Content uploaded by Taib Iskandar Mohamad
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Taib Iskandar Mohamad on Jul 06, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
FEDERATION OF ENGINEERING
INSTITUTIONS OF ISLAMIC COUNTRIES
EDITORS:
Nusayba Megat Johari
Megat Johari Megat Mohd Noor
Tinia Idaty Mohd Ghazi
Rosnah Mohd Yusu
Thamer Ahmad Mohammed
Azlan Abdul Aziz
Rahman Wagiran
FEDERATION OF ENGINEERING
INSTITUTIONS OF ISLAMIC COUNTRIES
ii
Published by the Federation of Engineering Institutions of Islamic Countries.
Copyright and Reprint Permission: Abstracting is permitted with credit to the source. Libraries are permitted to
photocopy for private use of patrons those articles in this volume that carry a code at the bottom of the first
page, provided the per-copy fee indicated in the code is paid through the Federation of Engineering Institutions
of Islamic Countries. For other copying, reprint or republication permission, write to Federation of Engineering
Institutions of Islamic Countries. All rights reserved.
Copyright ©2013 by the Federation of Engineering Institutions of Islamic Countries.
Perpustakaan Negara Malaysia Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING EDUCATION 2013 – PROCEEDINGS
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5
iii
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
December 22 – 25, 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Driving for Strategic Change
Editors
Nusayba Megat Johari Megat Johari Megat Mohd Noor
Tinia Idaty Mohd Ghazi Rosnah Mohd Yussof
Thamer Ahmad Mohammed Azlan Abdul Aziz
Rahman Wagiran
Organizer
Federation of Engineering Institutions of Islamic Countries
Saudi Council of Engineers
Malaysian Society for Engineering & Technology
Universiti Putra Malaysia
Malaysia-Japan International Institute of Technology,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Taibah University
Supporter:
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
Proceedings
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
184
046
IMPROVED LEARNING EXPERIENCE WITH A PROJECT-EMBEDDED
THERMOFLUID COURSE: A BRIEF EXPERIENCE AT YANBU INDUSTRIAL
COLLEGE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT
T.I. Mohamad1,2, G. Khalifa2 and M.J. Ghazali1
1Department of Mechanical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment,
Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, 43600 Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
2Department of Mechanical Engineering Technology, Yanbu Industrial College, P.O. Box 30435 Yanbu Al-
Sinaiyah 41912, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Email: taib@eng.ukm.my
ABSTRACT
Yanbu Industrial College (YIC) is one of the leading technical colleges in Saudi Arabia offering associate
degree and bachelor degree programs in engineering and applied sciences. As a technical college, the approach
of teaching is predominantly classical with theoretic lectures and hands-on experimental/laboratory works.
Course assessment was heavily proportioned towards examinations where mid-semester and final examinations
account for 25% and 50% respectively. A fresh approach of student learning was initiated in 2012 whereby
active and outcome-based education was implemented through project in selected courses. One course in
thermo fluids subjects was evaluated with respect to the effectiveness this approach: MET 401 Power Plant
Engineering. Project mark accounts for 10% of course assessment and this is based on instructors’ evaluation
on average group work. The percentage of final examination was reduced to 40% and mid semester
examination was replaced with 2 tests, account for 30% of course assessment. The effectiveness of this
approach was measured based on average mark, mark distribution, passing rate and end-of-semester student
evaluation. Results show that the approach reduces overall student grade, produces a more realistic average
results but surprisingly increases students’ satisfaction despite the reduced average marks and some resistance
during the initial stage of implementation.
Keywords: Mechanical engineering, active learning, course design project, outcome-based education.
