ≤ 50). While direct comparisons of

mean ratings between SEC items have little

meaning, it can be seen that the mean rating for

SEC1 (This course was well-organised) was the

highest of all, while the mean rating for SEC2

(The assessment was clear and fair) was

somewhat lower than the rest. SEC item 7 is a

question inviting open-ended comments from

students in response to the question, “What did

you find particularly good about this course?”

Thirteen responses were received containing a

total of 196 words. Figure 2 presents a word

cloud visualisation of the text content of the

SEC7 responses. Note that Figure 2 and all

following word clouds have been produced

such that they have approximately the same

vertical scale, such that the apparent point size

of the font used in the words is proportional to

the frequency of occurrence of those words in

responses received to SEC/SET open-ended

questions. See also Table 4 for a tabulation of

the most frequently occurring words in the

SEC/SET open-ended response items.

Figure 2. SEC7 word cloud - What did you find particularly good about this course?

Hall and Palmer


162

Figure 3. SEC8 word cloud - How could this course be improved?

An inspection of Figure 2 suggests that students appreciated the content/information provided by the course. The terms ‘well-structured’, ‘organized’ and ‘clear’ also featured, supporting the particularly high mean rating received for SEC1. The words ‘challenging’ and ‘interesting’ were also observed, suggesting that students found 4505ENG engaging. SEC item 8 invited open-ended comments in response to the question, “How could this course be improved?” Fifteen responses were received containing a total of 582 words. Figure 3 presents a word cloud visualisation of the text content of the SEC8 responses.

An inspection of Figure 3 suggests some clear themes relating to ‘time’ and practical/lab work and reports/assignments. The large relative size of some of these terms, compared across all of the word clouds, indicates that they were the most commonly reported terms across all of the SEC/SET open-ended response questions, so comparatively important to students. The SEC survey, being designed to be generic for all university courses, doesn’t contain an item specifically relating to laboratory/practical work, and so the open-ended comments and

associated word cloud visualisation here provide valuable additional information for the evaluation of the initial offering of 4505ENG. The notable appearance of ‘report’ and ‘assignment’ here reinforce the mean rating result for SEC2 – students are seeking more information in relation to course assignments. Assessment is central to both the student experience and strategically directing student learning, hence it is important that assessment requirements and marking criteria be clearly communicated to students 35. Research shows that students are keenly sensitive to assessment characteristics, including timing, clarity of instructions, and perceived fairness and consistency 36, so this presents one opportunity for closer examination when the course learning design is reviewed. Despite the inclusion of natural fibre composite materials into the course, to include both research-informed teaching, and environmental and societal issues within the course, and allowing that students were free to note any substantive issue that they wished in the open-ended comments, not a single student comment related to this aspect of the course. In this instance the focus or balance of this aspect could need further consideration in any subsequent amendments to the course.



163

Table 3 presents the mean rating, corresponding standard deviation and the applicable 75 per cent comparison mean rating for each scale item on the SET survey for 4505ENG. Figure 4 presents the mean ratings and 95 per cent confidence interval estimates for SET scale items.

It can be seen that the mean ratings for all SET

items were comparatively high, and all

exceeded the upper third quartile benchmark

mean rating based on all other units with SET

ratings from the same Faculty group and of a

similar size – students generally rated the

teaching in 4505ENG highly. SET item 6 is a

question inviting open-ended comments from

students in response to the question, “What

aspects of this staff member's teaching were

most valuable to your learning?” Fourteen

responses were received containing a total of

194 words. Figure 5 presents a word cloud

visualisation of the text content of the SET6

responses.

Table 3. Mean ratings, standard deviation and 75% CM ratings for SET scale items.

SET Item Mean Std Dev 75% CM

1. This staff member presented material in a clearly organised

way. 4.88 0.342 4.5

2. This staff member presented material in an interesting

way. 4.69 0.479 4.4

3. This staff member treated students with respect. 4.88 0.342 4.7

4. This staff member showed a good knowledge of the

subject matter. 4.88 0.342 4.7

5. Overall I am satisfied with the teaching of this staff

member. 4.88 0.342 4.5

Figure 4. Mean ratings and 95 per cent confidence interval estimates for SET items.

