Content uploaded by Francisco Cima
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Francisco Cima on Oct 23, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Old Dominion University Old Dominion University
ODU Digital Commons ODU Digital Commons
Engineering Technology Faculty Publications Engineering Technology
2022
Experiences During the Implementation of Two Different Project-Experiences During the Implementation of Two Different Project-
Based Learning Assignments in a Fluid Mechanics Course. Based Learning Assignments in a Fluid Mechanics Course.
Orlando Ayala
Old Dominion University
, oayala@odu.edu
Kristie Gutierrez
Old Dominion University
, kgutierr@odu.edu
Francisco Cima
Old Dominion University
, fcohuo@odu.edu
Julia Noginova
Old Dominion University
, jnogi001@odu.edu
Min Jung Lee
Old Dominion University
See next page for additional authors
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/engtech_fac_pubs
Part of the Aerodynamics and Fluid Mechanics Commons, Educational Methods Commons,
Elementary Education Commons, Engineering Education Commons, and the Science and Mathematics
Education Commons
Original Publication Citation Original Publication Citation
Ayala, O., Gutierrez, K., Cima, F., Noginova, J., Lee, M. J., Ringleb, S., Pazos, P., Kaipa, K., & Kidd, J. (2022)
Experiences during the implementation of two different project-based learning assignments in a >uid
mechanics course
. Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis,
Minnesota. https://peer.asee.org/41801
This Conference Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Engineering Technology at ODU Digital
Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Engineering Technology Faculty Publications by an authorized
administrator of ODU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact digitalcommons@odu.edu.
Paper ID #38063
Experiences during the implementation of two different
project-based learning assignments in a fluid mechanics
course
Orlando M Ayala (Associate Professor)
Dr. Ayala received his BS in Mechanical Engineering with honors (Cum Laude) from Universidad de Oriente (Venezuela)
in 1995, MS in 2001 and PhD in 2005, both from University of Delaware (USA). Dr. Ayala is currently serving as
Associate Professor in the Engineering Technology Department at Old Dominion University. Prior to joining ODU in
2013, Dr. Ayala spent 3 years as a Postdoc at the University of Delaware where he expanded his knowledge on simulation
of multiphase flows while acquiring skills in high-performance parallel computing and scientific computation. Before
that, Dr. Ayala held a faculty position at Universidad de Oriente where he taught and developed courses for a number of
subjects such as Fluid Mechanics, Heat Transfer, Thermodynamics, Multiphase Flows, Hydraulic Machinery, as well as
different Laboratory courses. Additionally, Dr. Ayala has had the opportunity to work for a number of engineering
consulting companies, which have given him an important perspective and exposure to the industry. He has been directly
involved in at least 20 different engineering projects related to a wide range of industries. Dr. Ayala has provided service
to professional organizations such as ASME, since 2008 he has been a member of the Committee of Spanish Translation
of ASME Codes. Dr. Ayala has published over one hundred journal and peer-reviewed conference papers. His work has
been presented in several international forums in Austria, the USA, Venezuela, Japan, France, Mexico, and Argentina. Dr.
Ayala has an average citation per year of all his published work of 42.80.
Kristie Gutierrez (Assistant Professor of Science Education)
Francisco Cima
Julia Noginova
Min Jung Lee
Min Jung Lee is a postdoctoral fellow at Old Dominion University. She received her B.S. in chemistry in South Korea and
M.S. and Ph.D. in Science Education from Teachers College, Columbia University. Her research interests include formal
and informal STEM education and teacher education, specific to their knowledge, belief, and self-efficacy.
Stacie I Ringleb (Professor)
Stacie Ringleb is a professor in the department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at Old Dominion University.
Pilar Pazos (Associate Professor)
ASEE
2022
ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
lxcellence
Through
Diversity
..
