Personal use of this material is permitted.

Permission from the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), must be obtained for all other uses. Please contact us and provide details if
you believe this document breaches copyrights.

First Year Engineering Design: Course Design,

Projects, Challenges, and Outcomes
Hashim A. Hashim, Catherine Tatarniuk, and Brad Harasymchuk

Abstract—This paper outlines the essential components of GA accreditation criteria of CEAB. The design component
developing an introductory course in Engineering Design for the requirement is generally fulfilled through engineering design
first year, first semester students at Thompson Rivers University projects and other activities, such as assignments and formal
(TRU). The course design accounts for the teaching context,
stakeholder interests, and Canadian Engineering Accreditation examination. Engineering design projects not only fulfill the
Board (CEAB) criteria. The proposed course design scaffolds engineering design GA, but also contribute to other GAs,
engineering design projects of three different levels. Through the including 1) the use of engineering tools, 2) individual and
described course, students become familiar with the engineering teamwork, 3) communication between team members, 4)
design process including translation of the design idea into virtual professionalism, 5) impact of engineering on society and
and physical prototypes. The course design is built around the
concepts of engineering sustainability, ethics, and professionalism the environment, and 6) economics and project management.
helping students understand the linkage between engineering Therefore, development of engineering courses, in particular
design and social and human factors. The course is lecture and engineering design courses, is not a trivial task. In turn, design
laboratory based with a focus on experiential hands-on learning of high-quality projects for the engineering design courses is
where the Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs) are achieved by critical for achieving course objectives.
means of PowerPoint slides, presentations, lecture and laboratory
notes, class discussions and activities, teamwork, lecture and lab Engineering design: It is essential that the engineering
video recordings, hand sketching, and virtual prototyping via courses prepare undergraduate students for their future careers.
Computer-Aided Design (CAD) software (Solidworks). Student As such, course design was guided by the following questions:
performance was evaluated through quizzes, reports, homework what is the role of an engineer in the society [2]? what is the
assignments, laboratory assignments, projects, midterms and best way for an engineer to approach a new problem? what
final exams. To ensure effective communication between students,
anonymous team member peer review and evaluation were knowledge does an engineer need to translate a problem at
incorporated. Continual improvement of the course design was hand into a search space? What are effective strategies for
achieved by modifying the course structure based on student independent work and teamwork for successful engineering
feedback. task completion? How can engineers solve complex problems
Index Terms—Engineering design, curriculum development, in an ethical and professional manner? It is crucial that answers
first year course. to the above questions guide the creation of the engineering
design courses in order to equip engineering students with
the skills they need to be able to meet the needs of the
I. I NTRODUCTION
society [3,4]. In addition, such an approach will allow to

F IRST year engineering courses at Thompson Rivers Uni-

versity (TRU) in British Columbia (BC), Canada, con-
tribute to the success of the software engineering program,
bridge the gap between the theoretical and practical knowledge
which is a notable challenge faced by universities [5,6]. To
develop engineering design courses and engineering design
providing students with knowledge and skills foundational for projects, it is important to understand the definition of design
their future careers as engineers. Moreover, they support the according to CEAB. CEAB accreditation “Design” criterion
accreditation of the program by the Canadian Engineering 3.1.4 (the fourth GA) is defined as “An ability to design
Accreditation Board (CEAB) [1]. Graduation from CEAB ac- solutions for complex, open-ended engineering problems and
credited academic institutions is one of the mandatory require- to design systems, components or processes that meet specified
ments for engineers to apply to become a licensed Professional needs with appropriate attention to health and safety risks,
Engineer (P.Eng.) in Canada (e.g., Professional Engineers applicable standards, and economic, environmental, cultural
Ontario (PEO), Engineers and Geoscientists BC (EGBC), and and societal considerations.” Closely following the above
Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of definition, we have created the “Engineering Design I” course
Alberta (APEGA)). Accreditation criteria of CEAB are based (course code: “ENGR 1100”) which forms the focus of this
on twelve Graduate Attributes (GAs) [1]. The engineering paper. Note that “Engineering Design I” and ENGR 1100
design component is a critical part, and is one of the twelve will be used interchangeably throughout this paper. This paper
demonstrates how to translate the CEAB definition of "Design"
H. A. Hashim is with the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON, K1S 5B6, Canada (e-mail: into an effective engineering design course with an emphasis
[email protected]), C. Tatarniuk is with the Department of Engineering, on the project component.
Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada, V2C Objectives: TRU administration had a vision of creating
0C8, (e-mail: [email protected]), and B. Harasymchuk is with the School of
Education and Social Work, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British engineering courses for the software program that provide
Columbia, Canada, V2C 0C8, (e-mail: [email protected]). not only a strong theoretical foundation but also significant
To cite this article: H. A. Hashim, C. Tatarniuk, and B. Harasymchuk ”First Year Engineering Design: Course Design, Projects, Challenges, and
Outcomes,” In Proc. of the the 2022 IEEE Frontiers in Education (FIE) conference (FIE’22), Uppsala, Sweden, pp. 1-9, 2022.
 2