Hall and Palmer


164

An inspection of Figure 5 suggested again that

students valued the content of the course as

presented by staff, and that the teaching/lectures

were well organised, clear and engaging. The

adjectives ‘knowledgeable’, ‘helpful’ and

‘relevant’ are also apparent in the students’

response to SET6 regarding teaching. SET

item 7 invited open-ended comments in

response to the question, “How could this staff

member's teaching be improved?” Eight

responses were received containing a total of

141 words, however three of the eight

responses were actually notes to indicate that

the respondent couldn’t suggest any way in

which the course teaching could be improved.

Figure 6 presents a word cloud visualisation of

the text content of the SET7 responses.

Figure 5. SET6 word cloud - What aspects of this staff member's teaching were most valuable

to your learning?

Figure 6. SET7 word cloud - How could this staff member's teaching be improved?

The small number of student comments relating

to the SET question, combined with the

relatively small absolute number of words in

the responses, makes it difficult to infer clear

themes from the word cloud visualisation.

Manual inspection of the student comments

revealed two main suggested improvements: i)

access to supplementary course materials

(detailed lecture notes and/or recorded

lectures); and ii) more hands-on lab time. This

second point is essentially a course design issue

rather than a teaching-related issue, but ties in

with the strong message from SEC8 – students

valued time in the laboratory. Laboratory work,

where theory is put into practice, is a

fundamental aspect of undergraduate



165

Table 4. Most frequently occurring words in SEC/SET open-ended response items.

SEC7 SEC8 SET6 SET7

Word Freq. Word Freq. Word Freq. Word Freq.

Content 5 Labs 9 Content 6 Lecture 5

Course 4 Time 9 Clear 4 Course 2

Well-structured 3 Report 8 Lecture 4 Hands-on 2

Information 3 Composites 5 Teaching 4 Labs 2

Really 3 Hands-on 5 Well 4 See 2

Organized 2 Practical 5 Course 3 Teaching 2

Clear 2 Manufacturing 4 Good 3

Challenging 2 Perhaps 4 Organised 3 All others 1

Interesting 2 Assignment 3 Presented 3

engineering education, and its particular

contribution to enhancing student learning in

composites technology has been noted 4. In

another evaluation of an Australian under-

graduate engineering course that incorporated

some coverage of composites theory and

practice, students reported that lab-based

project work was both enjoyable and important

in their understanding of composite materials 17.

Future offerings of 4505ENG will provide extra

laboratory practical opportunities to incorporate

the manufacture and/or testing of a composite

part, to improve student outcomes and in-line

with student requests, and future evaluation will

consider the effectiveness of additional

practicals on the learning outcomes.

Finally, to supplement and crosscheck the word cloud visualisations, Table 4 presents the most frequently occurring words in the text data received for the open-ended response items tabulated in rank order of frequency.

5. CONCLUSION

This paper has presented details for an initial

offering of a composite materials elective at

Griffith University in Australia. An evaluation

of student perceptions has been considered

based on Griffith’s Student Experience of

Course (SEC) and separate Student Experience

of Teaching (SET) surveys. These evaluations

demonstrate that the students generally enjoyed

the course. The feedback highlights the high

level of student engagement with the course,

but also offers some insight into potential areas

for improvement. The need to incorporate: (i)

access to supplementary course materials; and

(ii) more hands-on practical work is specifically

emphasised. To meet this challenge it is

proposed that future offerings will consider the

provision of additional supplementary notes, as

well as extra laboratory practical opportunities

that will incorporate the manufacture and/or

testing of a composite part. Interestingly, the

inclusion of natural fibre composites and the

related discussion surrounding environmental

and societal issues are not focused on in student

feedback, leading the authors to believe that the

focus or balance of this aspect within the course

needs further consideration

Hall and Palmer


166

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors acknowledge the useful comments

made by the referees who considered an earlier

version of this article.

REFERENCES

1. J. Summerscales, N. J. P. Dissanayake, A.

S. Virk and W. Hall, A Review of Bast

Fibres and their Composites, Part 1 – Fibres

as reinforcements, Composites Part A:

Applied Science and Manufacturing, 41,

1329-1335 (2010).