Krishnanand Kaipa (Assistant Professor)
To be filled
Jennifer Jill Kidd (Dr.) (Old Dominion University)
Master Lecturer at Old Dominion University
© American Society for Engineering Education, 2022
Powered by www.slayte.com
Experiences during the implementation of two different project-based
learning assignments in a fluid mechanics course
Abstract
Two different implementations of PBL projects in a fluid mechanics course are presented
in this paper. This required junior-level course has been taught since 2014 by the same instructor.
The first PBL project presented is a complete design of pumped pipeline systems for a
hypothetical plant. In the second project, engineering students partnered with pre-service
teachers to design and teach an elementary school lesson on fluid mechanics concepts. The goal
of this paper is to present the experiences of the authors with both PBL implementations. It
explains how the projects were scaffolded through the entire semester, including how the
sequence of course content was modified, how team dynamics were monitored, the faculty roles,
and the end products and presentations. To evaluate and compare students’ learning and
satisfaction with the team experience between the two PBL implementations, a shortened version
of the NCEES FE exam and the Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness
(CATME) survey were utilized. Students completed the FE exam during the first week and then
again during the last week of the semester to assess students’ growth in fluid mechanics
knowledge. The CATME survey was completed mid-semester to help faculty identify and
address problems within team dynamics, and at the end of the semester to evaluate individual
students’ teamwork performance. The results showed that the type of PBL approach used in the
course did not have an impact on fluid mechanics content knowledge; however, the data suggests
that the cross-disciplinary PBL model led to higher levels of teamwork satisfaction. Through
reflective assignments, student perceptions of the PBL implementations are discussed in the
paper. Finally, some of the PBL course materials and assignments are provided.
Introduction
There is growing evidence of the effectiveness of project-based learning (PBL) in
preparing students to solve complex problems1-7. In PBL implementations in engineering,
students are treated as professional engineers facing projects centered around real-world
problems, including the complexity and uncertainty that influence such problems. Not only does
this help students to analyze and solve an authentic real-world task, promoting critical thinking,
but also students learn from each other, learning valuable communication and teamwork skills.
Faculty play an important part by assuming non-conventional roles (e.g., client, senior
professional engineer, consultant) to help students throughout this instructional and learning
approach. Typically, in PBLs, students work on projects over extended periods of time that
culminate in realistic products or presentations. There have been attempts to use PBL in a variety
of engineering courses1-7; several have reported success stories8-12 using PBL in fluid mechanics
courses as well.
In this paper, two different implementations of PBL projects in a fluid mechanics course
are presented. The first PBL project presented is a complete design of pumped pipeline systems
for a hypothetical plant. In the second project, engineering students partnered with pre-service
teachers to design and teach an elementary school lesson on fluid mechanics concepts. With the
PBL implementations, it is expected that students: 1) engage in a deeper learning process where
concepts can be reemphasized, and students can realize applicability; 2) develop and practice
teamwork skills; 3) learn and practice how to communicate effectively to peers and to those from
other fields; and 4) increase their confidence working on open-ended situations and problems.
The goal of this paper is to present the experiences of the authors with both PBL
implementations and their impact on student learning and satisfaction.
Class Setting
The Fluid Mechanics course in the Mechanical Engineering Technology program at this
midsize university is a 3 credit 300-level course. The class meets twice a week for 75 minutes
each time and it is offered in a hybrid mode (face-to-face and online – synchronous or
asynchronous) in the fall semesters and fully face-to-face mode in the spring semesters. More
than 80% of the students are already in their senior year when registering for this class.
Traditionally, fluid mechanics is a challenging course due to its heavy mathematical content. In
this study, as the course is part of a technology program, the course curriculum is concentrated
on the use of the major concepts in industrial applications, therefore the problem solving, and
project design are central to the teaching approach of this class.