practical experiences. This vision has been translated into three B. Stakeholders
objectives. The first objective was to develop an “Engineering The “Engineering Design I” course is a first year, first
Design I” course that aligns with the CEAB GA definition semester 5-credit engineering course with an enrollment of ap-
of “Design” as well as with the Graduate Attribute Indicators proximately 60-70 students. Approximately one-third of these
(GAI) definition of the Department of Engineering at TRU. students are enrolled in the Bachelor of Software Engineering
The second goal was to design a course that provides an program at TRU, and the other two-thirds are enrolled in
excellent student learning experience, lays a foundation for the Engineering Transfer Program. “Engineering Design I”
successful and ethical professional practice, and paves the way is an outcome of a comprehensive stakeholder consultation.
for the students to become licensed Professional Engineers The comprehensive engagement and consultation contribute
(P.Eng.) [7,8]. The third goal is to build the student knowledge significantly to the success of the course and program out-
base necessary for progressing to more advanced engineering comes. Consultation and engagement occur of multiple levels
design. In addition, we aimed to place special emphasis on are described below:
teamwork, communication, and concepts of professionalism
1) Departmental level meetings (committees and mem-
and ethics. When creating “Engineering Design I”,, special
bers): Department consultation included meeting with
attention was given to the role of an engineer in society, and
• faculty members
strove to promote sustainable engineering design and teach
• Curriculum and Quality Assurance Committee, and
students to work with open-ended problems within the design
• Engineering Design Committee
solution space reaching the best solution.
Structure: This paper consists of seven sections: Section 2) Institutional TRU level meetings: TRU consultation in-
II provides a brief overview of designing the “Engineering cluded meetings of
Design I” course at TRU. Section III presents the process • TRU program chairs (e.g., engineering, mathemat-
of compiling the “Engineering Design I” course outline, and ics, physics)
describes a typical week and course content. Section IV • Curriculum Committee members, and
focuses on projects which constitute an essential part of the • Education Planning Committee
“Engineering Design I” course. Section V presents important 3) Leveraging TRU experience teaching Engineering
results and statistics collected during and after the initial courses: TRU offers a one-year Engineering Transfer
delivery of this course in this format). Section V summarizes program which allows students to complete one year
course outcomes and challenges. Finally, Section VII draws a of engineering studies at TRU prior to transferring to
conclusion of this work. an Engineering program at the University of British
Columbia or University of Victoria. Thus, we consulted
II. C OURSE D ESIGN the Engineering Transfer program acting chair, instruc-
Course design is composed of three key components, tors, and the Associate Dean of Science.
namely (i) course context in accordance with up-to-date stu- 4) Leveraging Engineering Transfer student experience and
dent skills, (ii) departmental and institutional context, (iii) support: Voluntary meetings and surveys have been
stakeholders who may be engaged in the process. conducted among the Engineering Transfer students to
collect information on
• preferred teaching methods
A. Course Context
• teamwork insights and challenges of engineering
The first-year engineering program at TRU consists of design projects
approximately 60-70 students. In their first year, students
Engaging with the stakeholders is a key element of shaping
study a variety of introductory courses that lay down a solid
the course content [9]. The main objectives of our meetings
foundation in core subjects and meet the program and CEAB
and extensive consultations with the stakeholders were to
requirements. These courses include math, natural sciences,
• learn from ways in which design is incorporated in the
computer science, English, and an introduction to engineering.
The first-year courses constitute a total of 36 credits. Also, curriculum of other programs,
• identify best ways to incorporate design into the first-year
the proportion of lecture/lab hours per topic area closely
aligns with other Canadian schools (e.g., University of Western engineering courses,
• gain an understanding of design in the context of CEAB,
Ontario, McGill, Queens, and University of Victoria). Majority
• learn ways to integrate teamwork into engineering
of students take a 3 to 5-credit engineering courses that
consists of 3 hours of lectures and 2 hours of experiential courses, and engineering design courses in particular,
• identify best practices of promoting ethics and profes-
laboratory work.
At TRU, Engineering Design is a fundamental part of sional development, and
• determine best ways to integrate equity, diversity, and
several courses in the Software Engineering program and
TRU’s Engineering Transfer program, which is described in inclusion into engineering design courses.
the following section. However, the three main courses that
focus on introducing the students to the engineering design III. S TRUCTURING E NGINEERING D ESIGN I
process are Engineering Design I, Engineering Design II, and The main components of ENGR 1100 are 1) the role of
Engineering Design III. an engineer in society, 2) engineering design process, 3) hand
 3

