Project-based experience through real manufacturing activities in mechanical

engineering
As reported by many professional bodies responsible for accrediting engineering programs,
today’s engineering graduates present important limitations in the practice of engineering
because current engineering curricula is still too focused on fundamental engineering science
without providing sufficient integration to industrial practice. To overcome these limitations,
active learning approaches have been applied in the literature with positive results in
engagement, motivation and student’s performance. In this paper, we propose a project based
learning approach with real manufacturing activities in a 4-year mechanical course to improve
the learning process. The goal of the project is to plan the manufacturing process of a real part
and conduct at shop-floor levels all the activities required. The experience was evaluated
considering project/exam grades, questionnaires and manufacturing quality. The results
showed an increase in student’s satisfaction, improvement in the exam performance, and a
clearly increase in student’s enrolment in the manufacturing master degree.

Keywords: active learning; project-based; engineering education; manufacturing; mechanical

engineering; experiential learning.

1. Introduction
In recent years studies have been conducted in many countries to determine the technical
and personal abilities required of engineers by today’s industry. In 2006, the seminal Henley Report
(1) was commissioned by the Royal Academy of Engineering and surveyed over 400 engineering
companies within the United Kingdom. This report identified several limitations of current
undergraduate engineering education and it was remarked the low ability of engineering graduates
to apply knowledge to industry problems. Previously, an Education White Paper in 2001 (2)
claimed that the dominant mode of teaching and learning in higher education is based on "teaching
as telling; learning as recall", which do not help students to acquire two kinds of learning that are
considered crucial to their individual success in our society: real understanding and habits to be
caring citizens. These qualities are acquired through pedagogies that require intense engagement.
Other key concerns identified by many authors in today’s engineering graduates are (1–3):
 lack of communication skills and teamwork experience;
 need to be more awareness of social, environmental, economic and legal issues that
are part of the reality of modern engineering practice;
 inability to apply engineering solutions in practice despite of having a good
knowledge of fundamental engineering science.