The undergraduate engineering student population is very diverse. It ranges from
traditional students to students in different age groups (with a large group of students returning to
school after a long break period), full-time workers, active military students, veterans, students
of underrepresented groups, and transfer students from community colleges. This diversity
creates a non-coherent group of students in the class, with different study habits, background
levels and needs that add to learning challenges of the subject matter and makes the teaching of
the class very demanding. Another issue is that the Engineering Technology major math
requirements are significantly lower compared to the long-established Engineering majors, and
some concepts can only be explained in a holistic way without relying on the mathematical
proofs. In this case, the problem solving, and practical applications should balance the
mathematical rigor.
The course was originally structured in 4 main modules: static of fluids, dynamics of
fluids, specialized topics on fluids, and turbomachinery, as shown in the “BEFORE” column in
table 1. Each of the topics covered in each of the original four modules (“BEFORE”) are
indicated in table 1 using the same color. The same colors for the topics are used in the
“AFTER” column where the topics and modules were rearranged. The structure was later
modified in Spring 2019 to accommodate for the 2nd PBL project (see column “AFTER” in table
1), as it will be explained next. After every module, the students were tested.
Table 1. Fluid Mechanics topics delivery structure. After every module, the students were tested.
BEFORE
AFTER
Test 1
Nature of Fluids
Nature of Fluids
Test 1
Viscosity of Fluids
Viscosity of Fluids
Pressure
Pressure
Hydrostatic
Hydrostatic
Forces due to static fluids
Navier-Stokes eq - Bernoulli’s equation
Buoyancy and Stability
Energy equation - Applications
Test 2
Navier-Stokes eq - Bernoulli’s equation
Forces due to static fluids
Test 2
Energy equation - Applications
Buoyancy and Stability
Boundary Layer - Friction losses in pipes
Open channel flow
Minor losses in pipes
Instrumentation
Series pipeline systems
Water hammer & Cavitation
Parallel pipeline systems
Drag and Lift
Test 3
Instrumentation
Impulse theorem
Open channel flow
Boundary Layer - Friction losses in pipes
Test 3
Water hammer & Cavitation
Minor losses in pipes
Drag and Lift
Series pipeline systems
Impulse theorem
Parallel pipeline systems
To Project
Turbomachinery
Turbomachinery
To Project
Pumps
Pumps
Pumps – Affinity Laws
Pumps – Affinity Laws
Pumps – NPSH
Pumps – NPSH
Positive displacement pumps
Positive displacement pumps
PBL Implementations
1st PBL implementation
The first PBL project had been implemented since Fall 2015 and it went through several
modifications to make it more realistic. Students were told that they are a group of engineers
working for an Engineering Consulting Firm that just got a contract from an important company
in the area. The company was interested in building a new manufacturing facility. The plant had
an automated machining line in which five machines were supplied with coolant from a
reservoir. After the coolant gets dirty due to constant reuse, it must be disposed of. The students
were responsible for the design of the pumped pipeline systems that handled coolant from the
time it reached the plant in railroad tank cars until the dirty coolant was removed from the
premises by a contract firm for reclaim.
This was a semester-long project where the instructor required students to work in teams
of four members. The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME)
system was used to systematically assign the team members. A larger weight in the CATME
criteria is given to student schedule compatibility.
A few days after the teams were formed, each team worked on a team charter to define
the rules of engagement, and decided who will be the technical leader, the project manager, and
the communications manager. The technical leader made sure the technical requirements are
understood and fulfilled. The project manager oversaw the project plan, this included observing
that tasks and assignments were completed and submitted according to directions. The
communications manager was in charge of all team communications to make sure everyone in
the team stayed informed and communicated with course instructor/“client,” and also prepared
meeting agendas and minutes.
As in any consulting company, the students were given a specific list of tasks to
successfully complete the engineering design. The sequence of those tasks followed the course
content delivery (table 1). Around week 7 students were asked to submit a progress report on the
first half of the design tasks, and a final project report during finals week. There were grading
rubrics for each of them, and the instructor shared these with the students. To help improve the
quality of the course project, following some instructions and the rubrics, each of the students
reviewed the progress report of another team to provide feedback through a peer-review process.
They were asked to be respectful and serious in their comments.