INTRODUCTION
Engineering education has evolved significantly in the last few decades due to technological changes and higher
expectations for human skills and competencies. By the end of second decade of the 21th century successful
engineers must possess special attributes to be successful. These include good analytical skills, sound practical
ingenuity, creative, good communication, business and management skills, leadership abilities, high ethical
standards and a strong sense of professionalism, dynamic, flexible, lifelong learners, and ability to frame
problems in a socio-technical and operational context. They will be expected to provide solutions to problems
such as environmental, energy related, bioengineering, ultra-nanoscale, miniaturization, managing population
growth and globalization, and maintaining technical currency and lifelong learning [1]. This can only be
achieved, among others, through advancement of engineering education which not only satisfies the science of
this knowledge, but also developing soft skills at the earliest stage of engineering training.
Problem-based learning (PBL) (or sometimes associated to Project-based learning) has gained significant
attention and enter into effective practice due to positive impacts on student learning. Engineering education is
one of the areas that has greatly benefited from this method. Assigning mini projects in course delivery not only
enhance active learning, but also prepare students with the tools for practical engineering problem solving.
Project works on course basis promotes active, collaborative, cumulative and integrative learning approach, by
which learners benefit from team creativity motivation and being the focal point in practical education [2].
Many advantages of PBL have been reported previously. Student motivation is stimulated in various ways, such
as formal and informal group discussions, regular supervisor meetings and sharing leadership. Factors like goals
sharing, peers support and openness enhance motivation. However, one challenge noted was that the students
think that a time limitation is a barrier to group creativity. Also there is complex relationships between student,
teacher and task and the student response which must be tackled by instructor to assure the effectiveness of PBL
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
185
[3]. A study at King Faisal University (KFU) on engineering design experience in an undergraduate first
thermodynamics course shown that it serves to enhance the understanding of the various thermodynamics
concepts and principles [7]. The course project can be used to achieve ABET 2000 accreditation Criteria 3; the
ability of engineering graduates to design a component or a system. In one of graduating students survey across
numerous engineering majors, it was found that project work related competencies (teamwork, communication,
data analysis, and problem solving) are rated highest as compared to other competencies in the view of tertiary
study experience [9].
PBL stimulates cognitive effects and leads to restructuring of knowledge and enhanced intrinsic interest in the
subject matter. However, at times, instructors do not always experience the positive effects of group work which
they had hoped for. When problems arise in group work, such as students who only maintain an appearance of
being actively involved and students who let others do the work, teachers all too often implement solutions
which can be characterized as teacher-directed rather than student-directed. Instructors often opt for solutions
similar from their own experience during professional training. These are not effective in improving group work
and the negative experiences persist. Therefore, instructors should hold on to the underlying educational
philosophy when solving problems arising from group work in PBL, by choosing actions which are consistent
with the student-directed view of education in PBL [4]. Another challenge surrounds project work is
assessment; individual versus group evaluation. A study on assigning individual marks from a team mark using
individual contributions to a teamwork product reveals the method encourages teamwork, penalises below-
average contributions and rewards above-average contributions. An analysis of a students' perception survey
shows that students prefer the approach over alternative approaches [5]. However, another study reveals
otherwise. It showed students took the peer-assessment process seriously, but show a self-bias, rating their own
contribution to the group task higher than that of other group members [6]. The impact of PBL approach has
mainly involved student perceptions of the teaching method and anecdotal and opinion pieces by faculty on their
use of the teaching method, rather than empirically collected data on students' learning outcomes. Results also
suggested participants' learning gains from PBL were twice their gains from traditional lecture. Even though
students learned more from PBL, students thought they learned more from traditional lecture. [8].
The issue rooting from traditional educational method including insufficient design experiences to students, lack
of communication skills and poor teamwork experience must be solved [10]. Academic programs need to
incorporate more opportunities for students to develop these through active learning, PBL and OBE. Small
project assigned at course level can contribute in providing such opportunities to students. Not only it can help
better evaluating students’ knowledge increase in the subject matter, but also it will enhance teamwork,
communication and lifelong learning skills in them.
In this paper, we will look into the effects of project work in a thermo fluids course at Yanbu Industrial College;
MET 401 Power Plant Engineering. The impact on the teaching and learning process are evaluated
quantitatively and qualitatively. Evaluation is based on student grade achievement, mark (grade) statistics, intra-
assessment correlations and course performance survey.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Yanbu Industrial College (YIC) is one of the leading technical colleges in Saudi Arabia offering associate
degree and bachelor degree programs in engineering and applied sciences. As a technical college, the approach
of teaching is predominantly classical with theoretic lectures and hands-on experimental/laboratory works.