2. J. Summerscales, N. J. P. Dissanayake, A.

S. Virk and W. Hall, A Review of Bast

Fibres and their Composites, Part 2 –

Composites, Composites Part A: Applied

Science and Manufacturing, 41, 1336-1344

(2010).

3. R. P. Babu, K. O’Connor and R. Seeram,

Current progress on bio-based polymers

and their future trends, Progress in

Biomaterials, 2(8), 1-16 (2013).

4. C. T. Boyles, A. R. Moynihan, J. D.

Mulroy, B. Fitch, P. J. Watts and J. L.

Evans, Undergraduate student experiences

with composite materials, International

Journal of Mechanical Engineering

Education, 39(4), 297-305 (2011).

5. N. Dekeyser, S. Swolfs, G. Waeyenbergh

and W. Dewulf, Stimulating Students to

Experience Sustainable Engineering: The

CQS Group T Racing Team. In D. A.

Dornfeld & B. S. Linke (Eds.), Leveraging

Technology for a Sustainable World (p.

103-106): Springer Berlin Heidelberg,

2012.

6. K. J. Myers, Technology and the

Engineering Method for Non-Engineering

Students, Journal of Engineering

Education, 82(2), 123-125 (1993).

7. R. L. Mott, G. P. Neff and M. J. Stratton,

Future Directions for Mechanical,

Manufacturing, and Industrial Engineering

Technology Programs, Journal of

Engineering Technology, 19(1), 8-15

(2002).

8. T. Aravinthan and A. Manalo, Student

performance in an online postgraduate

course on fibre composites for civil

engineers, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual

Conference of the Australasian Association

for Engineering Education, Fremantle, 5-7

December, 2011, p. 254-259.

9. G. Broman, S. H. Byggeth and K.-H.

Robèrt, Integrating environmental aspects

in engineering education, International

Journal of Engineering Education, 18(6),

717-724 (2002).

10. V. Box, P. Munroe, A. Crosky, M.

Hoffman, P. Kraukiis and R. Ford,

Increasing student involvement in materials

engineering service subjects for mechanical

engineers. International Journal of

Engineering Education, 17(6), 529-537

(2001).

11. R. B. Griffin and S. T. Creasy, The

Development of a Combined

Materials/Manufacturing Processes Course

at Texas A&M University, Proceedings of

the American Society for Engineering

Education Annual Conference and

Exposition, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 24-

27 June, 2001, Session 2464 1-6.

12. Z. Zhou and A. Donaldson, Work in

progress - Project-based learning in

manufacturing process. Paper presented at

the 2010 IEEE Frontiers in Education

Conference, Washington, DC, 27-30

October, 2010, Paper ID #T1J.

13. C. Carmen, Integration of a NASA faculty

fellowship project within an undergraduate

engineering capstone design class, Acta

Astronautica, 80, 141-153 (2012).

14. D. Gonzalez, E. Griful, M. Mudarra and P.

Serrano, Extracurricular learning program

for professional skills development in

engineering schools, Proceedings of the

15th International Power Electronics and

Motion Control Conference, Novi Sad,

Serbia, 4-6 September, 2012, paper

DS3e.177.

15. S. Palmer and W. Hall, The impact of

increasing course enrolment on student

http://users.tpg.com.au/palmbray/temp4.html




167

evaluation of teaching in engineering

education, Australasian Journal of


(2015).

16. D. R. Hayhurst, K. T. Kedward, H. T. Soh

and K. L. Turner, Innovation-led multi-

disciplinary undergraduate design teaching,

Journal of Engineering Design, 23(3), 159-

184 (2011).

17. D. Lisson, V. Garaniya, C. Chin and S.

Salter, Project based Learning for First

Year Maritime Engineering Students:

Manufacturing and Testing of Skateboards,

Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference

of the Australasian Association for

Engineering Education, Gold Coast,

Queensland, 8-11 December, 2013, pp. 1-9.

18. H. A. Bruck, A. L. Gershon and S. K.

Gupta, Enhancement of mechanical

engineering curriculum to introduce

manufacturing techniques and principles for

bio-inspired product development.

Proceedings of the ASME 2004

International Mechanical Engineering

Congress and Exposition, Anaheim, CA,

13-19 November, 2004, pp. 159-164.