The CATME survey was later used to evaluate the team performance. The instructor
reviewed every comment each student gives to their teammates and the grade adjustment factor
CATME offered based on each student’s numerical inputs. The instructor intervened and talked
to any team (or specific team member) that may not be performing well as a group. Most of the
time this early intervention helped to keep the team dynamic balanced. However, following
along with the idea of making the team dynamics more realistic and to avoid escalating
problems, teams were allowed to fire a member as long as the other members agreed on doing it
and communicated the decision to the instructor. The person who gets fired then completed a
final test with only the last content of course, which involved a design of a smaller pumped
system. Only a handful of students have been fired since this PBL implementation started in Fall
2015.
Also, the instructor met with the teams three different times in the semester. During those
meetings the instructor played the role of “the client” or “the senior engineer in the consulting
firm.” These meetings prevented the students from falling behind and provided them with useful
information to continue the design. Also, during the meeting, each team showed what they have
done up to that moment. There were no points for attending the meetings.
To assess the PBL implementation, the students were required to take a shortened version
of the NCEES FE exam at the beginning and at the end of the semester. They also took a final
CATME survey and were asked to complete a set of questions reflecting on the project work.
In Fall 2019, the design tasks were modified after the course sequence was adjusted to
accommodate for the 2nd PBL implementation (more details in the next subsection). Table 2
summarizes all the described activities. For more details on the assignment given to the students,
the reader is invited to download it from: https://tinyurl.com/FirstPBL.
Table 2. Schedule of 1st PBL project scaffolded activities throughout a semester.
Activity
Due By
Grading
1. FE test
Week 2
2.5%
2. Team charter / Team tasks
Week 3
2.5%
3. Meeting client
Week 5
4. Progress report (TASKS 1 to 9)
Week 7
15.0%
5. Peer-review to progress report
Week 9
10.0%
6. CATME midterm survey
Week 10
2.5%
7. Meeting client
Week 12
8. Meeting client
Week 15
9. Final Engineering Report
Week 16
65.0%
10. FE test / CATME final survey / Project reflection
Week 16
2.5%
2nd PBL implementation
This 2nd PBL scheme has been implemented since Spring 2019. From that point on, the
1st PBL scheme had occurred in the fall semesters, while the 2nd PBL scheme had occurred in the
spring semesters when the class was offered fully face-to-face. The students were assigned a
semester-long project where their creativity, knowledge of fluid mechanics concepts, and skills
to work with people from other disciplines get tested. In this case they were told that a
hypothetical company “Engineering is for all” is interested in designing and developing learning
products for kids in elementary schools in the local area. They required the help and skills from
them as engineers to develop them. They wanted the products to follow a similar (but not the
same) idea as the one developed by the Museum of Science in Boston (https://www.eie.org). The
students needed to pick a fluid mechanics topic, develop a hands-on demonstration activity on
the topic, and create a lesson plan that can be used by an elementary school teacher on his/her
own.
For the fluid mechanics topic, they picked from this list:
a) Viscosity
b) Density
c) Buoyancy and Stability of floating/submerged objects
d) Friction
e) Bernoulli’s principle
f) Open channel flows
g) Drag and Lift
h) Forces in general
Those topics were selected following the Standards of Learning (SOL) used by the local
elementary schools. Since the students quickly started in the semester working on their project
around one of those topics, the sequence of lectures in the class was modified to make sure the
content had been covered by the time the students needed to work on the elementary school
lesson (see table 1). All those topics were fully covered by about the 5th week of the semester.
Since the project involved teaching elementary school kids, the engineering students were
partnered with elementary pre-service teachers from the College of Education who are critical
for a successful elementary school lesson. In addition, the fluid mechanics instructor partnered
with a faculty member from the College of Education who taught a science methods course to
the education students. Both faculty members worked on reaching out to nearby schools
interested in getting their elementary school students involved. They also made sure to clearly
synchronize the information provided to all engineering and education students in their courses.
