1

“The Art of the Possible” –A Course to Introduce Engineering to

Non-Engineers

Agnes G. d’Entremont, Department of Mechanical Engineering, with Naoko Ellis, Chemical and Biological Engineering, Patrick Kirchen and Sheldon Green, Mechanical Engineering, and CristianGrecu, Electrical and Computer Engineering

University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

Origins and Rationale for the Course

The National Academy of Engineering has argued that, in order to fully engage with civil decision-making and advocacy, citizens need an understanding of the practice of engineering. Our [British Columbia] Code of Ethics also mandates “extending public knowledge of engineering.” Yet, even at institutions like our own having engineering programs, such opportunities do not exist. To try to remedy that, starting with one exemplary course, a team of instructors from three engineering disciplines, set out to develop such a course which we named “The Art of the Possible” (APSC 366, January-April 2017). The students we attracted came from a wide array of disciplines, including Psychology, French, History, and English Literature plus Commerce. Our challenge was to set realistic goals (for which prior consultations with Arts faculty and students were essential) in order to correctly target the students’ pre-existing knowledge. In the end,our takeaway exceeded our expectations: the process of distilling engineering topics for laypeople may impact how we teach those topics to our own engineers.

Attracting Arts majors

After consultation with Arts faculty, our course was permitted to count toward fulfilling UBC students’ science requirement despite not falling under the purview of the Faculty of Science. The reason we succeeded in making that case (we believe) is that we promisedwe would enable students to apply their own disciplinary perspective to what they were learning in our new course. And indeed we did.

We were initially told that the students would have completed Grade 11 math, but that there would be a fair amount of discomfort about trigonometry and that exponentials would be out of their comfort zone.Also of significance, students would have had only a minimal physical science background, most often having taken only biology at the high school level.On the other hand, Arts faculty believed that an interesting and useful course would not necessarily have to be easy to attract students from the Arts.Nonetheless, listing the course as having no science prerequisite made it considerably easier to attract non-majors.In fact, STEM majors were not permitted to enroll.

We actively promoted the course by hanging posters advertising the course in the Arts buildings and with Arts advisers; most important, highlighting engineers’connections to policy and practical applications. Perhaps not surprisingly, a number of the Arts students who enrolled were friends, family members, roommates or partners of engineering students and one of their stated reasons for taking the course was to better understand the person close to them, specifically “what they do in their professional setting.” The interest in understanding the engineering mindset might, in future recruitment, be made more explicit, along with the advisory that professionals in many different fields (law, medicine, politics) may well have to deal with infrastructure, power generation, environmental conservation; that is, engineering issues and engineering professionals in their own work.

Course Framework

The course consists of an introductory module, followed by four technical modules organized loosely around specific technologies. The module order in this first instance:

Module 1 – Introduction, engineering problem solving, engineering ethics, graphing;

Module 2 – Carbon management (sustainability)

Module 3 – Human joint replacement (structures)

Module 4 - Smartphones (consumer products)

Module 5 - Engines (energy generation and conversion)

Since we aimed tomake this course interactive, we followed the flipped classroom model. Students were expected to complete pre-readings, pre-viewings of videos and other assignments before class. In-class content was delivered through or in conjunction with hands-on (experimental) activities, in-class group work, demonstrations, tours, and mini presentations by other students.

Hands-on Activities

  • Graphs, plotting, correlation
  • Chemical reaction balancing
  • Water electrolysis
  • Structural strength
  • Wear
  • Energy conversion systems
  • Process, throughput and bottlenecks

Demonstrations

  • Joint forces
  • Sensors in Smartphones
  • Speaker as microphone
  • Sterling engine

Other Classroom/Out-of-Class Activities

The case of the recent Montreal raw sewage dump into the St. Lawrence River provided an opportunity for discussion; students were challenged to come up with other possible solution in terms of financial, spatial and logistical considerations.

Bioenergy research and demonstrations facility tour. Students visited an on-campus wood waste gasification plant that supplies about 25% of the campus energy needs for winter and 100% for the summer season.

Students created needs and specifications for a digital thermometer.

Students were challenged to submit a photograph or bring in an example of a design failure. The photos were a lead-in to a discussion of the nature and severity of the failure and how engineers might change the design to prevent the failure.

An optional (but very current) activity involved surveillance of consumer devices that are connected to the internet. Students’ preparation was to include identifying the technologies, and considering the ethics, economics, and politics.

Running through the modules were introductions to “meta-engineering” topics such as the engineer’s code of ethics, engineering project management, and legal compliance.

Student Assessments

Assessments for each module included an online test on basic engineering concepts and a written blog postaimed at a public audience where the students could apply their disciplinary background to advocate for a specific position. Themes for the blog posts were pulled from issues making the news, and students could post publically or privately, as well as comment on other blog posts as part of the assignment. Topics included climate change, advocating for a patient-administered medical device for indigenous communities, and responding to vehicle emissions standards in the context of the Volkswagen scandal.

The online tests were administered through the learning management system and included multiple choice and short-answer questions. Students had about a week to start the test after the associated module finished and one hour to complete the test once started.