Course assessment was heavily proportioned towards examinations where mid-semester and final examinations
account for 25% and 50% respectively. A fresh approach of student learning was initiated in 2012 whereby
active and outcome-based education was implemented through project in selected courses.
The students enrolled in the Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering Technology Program at Yanbu
Industrial College (YIC) are selected from the high achievers among Associate Degree program graduates of the
same department. These students must complete a total of 72 credits hours beyond their associate degree credit
hours. Out of this, the core engineering courses accounts for 45 credits hours. The orientation of this program is
such that the core engineering courses (excluding the Senior Design Project and Summer Training courses) can
be subdivided into three categories; Thermo Fluids (TF), Design & Manufacturing (DM) and Applied
Mechanics (AM), as shown in Table 1. Students choose two out of four elective courses offered, denoted by
superscript ‘e’ next to the course code, which only being offered in the TF and DM subject areas. TF courses
account for 35.6% of the coverage of core courses. This is in line with one of the main goal of YIC, which is to
provide skilled technical workforce among Saudi people for the heavily petrochemical industries in the Yanbu
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
186
Industrial city. Since the last four semesters, most students chose two TF elective courses making this subject
area the most dominant in students’ preference.
Table 1 Mechanical Engineering Technology B.Sc. Program Core Course subject areas
Course
Code
Course name
Thermo
Fluids (TF)
Design &
Manufacturing
(DM)
Applied
Mechanics
(AM)
Percentage based on credit hours of courses
35.6%
37.7%
26.7%
MET 301
Applied Dynamics
MET 302
Mechanics of Materials
MET 303
Applied Thermodynamics & Heat Transfer
MET 304
Mechanical Design 1
MET 305
Mechanic of Machines
MET 306
Applied Fluid Mechanics
MET 401
Power Plant Engineering
MET 402
Manufacturing Process
MET 403
Mechanical Design 2
MET 404
Instrumentation and Control
MET 411e
Turbo Machines
MET 412e
Refrigeration & HVAC Technology
MET 421e
Computer Integrated Manufacturing
MET 422e
Production Planning And Control
MET 401, Power Plant Engineering is the last compulsory TF course in the curriculum. It carries a total of 4
credit hours which is the biggest number among all compulsory courses. Therefore the effects of this course on
students CGPA is significant. The objective of this course is to provide students with understanding of power
plant principles, operations, calculation and analysis. The contents encompass fluid mechanics,
thermodynamics, heat transfer and economics. Students are also expected to be able to design a power plant
with specified output and communicate their works towards realizing it. The inclusion of course mini project
was started in Semester 1 of 2012-2013 academic session (S2). In the prior semester, Semester 2 of academic
session 2011-2012 (S1), project course was not included in the learning and assessment. This paper will
evaluate the effects of course project on student learning quantitatively based on the grades and marks statistics
as well as students surveys
Course assessment
Table 2 shows the course assessment comparison used in the two semesters analyzed. In the first semester, the
standard assessment criteria of Yanbu Industrial College was used which is heavily based on examinations (75%
for mid-term + final exams). In the second semester, project work was introduced which accounts for 10% of
total marks. In order to reduce the stress on the students from the mid-term examination, these components is
replaced with 2 tests that carry 15% of total marks each, reflecting lesser coverage of topics per test compared to
one midterm examination. Assignment mark was reduced to 5% and final examination was reduced to 40%. The
aim was to provide more opportunity for students’ creativity, active learning and development of teamwork,
communication and problem solving skills through the project works.