sketching, 4) virtual prototyping based on Computer-Aided presentations. Throughout the course, 4-6 guest speakers from
Design (CAD) software, and 5) physical prototyping using academia, industry, and government are invited to share their
cardboard and other simple tools and materials. role, associated duties of a typical day as an engineer, and
importance of P.Eng. licensing in their field. Guest speakers
A. Course description provide a meaningful connection to work opportunities af-
In ENGR 1100, students 1) are introduced to the engi- ter degree completion, and can help students with selecting
neering profession and various engineering disciplines, 2) their specialization/discipline [12]. Each lecture contains two
become closely familiar with the structure for the engineering individual or group activities that reinforce the theoretical
design process, and develop skills to identify and prioritize lecture topics. Students are given the activities, allowed 5-10
the requirements of an engineering project through multiple minutes to discuss and work out a solution, and the solution
iterations, 3) are introduced to the sustainability considerations or potential solutions are discussed as a class. The three
applicable to engineering design while emphasizing regulatory, extended learning assignments provide further reinforcement
environmental, health, and safety-related issues, 4) learn the of the lecture material.
decision process necessary to select from alternate design The experiential hands-on learning laboratory component
options, 5) work on a engineering design problem and develop consists of nine sessions where students become closely famil-
a prototype, and 6) experience CAD tools, learning to sketch iar with the complete engineering design process and learn the
and prototype in 2D and 3D. In addition, ENGR 1100 includes basics of hand and computer sketching using CAD software.
guest speakers from academia, industry, and government who The CAD software used in ENGR 1100 is Solidworks. The
give talks illustrating various aspects of the engineering pro- laboratory instruction manual consists of two parts. The first
fession. part introduces students to a new topic and provides a step-by-
step guide to completing a specific task(s) associated with the
B. Educational objectives and expected outcomes topic. The second part contains two to three small problems
for the students to solve allowing them to brainstorm and
A mix of high and low order educational objectives were assess their understanding of the new topic. The hands-on
created for ENGR 1100 and are as follows: 1) gain un- learning that takes place in the laboratory further bridges the
derstanding of the engineering profession and the role and gap between the theoretical focus in the lectures and the real
responsibilities of a professional engineer in a broader con- world experiences shared by the guest speakers [13].
text, e.g. as it pertains to the environment, health, safety Since engineering design is a core component of the ENGR
and public welfare, 2) become familiar with the engineering 1100, design projects constitute a critical part of the course.
design process which includes learning to meet the desired The course projects are presented in the subsequent section.
needs/requirements within realistic constraints of product de- Table I presents a brief summary of the proposed course design
velopment with a focus on environmental, social, ethical outlining lecture and laboratory topics, project and report
and safety regulations, to name a few, 3) learn to articulate requirements, and the associated mandatory deliverables. Table
engineering problems and translate them into a structured II presents the breakdown of the student evaluation.
design to reflect the product requirements, 4) master applying
formal iterative formal decision making methods to assist in
choosing between alternative conceptual designs, 5) acquire D. Homework, Quizzes, and Labs
basic 2D and 3D sketching skills using engineering CAD tools, ENGR 1100 includes multiple extended learning assign-
6) experience developing virtual and physical prototypes based ments, quizzes, and laboratories as listed in Table II. Each
on an engineering design using various engineering tools, and homework, quiz, and laboratory report are written/answered
7) learn to work collaboratively in teams and communicate individually by the student. Homework and quizzes include
effectively using oral, written, and graphical forms. Chapters a combination of multiple choice, short answer, and scenario-
(1-4) [10] Chapters (1, 4-10, 13) [11]. These seven learning based questions that prepare the students for midterm and final
outcomes are hereby referred to as CLO’s (Course Learning examinations. Each laboratory report includes two to three
Outcomes). small CAD problems.

C. A typical week E. Midterm and Final examinations

ENGR 1100 is a 3-credit engineering course that runs for
ENGR 1100 includes one midterm and a final exam as
13 weeks over the length of a semester. Every week students
stated in Table I. All of the examinations are completed
have 3 hours of lecture and 2 hours of laboratory work. Since
individually. Exams include a combination of scenario-based,
the total number of the first-year engineering students is 60-
multiple choice, true and false, and short answer questions.
70, the course is taught in two sections: one section for the
TRU Software Engineering program students (approximately
25 students) and another section for the Engineering Transfer IV. E NGINEERING D ESIGN P ROJECTS
students (approximately 40 students). Projects are a fundamental part of the course evaluation
The lecture component includes presentations given by the as they demonstrate student understanding of the engineering
course instructor, supplemented with educational videos (1- design process. After extensive meetings and consultations
3 per week, 4-12 minutes in length), and 20-minute guest with faculty member, members of the Engineering Design
 4