A final assignment involved evaluating a current issue working through multiple perspectives in a trans-disciplinary team. Topics came from a list provided by the instructors. Early in the term, teams were expected to produce a proposal. The final product was a 7-minute video prepared by the team.

No final exam was given in the course.

Dealing with Variability in Student Preparation

Aiming to meet the needs of students with a wide range of preparation particularly in math and the physical sciences, was very challenging. Instructors initially assumed that rigorous science content would have to be very minimal due to limited background preparation, but during the course the instructors were able to increase the technical content over the term. This progression suggests that underprepared students were getting more comfortable,or that the teaching team had underestimated their capacity to learn.

Faculty Collaboration- Its nature and results.

Instructors were able to make explicit connections between the modules because they attended at least some of one another’s classes.For example, in the class dealing with signal frequency in Smartphones, one co-instructor was able to talk about the frequency of a heartbeat and during the activity about wear in joint replacements, another co-instructor talked about the surface roughness of large telescope mirrors and how that was achieved.

Student Feedback

Student feedback was solicited throughout the course using anonymous online surveys during Module 3 at the midpoint of the term and at the end of the course. There were also in-class directed questions several times and written anonymous feedback at the start of Module 5. Students provided feedback via email as well.

Ten out of 27 students completed the mid-term survey. A key result of the survey was that the students found the material applicable to “real life”. The survey also showed that students liked the hands-on activities, demonstrations, and videos, and there were actually calls for more technical content. Since only 8/27 students completed the end-of-course survey, it is not included here, except anecdotally. Clearly there was improvement in the “understanding of some of the governing principles engineers use, such as conservation of energy, conservation of mass, force balance.” Most would recommend the course.

Tests were a particular challenge, as the students felt the marks they received did not reflect the understanding of the module they had gained during class. “Best answer” multiple choice questions with plausible distractor answers (on technical topics) were specifically mentioned by students as something they had not encountered previously. The issue of testing technical understanding is to be worked on as the course develops at UBC.

Post-Course Reflections by the Faculty (oral interviews May 2017)

In reflecting on their experience, designing, planning, preparation, and teaching “The Art of the Possible,” Agnes d’Entremont, Sheldon Green, Naoko Ellis, and Patrick Kirchensat down for a conversation with the compiler of the case study. In answer to the question: “What surprised you most?” about student response and reaction to the various modules, and case studies came these observations:

  • Students were surprised to see engineering applied to the human body. (But then, even engineering students are surprised, reported a bioengineer.)
  • At the biomass demonstration plant, students were impressed both with the chemical processes that they were seeing for the first time (biomassgassteam) and with the overall outcome: that the collection of biomass in the summer time sufficed to heat the whole campus (and provide 25% of all campus heat in winter). And with what the operators at the plant were actually doing.
  • At the reactor demonstration, they were able to talk to the operator, look at his screen, and learn what could go wrong and how the operator would react. And, in the context of carbon management, a larger discussion of policy issues: what exactly is a “carbon footprint,” a carbon tax?

More broadly, case studies opened students’ eyes to the role of policy in design. For example, as regards fuel efficiency, the faculty selected the VW emissions scandal, as a case study. Was U.S. policy too aggressive? More broadly, what is the role of policy in design? A second case study having to do with faulty artificial hip joints, which were destroying tissue around the hip, introducedthe students to a registry in Australia, which was highlighting the problem, and to a UK regulatory body, which was not. Once the case studies were fully digested, the faculty asked students to look into their own world and find design failures. One popular finding: MacBook power cables fail before you’re ready to get rid of your laptop. Planned obsolescence.

When the faculty was asked to comment on “what surprised you most”? they admitted that before the course began, they were anticipating more difficulty than is usually the case in their teaching in conveying technical content. After all, the students targeted were what are called Arts students in Canada. There were two surprises: students were willing to get their hands dirty, dig in, and regularly mentioned hands-on activities as their favorite part of the course. Second, many had more physical science in their background than the faculty had expected. But some were not capable of reading graphs, interpreting graphs.

Others had difficulty with the readings taken from an automotive trade magazine. The professor thought a particular article “easy;” students found it “too technical.” Still others found any reading onerous. It was helpful to frame questions in advance of assigning the reading. One of the assignments was an article that engineering students are also assigned. But the question to “think about” was different. “How much do you think these policies would change your own buying decisions? If the cost were to go up 5%, would it matter?” That led directly to a discussion of what economists call externalities.

The Future of About-Engineering courses at the University of British Columbia

The impact on the campus can be measured in two ways: first, that a faculty, larger than the group of instructors put together the framework of the course and that two senior administrators, the Head of Mechanical Engineering and the Arts Associate Dean were and remain involved. At UBC, as elsewhere, funding is based on student enrollment. To make the course financially viable, the group plans to offer it again, hoping to double the enrollment from 24 to 48. How to achieve that number? Distribution of posters in the Arts building turned out to be effective. One enrollee actually turned up with a poster in hand. But more significant (especially in the longer term) is that the Associate Arts Dean got “The Art of the Possible” on the list of required science courses. Many of the available courses specifically designed for Arts students’ science requirementmay not enhance students’ overall degreesubstantially. Students could see more readily the intersection of engineering withboth their academic disciplines and their day-to-day lives than some other pure science courses with no explicit connections`.