The students were required to work in a cross-disciplinary team of five, with three
engineering students and two education students. The team members were assigned at the very
beginning of the semester also using CATME. A few days after the teams were formed, each
team worked on a team charter to define the rules of engagement and decide who will be the
project manager and the communications manager on both the engineering and education sides.
The students were also asked to contribute to their own Google Site template that served as a
platform for team communication throughout the semester.
There were four main events for this project: 1) classroom visit to the assigned elementary
school, 2) cross-disciplinary teaching/learning where engineers taught science/engineering to
educators and educators taught pedagogy to engineers, 3) dress rehearsal where their elementary
school lesson were presented in front of peers and experts, and 4) the actual final elementary
school lesson delivered to the elementary school students. For each of those four main activities,
there were preliminary assignments the teams turned in for both instructors to provide feedback.
Those four activities took place during class time and their attendance is mandatory.
In the visit to the elementary school, the teams had the opportunity to meet elementary
school students. The visit helped the kids to get excited about the final lesson activity and the
college students could learn about the kids’ preferences and experiences which helped them to
develop a culturally responsive lesson. On the 2nd main activity, education and engineering
students learn from each other in an effort to better equip them for the lesson preparation. The
“dress-rehearsal” in front of experts in the area of education and engineering aimed at giving
important feedback to the students for the purpose of improving their lesson. The “dress-
rehearsal” is also observed by another student team and each of the students in that team
provided feedback through a peer-review process. Finally, the final engineering lesson was
delivered to elementary school kids at the end of the semester.
As in the other PBL implementation, the CATME survey was used mid-semester to evaluate
the team performance. Following their evaluation of the CATME results, both instructors
intervened and talked to the teams as needed. On this 2nd PBL project, firing was not allowed. As
in the previous PBL, the students were required to take a shortened version of the NCEES FE
exam at the beginning and at the end of the semester, take a final CATME survey, and complete
a set of questions reflecting on the project work. Additionally, the engineering students were
asked to work on a small engineering project in which they were evaluated on the topic of
pumped system design. Table 3 summarizes all the described activities. It is important to point
out that during the semesters affected by COVID, all those activities were performed online. It
created some challenges that were overcome by giving the students even more detailed
instructions and templates to follow. For more details on the assignment given to the students,
the reader is invited to download them all from: https://tinyurl.com/SecondPBL.
Table 3. Schedule of 2nd PBL project scaffolded activities throughout a semester. The main
activities are highlighted.
Activity
Due By
Grading
1. Post Bio on Google Site, complete FE test
Week 2
2.5%
2. Team contract / Team tasks
Week 3
2.5%
3. School visit PowerPoint draft
Week 4
5.0%
4. School visit reflection & power point presentation
Week 5
10.0%
5. Presentation Draft of Engineering Concepts
Week 7
5.0%
6. Peer teaching of engineering concepts and 5E's of inquiry-based learning
Week 8
10.0%
7. Draft Engineering Lesson/Dress Rehearsal
Week 10
2.5%
8. CATME Mid-term evaluation
Week 11
5.0%
9. Dress Rehearsal Engineering Lesson
Week 14
10.0%
10. Feedback on dress rehearsal to peers
Week 14
2.5%
11. Final Engineering Lesson
Week 15
20.0%
12. Project reflection / FE test / CATME evaluation
Week 16
10.0%
13. Small Engineering Project
Week 16
15.0%
Evaluation of the Implementations
Students’ learning and satisfaction for both PBL implementations were evaluated and
compared. A shortened version of the NCEES FE exam, the CATME survey, and reflective
assignments were utilized.
A shortened version of the NCEES FE exam
Students completed the FE exam during the first week and then again during the last
week of the semester for the purpose of assessing students’ growth in fluid mechanics
knowledge. The 16 questions can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/shortenedFE. Students'
scores from the FE exam were analyzed using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to test for
potential differences between the two PBL implementations. Initial scores were used as control
variables in this analysis. This analysis was based on a sample of 80 students (1st PBL scheme =
40; 2nd PBL scheme = 40).
The Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME) survey
The CATME survey was completed mid-semester to help faculty identify and address
team dynamic problems, and at the end of the semester to evaluate individual students’
teamwork performance and satisfaction. For the purpose of this paper only team satisfaction was
observed. The rest of the rich data CATME offered will be presented in a separate paper in the
future. Data from 110 students (1st PBL scheme = 53; 2nd PBL scheme = 57) on satisfaction were
compared using a one-way ANOVA. The satisfaction scale consists of three items on a 5-point
scale ranging from 1 to 5, where 5 = very satisfied.
Reflective Assignments
For the 1st PBL project, students were asked to answer the following questions:
▪ Do you think what you learn is important for your professional career?
▪ Where do you think you will be using everything you learned?
▪ How would you explain the project and your contribution to the project in a job
interview?
▪ How would you explain how your strengths helped you contribute to the project in
a job interview?
▪ How would you explain in a job interview how your weaknesses affected your
ability to work on this project and how did you address them (or what part of the
class helped you address them)?
▪ Explain the technical strengths and weaknesses in your project.
▪ If you were starting the class over again, what advice would you give yourself to
ensure that you had a successful semester and a successful final project?
While for the 2nd PBL project, students were asked to answer, among other questions, the
following:
● What did you learn? What did you learn about engineering? What did you learn
about teaching?
● How did faculty support students to make these adjustments? How
helpful/necessary did students find this support?
● How valuable was this Engineering Lessons Project? What was valuable about
this experience? What was challenging? Do you have any suggestions for
improving the project in the future? If so, please share your thoughts.
● What factors affected your motivation for this project over the course of the
semester? For example, did your instructor impact your motivation, the topic
itself, your relationship with your teammates, your interactions with the kids,
feedback you received etc. Please consider factors that positively affected your
motivation as well as factors that negatively affected it and consider how your
motivation may have changed over time.
● How did teaching an online lesson rather than an in-person lesson change the way
this project affected you? For example, do you think you learned more or less as a
result? Did you learn different knowledge or skills than you would have learned
by preparing for and teaching a face-to-face lesson? Please explain your response.
● What did you learn from working with the education students? Please explain.
● How did this project affect your vision of teaching careers?
● How has your understanding of fluid mechanics changed as a result of this
project?
The whole set of questions can be found in the assignment in this link:
https://tinyurl.com/reflection-assignment.
The questions are different because the projects and their purposes are different. When
analyzing students’ reflections, thematic analysis was used to understand students’ experience of
PBL13. The researchers analyzed students’ reflections using the initial codes based on the
outcome of this study (e.g., team interaction, perceived learning, perceived value of the project).
Through multiple rounds of coding and discussion, we added and modified codes (e.g., project
structure, instructor and TA interaction, motivation) and subcodes (e.g., satisfied with team
interaction, suggestions for improvement) as new topics emerged. As a result, a final codebook
was established. Using this codebook each researcher coded their assigned data set and codes
were compared between the researchers to check the inter-coder reliability, which resulted in all
codes having over 80% agreement14.
Results
The ANCOVA results suggest no significant differences in the FE exam between the two
implementations, F(1,75) = 1.12 (p = 0.29), after controlling for the student's pre-test scores.
Thus, the type of PBL approach did not have an impact on fluid mechanics content knowledge as
assessed by the shortened version of the FE exam. In contrast, when analyzing CATME team
satisfaction, results revealed that there is a significant difference between the two PBL
implementations regarding students’ satisfaction, F(1, 106) = 5.9 (p = 0.017). Thus, students who
participated in the second PBL scheme (cross-disciplinary project) reported being more satisfied
than their counterparts who participated in the first PBL scheme.
Regarding the students’ comments on the 1st PBL project, they seem to appreciate the
level of exposure to a team dynamic as they handled an authentic engineering project:
… I do think that the semester project and time management skill that I have
learned throughout the course will greatly impact my career and my professional
life.