TABLE I
S UMMARY OF ENGR 1100 COURSE DESIGN

Lecture topics Lab topics (Solidworks) Duration Project / Report Deliverable

in weeks

Introduction to engineering, P.Eng. Creation of 3D parts, 2D 3 Report contains three parts. (i) Question: Report 1
licensing, professional ethics, and engineering drawings, why you want to be an engineer? (ii) Case
engineering societies and models study: answer ethical problem, and (iii)
Interview with a professional engineer

Definition of design, needs and Assembly, animation 3 Build a prototype to address a societal Project 1
information, and customer requirement from exploded and problem: Design a portable ramp for a
collapsed view, and wheelchair
virtual prototyping

Design specification, conceptual design, 3D sketching, weldments, 4 Virtual prototyping solution for small-sized Project 2
evaluation, selection criteria, and material selection, and homes: Use computer-aided design
introduction to computer-aided design stress and strain analysis software (Solidworks) to design a
multi-purpose furniture item

Concept prototypes, introduction to Working on Project 3 3 Virtual to physical prototyping: Project 3

finite-element analysis, material selection, design-build a cardboard walker for
and cost analysis children with cerebral palsy

TABLE II
“E NGINEERING D ESIGN I” COURSE EVALUATION prototyping: This phase requires the students to design a
virtual prototype. The objective of this phase is to build
Type of evaluation Number Percentage (%) on Phase 1 in addition to assessing their understanding
of
Quiz 2 2 – design specifications,
– conceptual design, and
Report 1 2
– evaluation and selection criteria with respect to the
Homework 3 6 design solution space
• Phase 3. (Project 3) From CAD to prototyping: The
Labs 9 15
objective of this Phase is to build on Phase 1-2 and
Project 3 25 complete the last stage of the engineering design process.
In this Phase students build a virtual prototype using
Midterm 1 20 Solidworks and translate it into a physical prototype using
cardboard and other simple materials/tools.
Final exam 1 30
It is expected that students may struggle in the beginning with
their understanding of the design process. Each subsequent
Phase requires the use of knowledge and skills gained through
Committee, and the Curriculum Committee members, the previous Phases. Consequently, the task complexity increases
course instructors (Hashim and Catherine) decided to assign from Phase to Phase. As such, the project component mark,
three projects. In each project, students are asked to work in a places most weight on Phase 3 which accounts for 70%, while
group of three. Teamwork is a critical element for the course as Phase 1 and 2 constitute 30%. In their project presentations
it aligns with the CEAB requirement for communication and and/or reports, students are asked to clearly state 1) poten-
teamwork and prepares the students for working as part of a tial stakeholders, 2) stakeholder needs, 3) project functions,
team in their future careers. The project component is designed objectives, and constraints, and 4) novelty of the solution.
and scaffolded in the form of three phases where each phase
represents a separate project but completing the three phases A. Phase 1. (Project 1) Getting started with prototyping
allows students to experience the engineering design process
Objective: The objective of this project is to familiarize
from start to finish and progressively gets more difficult. The
the students with 1) physical prototyping, 2) needs for a
phases are as follows:
solution, and 3) engineering design process while designing
• Phase 1. (Project 1) Getting started with prototyping: This
and building a portable ramp that makes buildings and vehicles
phase requires the students to design a prototype with an accessible for people of all needs.
objective of assessing student understanding of Project description: One of the leading causes of dis-
– engineering design definition ability in community-dwelling Canadians is mobility impair-
– needs for a solution and gathering information, and ments, whether permanent or temporary [14]. Walking sticks,
– customer requirements wheelchairs and mobile scooters are tools used to facilitate
• Phase 2. (Project 2) Computer-aided design for virtual mobility for people with mobility impairments. However, these
 5