Table 2 Course assessment
Assessment
Assignment
Quiz
Midterm
exam
2 Tests
Project
Final
Exam
Total
Semester 1
10 %
15 %
25 %
-
-
50 %
100 %
Semester 2
5 %
15 %
-
30 %
10 %
40 %
100 %
Course marks for grades are set as standard throughout the programs in the college. Table 3 shows the marks
range and grades used. Passing grade is set at 60 marks out of 100. The point for A+, A and B+ are separated by
0.25 between them but bigger difference (0.5) was set below B+.
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
187
Table 3 Mark-grade for grade point average (GPA)
Grade
Range of marks
Point
A+
95-100
4.00
A
90-94
3.75
B+
85-89
3.50
B
80-84
3.00
C+
75-79
2.50
C
70-74
2.00
D+
65-69
1.50
D
60-64
1.00
F
0-59
0.00
Project assessment
The assessment for project was done on the bases of group work. Individual assessment was not preferred due to
the tendency of students to favour each other as was experienced widely in the college. However, some extra
credits above group work mark were given to students who showed positive attitude, significantly higher effort
in completing the project and articulately respond in Q&A session during their oral presentation. Table 4 show
the items and criteria of project work assessment, and marks assigned correspondingly. The total mark is then
normalized to 15% of total course mark. Project work was assigned on week 10 after completion of substantial
course materials that enable students to carry out the design work.
Table 4 Project assessment
Items
Criteria
Marks
Planning
Sufficient work in choosing and planning of design
5
Progress
Show improvement w.r.t. teachers comments
10
Written report
Format and language
5
Creativity, innovation and details
20
Calculation and results
15
Discussion and conclusion
10
Presentation
Power point quality
5
Clarity of language
10
Understanding (Q&A)
15
Creativity
5
TOTAL
100
Project impact evaluation
The effects of this project assignment are evaluated quantitatively and qualitatively. The quantitative aspect is
measured by the achieved mark and grade. The qualitative aspect is measured through students’ ‘Course
Performance Evaluation’ (CPE) feedback, which all students submit at the end of the semester. The CPE
consists of students’ evaluation on the Instructor Factor (IF), Project Related (PR) factor and Students’
Satisfaction (SS) as shown in Table 5. The survey is based on 1-5 point given in each category; 5 indicating
highest positive rating and 1 as lowest (negative). The total marks given in the survey are averaged from
students’ response. This survey was done after the completion of all course assessment except for final
examination, which is on the 14th week of the semester. In this paper, in order to investigate the qualitative
impact of the project work on teaching and learning processes, the PR and SS factors will be compared. The IF
factor is neglected because it reflects more on instructor’s personality and style which does not directly linked to
the effect of project work.
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
188
Table 5 Course Performance Evaluation questionnaires and categories
Questions
Category
1
Beginning of the semester the instructor explained the course content and requirements.
Instructor factor (IF)
2
Instructor explains the topic clearly.
Instructor factor (IF)
3
Instructor is punctual. He utilizes the time fully
Instructor factor (IF)
4
The instructor was available when needed during posted office hours
Instructor factor (IF)
5
I can hear and understand the instructor's language clearly during the class
Instructor factor (IF)
6
I was treated with respect in the class
Instructor factor (IF)
7
Instructor gives examples and illustrations effectively to make course topics
Instructor factor (IF)
8
Instructor forms groups to enhance discussion and learning
Project related (PR)
9
Instructor encourages students to search in references and library
Project related (PR)
10
Instructor's teaching method helps me to understand the subjects
Project related (PR)
11
Instructor's teaching method obliges the student to take learning seriously
Project related (PR)
12
Instructor uses technology of teaching aids effectively (smart board, computer, etc).
Project related (PR)
13
My knowledge increased after attending this class.
Student satisfaction (SS)
14
In general, I consider the mentioned instruction as an excellent teacher
Student satisfaction (SS)
15
I hope I can have another subject with this instructor
Student satisfaction (SS)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Marks and grades analysis
The impact of course project can be measured quantitatively using the students’ mark and grade. Qualitatively it
can be measured from students’ attitude and response. There were 24 students enrolled in the course in S1 and
31 in S2. Figure 1 shows the average, lowest and highest mark achieved by students in this course. In general, all
marks were reduced on S2 as a result of project work. Average mark was reduced by 6.6% while lowest and
highest marks were reduced by 9.1% and 3.3% respectively. However, these statistics do not give the real
picture of students’ achievement. A more detail investigation will clear the picture.