The aspects of this class that will be transferred over into my professional career
will be how to work within a group and time management. Overall, the semester
course project assisted with increasing my teambuilding and team
cooperativeness within a project environment with detailed tasks and deadlines.
I think what we learned will be very important towards my professional career
because working in a group setting is vital in today's work environment.
They also believe that the 1st PBL implementation has technical value that will help them
to be the engineer they want to be:
I believe that this project gave a valuable lesson in relationship toward this
engineering project, fluid mechanics and future employment projects. I believe
that in my professional career, we will be asked to not only complete detailed
projects for clients, but also work in team environments.
I think what I have learned from this class and this project is very important for a
professional career. Learning that you will not have all the answers you need to
design something is what I think is most important. Learning how to work with the
requirements and limitations for a design is also important because that is what
you will be given by your client. This project has shown us some of what you will
experience in a real-world job setting.
The course concepts thought very easy to understand individually, once combined
added a new way to look at various key components throughout systems. This is
both a strength and weakness as I had never seen how system components when
isolated reacted differently once combined with an overall large system.
On the other hand, on the 2nd PBL implementation, the engineering students had to
cement and really understand the engineering concepts to be able to teach it to the education
students and elementary school students:
This project allowed me to reexamine basic concepts of fluid mechanics as I
reexplained them to groups who may not have had any previous knowledge of
said concepts. By explaining them to someone new I learned some new things
about something I already learned while teaching it to someone who never
learned it.
My actual understanding of fluid mechanics as a whole was more defined
because of the project and while we didn’t go over the complicated ones, the
concepts we did implement into our project design made my understanding of
them much more solid.
The engineering lessons project provided me with valuable experience. This is the
first time that I have taught other people anything. I have noticed that to teach
something, you have to understand it on a fundamental level. This helped me with
my engineering class.
The project deepened my knowledge of fluid mechanics.
Somewhat similar to the 1st PBL scheme, on the 2nd PBL scheme, students found that
another important takeaway from collaborating with education students to teach engineering to
elementary students is their development of professional skills, especially their communication
skills with those of different backgrounds:
The project taught numerous professional development skills including
collaborating in both an online environment and working with other fields other
than engineering. I would apply what I learned in communicating with all future
groups including those in which we primarily were in an online working
environment.
Not everything was positive though, in both PBL implementations students strongly felt
that the workload in the course was too overwhelming, giving them a negative feeling towards
the projects. This is a comment on the 2nd PBL scheme, but similar comments were found for the
1st PBL scheme as well:
This was not super valuable to our development as it was a lot of work and time
for a minimum amount of professional development, the professional development
I’m referring to is working among a team of differing individuals, helping less
experienced people understand difficult engineering topics, and communicating
effectively in an online work environment. These skills easily could have been
learned in less time and less effort instead of in such a long and complicated
project. The challenging part was how much time it took away from my other
studies or my studies of content in this class itself as often I found myself spending
more time on this project rather than studying the difficult course content of this
class.
Conclusions
This paper presents the instructor experiences implementing two different project-based-
learning schemes in a junior to senior level Fluid Mechanics course in an Engineering
Technology Program. The results showed that no major differences were observed in terms of
the learned fluid mechanics content; however, the data showed interesting preliminary
observations regarding teamwork satisfaction. Through reflective assignments, student
perceptions of the PBL implementations were discussed in the paper. The perceptions were
found to be good and students seemed to appreciate the projects, although some believed the
workload was overwhelming. In addition, access to all the PBL course materials and assignments
were provided. In conclusion, as an indication of PBL success, a few former students have
reached out to the instructor to highlight some of the long-term benefits of the PBL
implementations. An email correspondence from one student is shared below to illuminate the
positive benefits of PBL experiences for engineering students in their fluid mechanics course::
Hey Dr. XXXX,
I wanted to reach out to you and give you a sort of update from a former student.