tools are only helpful given necessary accessibility structures. B. Phase 2. (Project 2) Computer-aided design for virtual
Although most new buildings incorporate accessibility accom- prototyping
modations, for example, in a form of a ramp, many older Objective: The objective of this project is to use Solid-
buildings are virtually inaccessible to people with special works to design a multi-purpose furniture item that is con-
mobility needs. Making older buildings more accessible is not vertible and can serve as both a chair and a table. The
only expensive but also can be very challenging due to the second Phase allows students to become better versed in virtual
location and architecture of the building. Fig. 1 presents an prototyping.
example of accessibility provision in a house and a car [15]. Project description: People in many countries around the
world dwell in small houses where space is a scarce resource.
To take full advantage of the available space, the furniture
used in the house should be 1) light-weight, 2) compact, 3)
portable, and 4) multi-functional. Students, working in teams
of three are asked to use Solidworks to design a multi-purpose
furniture item that can be used as a chair, and that can be easily
converted into a table.
Project requirements and constraints: The design pro-
cess, in addition to meeting the product requirements, should
also give proper attention to health and safety risks, applicable
standards, and economic, environmental, and societal consider-
Fig. 1. Examples of accessibility provision in a house and a car [15]. ations. Some of the requirements of the multi-purpose furniture
item are as follows: 1) Easily foldable; 2) Made of wood; 3)
Accessibility ramps are necessary not only in buildings, but Able to convert into a chair; 4) Able to convert into a table;
they are also needed on vehicles to facilitate getting in and out 5) The item must not exceed the size of 40 x 40 x 40 cm; 6)
for people of all needs. Although Canadian public transport is The seat of the chair must be at least 30 cm off the ground;
generally equipped with such ramps, the majority of personal 7) The tabletop must be at least 40 cm off the ground; and 8)
cars and even cabs often lack this necessary structure limiting There should be no sharp edges. Note that the final product
access for people with special mobility needs. The purpose of must be made of multiple parts.
this project is to make most buildings and vehicles accessible Project deliverables: By the due date, each group of
for people with all mobility needs by designing a portable students is required to: 1) Present the assembly of the project,
ramp. To satisfy the portability requirement the ramp will need 2) Sketch from the assembly, 3) Create a video, at least 40
to be easy to carry/transport. seconds in length, that demonstrates the assembly of the multi-
Project requirements and constraints: A set of require- purpose furniture item. The video should demonstrate the
ments have been presented to impose constraints and the designed item exploding into multiple parts and then being
necessity for trade-off. Teams are expected to design and assembled together.
implement a fully-functional portable ramp. The designed
ramp should take into account all the aspects of an engineering
design problem, such as evaluation of product limitations C. Phase 3. (Project 3) From CAD to prototyping
and the impact of the ramp on the environment, as well as Objective: The objective of this project is to design and
consideration of professional ethics and calculation of risks. build a cardboard walker for children with cerebral palsy, using
The design process, in addition to meeting the product require- Solidworks for the virtual prototyping.
ments, should also give proper attention to health and safety Project description: Cerebral palsy is a group of move-
risks, applicable standards, and economic, environmental, and ment disorders that manifest before the child is born or in
societal considerations. Every team is required to identify all early infancy [16]. The performance of the child with cerebral
the necessary features of the ramp that would make it portable, palsy may vary from day to day, i.e., some days a child may
versatile, and compliant with all the requirements. Some of need more help than others. A walker is one of the tools which
the design requirements and constraints are as follows: 1) The can help individuals who are not independently mobile. The
ramp must be able to sustain a weight of at least 10 kg; 2) The walker should be easily convertible into a chair that would
ramp should be easy to build; 3) The ramp must not weigh accommodate a child. The proposed walker design should be
more than 1 kg; 4) The ramp length must not exceed 100 usable on dry as well as snow-covered pathways.
cm; 5) The ramp should be foldable to satisfy the portability Project requirements and constraints: Safety is of
condition; 6) The ramp must not pose any safety-related issues paramount importance. As such, the following constraints must
to the user; 7) The ramp should be versatile and suitable for be observed: 1) Absolutely no rough or sharp edges. The
different height levels (up to 15 cm); 8) The ramp should be surface must be smooth; 2) All surfaces must be adequately
weather resistant so that it can be used outdoors; 9) The design sealed; 3) There should not be any choking hazards; 4) There
cost must not exceed $15. should not be any pinching hazards; 5) The walker should
Project deliverables: By the due date, each group of support a child with a weight of up to 35 pounds; and 6) The
students is required to submit: 1) A fully-functional prototype, groups are asked to go through the structured design process,
and 2) A technical report. including concept generation and concept selection processes.
 6

TABLE III
Also, the students are asked to give special considerations to CEAB GA VS DEPARTMENTAL GAI WITH RESPECT TO CLO S
safety, impact on the environment, cost, and appearance in the
design. CLO GAI
Project deliverables: Each group of students is asked to CLO1 6a, 8a, 10c, 12b
CLO2 6b, 8f, 10a
1) Develop a virtual prototype using Solidworks, 2) Translate CLO3 4g, 8d, 9c, 10d
the virtual prototype into a fully-functional physical proto- CLO4 4a, 9a, 11a
type using standard craft materials, such as empty cardboard CLO5 4d, 9e
CLO6 4e, 5a. 9e
containers, beverage cups, string, wire, and glue, 3) Create
CLO7 5b, 11f
a video presenting the exploded and collapsed view of the CLO8 4h, 5b, 9g
project assembly in Solidworks, 4) Write a technical report, CLO9 6e, 7g, 10b, 12f
5) Create a power point presentation, and 6) Compile a poster.
TABLE IV
CEAB GA WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT AND / OR ASSESSMENT
D. Peer review and evaluations ACTIVITIES