19. G. A. R. Zhou, H. Liu, X. Niu, A. Sun, S.

Wei, X. Li and Y. Fan, New developments

of biomaterials course for biomedical

engineering education, Proceedings of the

International Symposium on IT in Medicine

and Education, Cuangzhou, 9-11

December, 2011, pp. 221-223.

20. M. Cho, H. Masui and Kyutech Satellite

Project, Nano-satellite development project

and space engineering education at Kyushu

Institute of Technology, Proceedings of the

6th International Conference on Recent

Advances in Space Technologies, Istanbul,

12-14 June, 2013, pp. 1059-1063.

21. T. S. Lundström and S. A. Booth, Journals

based on applications: An attempt to

improve students' learning about composite

materials, European Journal of


(2002).

22. J. Lino and T. P. Duarte, Short

Experimental Ceramic Projects to

Incentivise Mechanical Engineering

Students, International Journal of

Engineering Pedagogy, 2(2), 45-51 (2012)

23. L. Helle, P. Tynjälä and E. Olkinuora,

Project-based learning in post-secondary

education – theory, practice and rubber

sling shots, Higher Education, 51(2), 287-

314 (2006).

24. W. Hall, S. Palmer and M. Bennett, A

longitudinal evaluation of a project-based

learning initiative in an engineering

undergraduate programme, European

Journal of Engineering Education, 37(2),

155-165 (2012).

25. A. B. Strong, Fundamentals of Composites

Manufacturing: Materials, Methods, and

Applications. 2008, ISBN 087263854-5.

26. F. Miley and A. Read, Using word clouds

to develop proactive learners, Journal of

the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,

11(2), 91-110 (2012}.

27. S. J. Krause, D. R. Baker, A. R. Carberry,

T. L. Alford, C. J. Ankeny, M. Koretsky, B.

J. Brooks, C. Waters, B. J. Gibbons, S.

Maass and C. K. Chan, Characterizing and

Addressing Student Learning Issues and

Misconceptions (SLIM) with Muddiest

Point Reflections and Fast Formative

Feedback, Proceedings of the 121st

American Society for Engineering

Education Conference, Indianapolis, 15-18

June, 2014, Paper ID #10445.

28. S. Bull, M. D. Johnson, M. Alotaibi, W.

Byrne and G. Cierniak, Visualising

Multiple Data Sources in an Independent

Open Learner Model. In H. C. Lane, K.

Yacef, J. Mostow and P. Pavlik (Eds.),

Artificial Intelligence in Education,

Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, 2013, pp. 199-

208 .

29. S. Maw, J. M. Young and A. & Morris,

First-Year Engineering Computing Courses

in Canadian Engineering Programs,

Proceedings of 2012 Canadian Engineering

Education Association Conference,

Winnipeg, 17-20 June, 2012, pp. 1-11.



Hall and Palmer


168

30. L. Schlemer. Design projects with out-of-

town companies, Proceedings of 118th

ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition,

Vancouver, 26-29 June, 2011, Paper ID AC

2011-93.

31. M. A. Vigeant and D. L. Silverstein,

Results from the AIChE Education Annual

Survey: Chemical Engineering Electives,

Proceedings of the 121st American Society

for Engineering Education Conference,

Indianapolis, 15-18 June, 2014, Paper ID #

9976.

32. J. Carifio and R. Perla, Resolving the 50-

year debate around using and misusing

Likert scales, Medical Education, 42(12),

1150-1152 (2008).

33. G. Norman, Likert scales, levels of

measurement and the “laws” of statistics,

Advances in Health Sciences Education,

15(5), 625-632 (2010).

34. J. C. de Winter and D. Dodou, Five-point

Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-

Wilcoxon, Practical Assessment, Research

& Evaluation, 15(11), 1-12 (2010).

35. B. O'Donovan, M. Price and C. Rust, Know

what I mean? Enhancing student

understanding of assessment standards and

criteria. Teaching in Higher Education,

9(3), 325-335.(2004)

36. L. McDowell and K. Sambell, Fitness for

Purpose in the Assessment of Learning:

students as stakeholders, Quality in Higher

Education, 5(2), 107-123 (1999).

engineering graduate attributes: moving...

Documents