Figure 1 Students' mark statistics
In order to examine more closely, Figure 2 and Figure 3 are referred. In these figures, distributions of student
grades for the two semesters are shown in terms of statistical data with S-curve describing the percentage build-
up towards highest grade. Inclusion of project reduces the highest marks but makes the distribution much more
realistic for a course that carries major coverage of program curriculum and significant contribution towards
CGPA. The average mark shifted from B to C+. However the highest number of students obtain grade B.
Because there were two D+ achievers, the average mark shifted to C+ range.
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
189
In Figure 4, analysis of students’ achievement is presented in terms of grade range. In S1, there were 3 students
obtaining ‘A’ range grade but none was in S2. The ‘B’ and ‘C’ range achievers however increased from 87% to
93% and there is a small percentage of D range achievers (6.45%) in S2. These indicate that the inclusion of
small project in this course has resulted on a more reliable assessment of students capabilities. Grade
distribution shows better S-curve and bigger percentage of students in the range of ‘B’ and ‘C’ grades, with the
max on the distribution shifted from ‘B+’ to ‘B’.
Figure 2 Student-grade statistics for Semester 1
Figure 3 Student-grade statistics for Semester 2
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
190
Figure 4 Grade range distribution
In order to relate between students achievement in project work to their overall course achievement, Figure 5 and
Figure 6 are referred. In Figure 5 the correlation between project mark and course mark is presented. As can be
seen, there is a direct relation between high achievers in project work with high achievers in course total. A
linear trend line drawn between the data shows high value for coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.94018).
However, with the correlation plotted between final examination results and total course marks shows a lower
R2 value of 0.4811, indicating that higher achievers in final examination are not necessarily the higher achievers
overall. These correlations suggest that while final examination results are often considered as the main factor in
determining students’ grade, the project results prove otherwise. This is because with the project work, students
have more opportunity to bring out the knowledge, understanding, problem solving skills, teamwork and
communication capabilities. The marks assigned to them covers more skills than the examination.
Figure 5 Project-total marks correlation
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
191
Figure 6 Final exam-total marks correlation
Students’ satisfaction
Even though it was shown that the overall students mark and grade were reduced, the investigation on students’
satisfaction in their learning experience shows contrasting outcomes. In Table 6, the detail results from Course
Performance Survey for the two consecutive semesters are shown. Percentage of change in each questions are
listed in the 5th column. On average, overall score increased by 1.7% from 4.24 to 4.31 on a 0 to 5.00 scale. The
highest increase with 18.9% was obtained in question 10, regarding forming group for enhancing discussion and
learning. This clearly indicated improvement related to the assigned project.