To ensure fruitful teamwork and successful project com-

CEAB GA Development and/ assessment
pletion, a peer review process is implemented where each
GA (4) 3 open-ended engineering design projects.
student submits an anonymous evaluation of all the other team GA (5) Virtual prototyping and video simulator using CAD
members [17,18]. Implementing this evaluation system early in software (Solidworks). Also, students used hand
the semester allows the instructor to determine whether teams sketching engineering tools.
GA (6) teamwork (Project 1-3), individual work (Report 1), and
have to be reshaped to avoid conflict and maximize learning peer evaluation and assessment.
outcomes. GA (7) 2 technical reports (Project 1 and 3), 2 videos of virtual
In addition, peer evaluations are used to ensure fair mark prototypes (Project 2 and 3), 1 PowerPoint presentation
(Project 3), 1 poster (Project 3)
distribution among team members and avoid situations where GA (9) Sustainability is a critical component of Project 1-3.
some members carry all the load. Team members evaluate each GA (10) Report 1 includes working with an ethical dilemma
other in terms of 1) availability to conduct regular meetings
and 2) contribution. The evaluation is fully anonymous to
prevent conflict. The peer evaluation uses the scale between and responsibilities of a professional engineer in a broader
0 to 10 where the average score contributes to the student’s context, e.g. as it pertains to the environment, health, safety
project mark. It should be noted that the instructors conduct and public welfare. CLO2- Demonstrate ethical behaviour and
biweekly meetings with each group to provide guidance and describe the importance of ethics at the student and profes-
assistance in resolving challenges and identify any potential sional level. CLO3– Describe contributions that an engineer
conflict early in the semester. can make to society as well as impact that an engineering
project can have on society. CLO4- Describe an engineering
E. Project / Report deliverables design process to meet desired needs/requirements within
Report 1 is the first more extensive written deliverable. It realistic constraints of product development with focus on
requires the students to work on a case study of an ethical regulations, environmental, social, ethical and safety aspects
problem that can be faced by an engineer in a workplace. etc. CLO5 - Articulate an engineering problem and translate
The above subsections detail the deliverables of Projects 1- it into a structured design to reflect the product requirements.
3 which include video demonstrations of virtual prototype CLO6 - Apply formal decision making methods to assist in
assembly, fully functional prototypes, embodiment design, choosing between alternative conceptual designs iteratively.
technical reports, and PowerPoint presentations. Evaluation of CLO7 - Demonstrate skills to use an engineering tool to draw
the above-listed deliverable is done using grading rubrics. The 2D and 3D sketches. CLO8 - Develop a prototype engineering
rubric is designed to align with the Engineering Design GA design using an engineering tool. CLO9 - Work collaboratively
of the CEAB as well as GAIs of the software engineering in teams and communicate effectively using oral, written, and
program at TRU. graphical forms.
CEAB has the following twelve GAs [1]: (1) A knowledge
V. R ESULTS AND S TATISTICS base for engineering, (2) Problem analysis, (3) Investigation,
(4) Design, (5) Use of engineering tools, (6) Individual and
The effectiveness of the course design has been evaluated
teamwork, (7) Communication skills, (8) Professionalism, (9)
using various tools. These tools include Course Learning
Impact of engineering on society and the environment, (10)
Outcomes (CLOs), information submitted to the CEAB, stu-
Ethics and equity, (11) Economics and project management,
dent exam results, student projects, evaluation submitted by
and (12) Life-long learning. Table III aligns CEAB GAs and
students, and feedback collected during a meeting with student
departmental GAI with respect to Course Learning Outcomes
representatives.
(CLOs). Table IV matches the CEAB GAs with the appropriate
development and/or assessment activities. The GAI’s that are
A. Learning outcomes: CEAB GA vs departmental GAI met with each of the CLO’s in ENGR 1100 as identified in
“Engineering Design I” has the following seven CLOs: III can be found on TRU Software Engineering Department
CLO1 - Understand the engineering profession and the role webpage.
 7