I accepted last Tuesday, and will be starting this coming Monday, an offer from
[Company Name] as a Project Engineer. I'll be moving down to [City, State] to
finish up a $24M contract they have with the [Client] there, upgrading their
[Fluid Mechanics] Unit.
I definitely have to say, and feel free to blast this to all of your current students,
the projects you had us complete in all of your courses helped immensely with not
just getting the job, but feeling comfortable walking into it next week. Being able
to walk into an interview and recite numerous projects you did relating to real
world situations showed not just the knowledge, but the determination it took to
complete such hefty assignments.
So a big thank you to you for instilling both knowledge and commitment during
your courses. I hope all is going well there and I definitely intend on keeping in
touch.
Thanks again,
[Engineering Program Alum]
Acknowledgment
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grants #1821658 and #1908743. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations
expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the National Science Foundation.
References
1. J. Dofe and S.T. Kurwadkar, “Project-Based Learning: Contrasting Experience Between
Traditional Face-to-Face Instruction and Virtual Instruction,” Paper presented at 2021 ASEE
Virtual Annual Conference Content Access, Virtual Conference, 2021.
https://peer.asee.org/37616.
2. S. Hamoush, E.H. Fini, M.M. Parast, and S. Sarin, “The Effect of Project-Based Learning
(PBL) on Improving Student Learning Outcomes in Transportation Engineering,” Paper
presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011.
3. A.C. Heinricher, P. Quinn, R.F. Vaz, and K.J. Rissmiller, “Long-term Impacts of Project-
Based Learning in Science and Engineering,” Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013.
4. K.M. Ranly, F. Jao, and K.L. Curtiss, “Project-based Learning: An Integration of Real-World
Project in a 3D Design Class,” Paper presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, Tampa, Florida, 2019.
5. A. Shekar, “Project-based Learning in Engineering Design Education: Sharing Best
Practices,” Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis,
Indiana, 2014.
6. R.R. Ulseth, J.E. Froyd, T.A. Litzinger, D. Ewert, and B.M. Johnson, “A New Model of
Project Based Learning in Engineering Education,” Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual
Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011.
7. A. Yousuf, M. Mustafa, and A. De La Cruz, “Project-based Learning,” Paper presented at
2010 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, Kentucky, 2010.
8. A. Meikleham, R. Hugo, and R. Brennan, “Fluid Mechanics Project-Based Learning Kits: An
Analysis of Implementation Results in a Blended Classroom,” 14th International CDIO
Conference, Japan, 2018.
9. W.A. Mokhtar, “Project-Based Learning (PBL): An Effective Tool to Teach an
Undergraduate CFD Course,” Paper presented at 2011 ASEE Annual Conference &
Exposition, Vancouver, BC, 2011.
10. M. Pérez-Sánchez, and P.A. López-Jiménez, "Continuous Project-Based Learning in Fluid
Mechanics and Hydraulic Engineering Subjects for Different Degrees" Fluids, 5, no. 2: 95,
2020. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5020095.
11. B.J. Wie, D.C. Davis, P. Golter, A. Ansery, and B. Abdul, “Team building in a project-based
learning Fluid Mechanics and Heat Transfer course,” ASEE Annual Conference and
Exposition, Conference Proceedings, 2011.
12. R. Wulandari and R.E. Santoso, “Measurement of Student’s Learning Interests in Fluid
Mechanics Subject through Project Based Learning Model Using SCAMPER Strategies,”
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Vocational Education and Training
(ICOVET 2018), 2019. https://doi.org/10.2991/icovet-18.2019.53.
13. G. Guest, K.M. MacQueen, and E.E. Namey, “Introduction to applied thematic analysis,”
Applied thematic analysis, 3(20), 1-21, 2012.
14. C. O’Connor, and H. Joffe, “Intercoder Reliability in Qualitative Research: Debates and
Practical Guidelines,” International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2020.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406919899220.