Table 6 Results of Course Performance Surveys
S1 S2
1Beginning of the semester the instructor explained the course content and requirements 4.6 4.38 -4.8% IF
2Instructor explains the topic clearly. 4 3.97 -0.7% IF
3Instructor is punctual. He utilizes the time fully 3.8 3.97 4.5% IF
4The instructor was available when needed during posted office hours 4.55 4.76 4.6% IF
5I can hear and understand the instructor's language clearly during the class 4.5 4.72 4.9% IF
6I was treated with respect in the class 4.9 4.76 -2.9% IF
7Instructor gives examples and illustrations effectively to make course topics 4.5 4.41 -2.0% IF
8In general, I consider the mentioned instruction as an excellent teacher 4.4 4.24 -3.6% IF
9I hope I can have another subject with this instructor 4.3 4.17 -3.0% IF
10 Instructor forms groups to enhance discussion and learning 3.6 4.28 18.9% PR
11 Instructor encourages students to search in references and library 3.75 4.07 8.5% PR
12 Instructor's teaching method helps me to understand the subjects 4.1 4 -2.4% PR
13 Instructor's teaching method obliges the student to take learning seriously 3.85 4.07 5.7% PR
14 Instructor uses technology of teaching aids effectively (smart board, computer, etc). 4.55 4.62 1.5% PR
15 My knowledge increased after attending this class. 4.25 4.28 0.7% SS
4.24 4.31 1.7%
Category
AVERAGE
Score given
Questions
% change
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
192
Figure 7 Changes in score for survey categories
Analysis of project impact on teaching and learning with respect to survey categories is shown in Figure 7. The
IF factor show slight decrease in score over the two semester but the overall score is the highest among the three
categories, and falls within the higher range of ‘very good’ rating (4.38 in S2 compared to 4.39 in S1). The
highest increase was found in PR category with 6.4% increase. In terms of average score, the number increase
from 3.97 to 4.21 (improve from ‘good’ to ‘very good’). The SS category show slight improvement with 0.7%
increase and maintains within the ‘very good’ rating with score improvement from 4.25 to 4.28. The qualitative
analysis of project impact shows that students favour the project work as it increases their knowledge and
encourages their learning attitude with the assigned task of the projects.
CONCLUSIONS
Improved learning experience with project-embedded Power Plant Engineering was realized at Yanbu Industrial
College. Three major conclusions can be made from the findings:
1. Project work and its assessment resulted in a quite significant reduction in students’ average mark and thus
their grades. However, the distribution of the mark and grade becomes more statistically sound and realistic
for a course of such wide coverage of the program curriculum.
2. There is a very good correlation between project mark and total course marks which is most probably due to
the fact that project work comprehensively assess student knowledge, understanding, problem solving
skills, teamwork and communication capabilities. It can reliably differentiate between good and average
students.
3. Student satisfaction increased by the project work even though the average marks were reduced compared
to the previous semester without project work. Students tend to appreciate the value of experience they gain
from the exercise, even though they resisted the implementation of project work at the early stage of the
semester
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Authors would like to thank Yanbu Industrial College (YIC) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) for
this work. UKM has provided an opportunity for a long term academic attachment at YIC in which make this
work possible.
REFERENCES
[1] Sunthonkanokpong, W., Future Global Visions of Engineering Education. Procedia Engineering, 2011.
8(0): p. 160-164.
[2] Nepal, K.P., Comparative evaluation of PBL and traditional lecturebased teaching in undergraduate
engineering courses: Evidence from controlled learning environment. International Journal of
Engineering Education, 2013. 29(1): p. 17-22.
International Conference on Engineering Education 2013
Madinah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 22-25 December 2013
ISBN 978-967-5995-09-5 @2013 FEIIC
193
[3] Zhou, C., A. Kolmos, and J.D. Nielsen, A problem and Project-Based Learning (PBL) approach to
motivate group creativity in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education,
2012. 28(1): p. 3-16.
[4] Dolmans, D.H.J.M., et al., Solving problems with group work in problem-based learning: Hold on to
the philosophy. Medical Education, 2001. 35(9): p. 884-889.
[5] Nepal, K.P., An approach to assign individual marks from a team mark: The case of Australian
grading system at universities. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 2012. 37(5): p. 555-
562.
[6] Johnston, L. and L. Miles, Assessing contributions to group assignments. Assessment and Evaluation
in Higher Education, 2004. 29(6): p. 751-768.
[7] Hosni, I.A.M., Abdulaziz, A.A., Engineering design experience of an undergraduate thermodynamics
course World Journal of Engineering and Technology Education, 2012. 10(1): p. 77-81.
[8] Yadav, A., et al., Problem-based Learning: Influence on Students' Learning in an Electrical
Engineering Course. Journal of Engineering Education, 2011. 100(2): p. 253-280.
[9] Passow, H.J., Which ABET competencies do engineering graduates find most important in their work?
Journal of Engineering Education, 2012. 101(1): p. 95-118.
[10] Mills J.E., T.D.F., Engineering Education - Is Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning The Answer?
Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2003: p. 1-16.