TABLE V
S UMMARY OF AVERAGE GRADES FOR CLO S IN THE FALL 2020 DELIVERY in detail in Section IV, three engineering design projects have
OF ENGR 1100. been assigned to facilitate student familiarization with the
engineering design process over the first semester. Incorpo-
CLO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ration of Solidworks virtual prototyping not only facilitated
Average Marks 82 80 84 28 84 81 72
Marginal Students 2 5 3 0 1 2 3 design visualization, introduced the students to industry-level
(>=50 and <60) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 prototyping, and prepared them for more advanced engineer-
#fail students <50% 2 4 2 20 4 2 4 ing design courses, but also increased their motivation and
eagerness owing to interactive and engaging virtual work
environment. Fig. 2 and 3 present examples of Solidworks
B. Accreditation virtual prototyping of a multi-purpose furniture item created
In Canada, accreditation of an engineering undergraduate by one of the student groups as part of Project 2. As depicted
program by the CEAB means that regulatory authorities who in Fig. 2, the furniture item can be easily converted from
regulate the practice of engineering in each Canadian province chair to table and vice versa. Fig. 3 demonstrates student
or territory will recognize the graduates of the program as understanding of 2D sketching (front view, side view, and top
meeting the academic requirements for licensure as a profes- view), ability to build a 3D model using assembly from parts,
sional engineer. During the accreditation process, samples of awareness of sustainability manifested in selecting widely-
coursework as well as grades for each student are provided available and recyclable materials, safety awareness through
for each CLO. Lectures slides, labs, assignments, and project rounding all corners and avoiding any sharp corner. Fig. 4
assignments are also provided. As part of accreditation, a illustrates the efforts of one of the student groups to solve
continual improvement process for all courses is required. an urgent problem of designing an inexpensive and functional
A self-reflection report is completed by instructors for each cerebral palsy children’s walker. Fig. 3 presents the student
course and provided to the accreditation board. Included in proposed solutions in a form of a virtual prototype created
this report is a summary of the average grades for each of the in Solidworks and a fully-functions physical prototype of the
CLO’s, provided in Table VI. cerebral palsy children’s walker made of cardboard. It is worth
All seven CLO’s were met and reasonable average scores noting that for all the three projects students had to apply the
were obtained for most of the CLO’s, aside from CLO4. The steps of the engineering design process iteratively to identify
assessment method listed for this CLO was a question from the the best final solution.
final exam. However, students were also assessed on this CLO
“Apply formal decision-making methods to assist in choosing
between alternatively conceptual designs iteratively” during
their term projects. All of the CLO’s are covered in this course
via more than one assessment method.
Upon reflecting on ways to improve the course delivery and
how learning outcomes are met, the following action items
were identified:
• Another comprehensive method of assessing CLO4
should be added to the course.
• In order to reduce student workload and facilitate a more
digestible method for learning the engineering design pro-
cess, reducing the three term projects to one project with
multiple deliverables throughout the course as concepts
are taught will be considered.
• An important part of this course is introducing students
to methods for communicating their design. A report
template was provided to the students, along with a pre- Fig. 2. Project 2: virtual prototyping using Solidworks of a multi-purpose
sentation about how to write engineering reports. Verbal furniture item. The designed item can be a chair or a table.
student feedback indicated that this was very helpful to
students. However, further improvements to the report
template are needed to further clarify the design report VI. O UTCOMES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
preparation process.
A. Student evaluation
It is expected that in order to adhere to the continual improve-
ment process, there will be, at a minimum, minor alterations Student evaluation is a critical component of the pro-
to the course each time it is delivered. grams continual improvement process. The student course
evaluations are created by the TRU Center for Excellence
in Teaching and Learning and are provided to students to
C. Design projects complete anonymously at the end of the semester. They are not
Engineering design projects are key for assessing student provided to the course instructors until well after the semester
understanding of the engineering design process. As discussed is completed and final marks have been provided. The first
 8

B. Student recommendations
The course was taught during the COVID 19 pandemic,
and was thus held online. Although students maintained a
high level of attendance, it was harder to maintain student
engagement and motivation. Most of students were satisfied
with the course material (PowerPoint slides, hand notes, class
discussion and activities, video related topics, lecture records,
and lab records). Solidworks sketching and prototyping was
identified by many students as the most engaging part of the
course. Fortunately, Solidworks access was not compromised
during the pandemic. The following topics were introduced
using Solidworks: creating a new part, engineering draw-
ing, creating models, assembly and animation, exploded and
collapse view, multi-sheet drawing from an assembly, 3D
sketching and prototyping, weldments, and stress and strain
analysis. Most students advised us to keep the Solidworks
training as part of the course. Another component enjoyed
by the students was the transition from virtual to physical
Fig. 3. Project 2 sketching (2D detailed front view, side view, and top view)
and 3D model view (assembly from parts). prototyping. However, they recommended that we include
more detailed project instructions and details. We intended
to provide more detailed information in Project 1, reducing
the amount of details as students progress to Projects 2 and 3.
The reason behind this strategy was to motivate the students to
improve their abilities to independently brainstorm, define the
engineering problem, and extract the associated constraints.
Additionally, frequent regular meetings with students assist
with project success [19]. This will be implemented in future
course deliveries.
VII. C ONCLUSION
This paper introduced the development, implementation,
and evaluation process of an introduction to Engineering
Design course for the first-year, first-semester students at
Thompson Rivers University (TRU). The development process
Fig. 4. Project 3: (a) virtual prototyping using CAD software (Solidworks) has been guided by the following three objectives: teaching
vs (b) real cardboard fully-functional prototype of child walker for children
with cerebral palsy. context, stakeholder consultation, and Canadian Engineering
Accreditation Board (CEAB) requirements. Engineering de-
sign projects have been considered as a fundamental part of the
four questions in the student course evaluation are TRU Senate course development. The majority of students were satisfied
approved and pertain to the overall evaluation of the course. with their learning experience. Several essential engineering
The average participation rate in the “Engineering Design I” skills have been introduced in this course in alignment with
course evaluation in 2020 was approximately 70%. The first the CEAB requirements, namely design, engineering ethics,
four questions, and the combined student responses are as professionalism, communication, the use of engineering tools,
follows: and impact of engineering on society. The skills gained by the
students through the proposed course design are expected to
• The course was a valuable learning experience for me: lay out the foundation for more advanced engineering courses,
strongly agree 45%, agree 50%, and disagree 5%. as well as their professional careers.
• The course challenged me to do my best work: strongly
agree 45%, agree 50%, and disagree 5%. ACKNOWLEDGMENT
• I think the course content reflected the learning outcomes The authors would like to acknowledge the support of
as stated in the course outline: strongly agree 25%, agree the Software Engineering Department (Drs. Faheem Ahmed,
70%, and disagree 5%. Waleed Ejaz, Muhammad Hanif, and Omer Waqar), Faculty of
• The course experience increased my appreciation for Science, and the Dean’s Office at Thompson Rivers University.
the subject matter: strongly agree 30%, agree 55%, and
disagree 15%. R EFERENCES
Although there is always room for improvement and growth, [1] “2018 accreditation criteria and procedures,” Canadian Engi-
neering Accreditation Board, EngineersCanada, 2018. [Online].
the above evaluation indicates that majority of the students Available: https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/accreditation/
were satisfied with the course design and plan. accreditation-criteria-procedures-2018.pdf
 9

[2] R. Kuppuswamy and D. Mhakure, “Project-based learning in an

engineering-design course–developing mechanical-engineering gradu-
ates for the world of work,” Procedia CIRP, vol. 91, pp. 565–570, 2020.
[3] N. Entwistle and P. Ramsden, Understanding student learning (routledge
revivals). Routledge, 2015.
[4] J. B. Biggs and K. F. Collis, Evaluating the quality of learning:
The SOLO taxonomy (Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome).
Academic Press, 2014.
[5] M. Harvey, “Quality learning and teaching with sessional staff: system-
atising good practice for academic development,” 2017.
[6] J. Biggs and C. Tang, Teaching for quality learning at university.
McGraw-hill education (UK), 2011.
[7] T. Lewis et al., “Coming to terms with engineering design as content,”
Volume 16 Issue 2 (spring 2005), 2005.
[8] P. M. Ostafichuk, C. P. Jaeger, J. Nakane, S. Nesbit, N. Ellis, and
J. Sibley, “Redesigning the ubc first year introduction to engineering:
successes and challenges,” Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering
Education Association (CEEA), 2016.
[9] J.-P. Steghöfer, H. Burden, R. Hebig, G. Calikli, R. Feldt, I. Hammouda,
J. Horkoff, E. Knauss, and G. Liebel, “Involving external stakeholders in
project courses,” ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE),
vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 1–32, 2018.
[10] G. C. Andrews, J. D. Aplevich, R. A. Fraser, C. G. MacGregor, and H. C.
Ratz, Introduction to professional engineering in Canada. Pearson,
2015.
[11] Y. Haik, S. Sivaloganathan, and T. M. Shahin, Engineering design
process. Cengage Learning, 2015.
[12] C. T. Belser, D. J. Prescod, A. P. Daire, K. F. Cushey, R. Karaki,
C. Y. Young, and M. A. Dagley, “The role of faculty guest speakers
and research lab visits in stem major selection: A qualitative inquiry.”
Journal of Career and Technical Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 8–26,
2018.
[13] R. Y. Lee, Software Engineering: A Hands-On Approach. Springer
Science & Business Media, 2013.
[14] E. M. Smith, E. M. Giesbrecht, W. B. Mortenson, and W. C. Miller,
“Prevalence of wheelchair and scooter use among community-dwelling
canadians,” Physical therapy, vol. 96, no. 8, pp. 1135–1142, 2016.
[15] A. An, “Making community emergency preparedness and response
programs accessible to people with disabilities,” Americans with
Disabilities Act., (accessed Feb. 26, 2020). [Online]. Available:
http://www.ada.gov/emergencyprepguide.html
[16] D. A. De Silva, A. R. Synnes, P. von Dadelszen, T. Lee, J. N. Bone,
and L. A. Magee, “Magnesium sulphate for fetal neuroprotection to
prevent cerebral palsy (mag-cp)—implementation of a national guideline
in canada,” Implementation Science, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2018.
[17] F. Phillips, “The power of giving feedback: Outcomes from implement-
ing an online peer assessment system,” Issues in accounting education,
vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2016.
[18] D. E. Paré and S. Joordens, “Peering into large lectures: examining peer
and expert mark agreement using peerscholar, an online peer assessment
tool,” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 526–
540, 2008.
[19] A. Khoukhi, “A structured approach to honours undergraduate research
course, evaluation rubrics and assessment,” Journal of Science Education
and Technology, vol. 22, no. 5, pp. 630–650, 2013.