Therefore, there is a general agreement that current engineering curricula are too focused on
fundamental engineering science without providing sufficient integration of these topics or relating
them to industrial practice. Real engineering experiences are not sufficient in current programs and
the student engagement and motivation is an important issue since teaching and learning strategies
are still teacher-centred (3).
Due to these deficiencies in recent engineering graduates, professional bodies such as
Engineers Australia (EA) in Australia, Accreditation Board of Engineering and Technology
(ABET) in America, and the European Networks for Accreditation of Engineering Education
(ENAEE) in Europe have defined a list of expected graduate attributes or outcomes that should be
incorporated in the educational programs in order to obtain the accreditation of an Engineering
Program. For instance, ENAEE sets the program outcomes in terms of knowledge, understanding,
skills and abilities that a graduate must demonstrate within an accredited engineering degree
program. The program outcomes are described with reference to the following eight learning areas:
knowledge and understanding; engineering analysis; engineering design; investigations; engineering
practice; making judgments; communication/team-working and lifelong learning (4).
 It turns out to be interesting that despite the large body of education research that has
demonstrated the ineffectiveness of engineering education based on “chalk and talk” (1–3,5–7), it is
in recent years when the educational institutions are really moving to adopt new pedagogical
strategies, mainly because of the step forward given by the bodies responsible for accrediting
engineering programs.
As stated above, the teacher-centred learning approach is still predominant in engineering
educational where the instructor acts as a mere transmitter of information and the students passively
absorb information and knowledge without typically engaging with the information received. This
approach, also called passive learning approach, may prepare the students to pass the exam in short
term but it presents important issues related to low knowledge retention, difficulties in the
engagement of the students, lack of motivation, and low preparation for the ‘practice of
engineering’ (8).
In order to overcome these limitations, new learning methodologies such as problem-based
learning or project-based learning, to name few of them, have been proposed within the so-called
active learning approach. By this instructional approach students are involved in doing things and
thinking about the things they are doing (9) and makes students an active participant in the process
of assimilating new information. Although the methodologies based on active learning were
developed long time ago and many previous investigations had already shown their benefits, it
seems that only few years ago a comprehensive and quantitative analysis conducted by Freeman et
al. (10) has proven the positive impact of active learning methods versus exposition centred
methods in undergraduate engineering courses. Previously, Prince et al (11) conducted a less
comprehensive research and claimed similar benefits when active learning approaches are applied.
In general, these studies identify the following positive aspects of active learning methods:
- Students learn the material and perform better on exams and are 1.5 times less likely to
fail than students in classes with traditional lectures.
- Collaboration with classmates builds community and a sense of belonging among
students, which can enhance motivation and persistence.
- Authentic problems and case studies can motivate students and keep them actively
engaged in their learning tasks.
- Having to analyse complex situations also promotes the students’ adoption of a deep
approach to learning, while rote memorization and simple algorithmic substitution are
clearly inadequate strategies for dealing with such situations.
- The levels of student attendance and retention increases in comparison to traditional
lectures.
In the literature a large number of active learning methodologies can be found (9,12).
However, we can consider the inductive learning methods shown in Figure 1 as the most common
approaches implemented in the field of engineering. The main characteristics of these approaches
are:
- Inquiry Learning (IL). In IL the instruction is modified to promote the learning by
answering questions and solving problems (11). As the students gain more experience
with this approach, the instructor may increase the scope and difficulty of the focus
questions, use more open-ended and ill-structured problems and simultaneously decrease
the amount of explicit guidance provided. Some recent experiences in IL can be found in
(13–15).
- Just-in time learning (JiTT). In JiTT, students respond to conceptual questions before
each class about material not yet covered and the instructor adjusts the lesson of each
class to react to misconceptions revealed by students’ responses (16). This methodology
was applied in a biology course by Marrs and Novak (17) where an improvement of test
performance before and after class was reported together with a better knowledge
retention and classroom interactivity. Similar conclusions were derived by Slunt and
Giancarlo (18) in general chemistry and organic chemistry courses. However, this
 methodology requires important efforts from instructors and flexibility to change and
adapt lessons at any time (16) and it is not usually applied in engineering education.
- Problem based learning (PBL). PBL begins when students are confronted with an
open-ended, ill-structured, authentic (real-world) problem and work in teams to identify
learning needs and develop a viable solution, with instructors acting as facilitators rather
than primary sources of information (11). However, according to Perrenet et al. (19),
PBL methodologies seem to be less appropriate since recent research on misconceptions
suggest that may not always lead to constructing the “right” knowledge. The approach
could work fine in other domains such as medicine where its encyclopaedic structure
makes no critical the order in which various concepts are encountered and further
learning will hardly be affected by missing a topic at a specific point in time. An
interesting review of this learning method can be found in (20).
- Case-based learning (CBL). In CBL students analyse case studies of historical or
hypothetical situations that involve solving problems and/or making decisions. The idea
is that in analysing complex authentic cases, the students become aware of the kinds of
situations and dilemmas they might have to face as professionals, gain both theoretical
and practical understanding of their subjects, develop critical reasoning skills, explore
their existing preconceptions, beliefs, and patterns of thinking, and make necessary
modifications in those preconceptions, beliefs, and patterns to accommodate the realities
of the cases (11). This approach let the instructor teach basic concepts and problem-
solving skills, and provide engineering experience to students (21). However, despite the
popularity of case study approach in fields such as business (22), the use of case-based
learning in the engineering field is quite limited and most of them have been primarily
focused on student perceptions of their learning rather than actual learning outcomes
(11).
- Experiential learning (EL). The EL follows the well-known Kolb’s Experiential
learning cycle, where learners should involve themselves in new experiences, observe
and reflect on them, create concepts that integrate their observations into logically sound
theories and finally they must be able to use these theories to make decisions and solve
problems (23). Some experiences can be found in the literature about this learning
approach, mainly in laboratory with mechatronics devices (24,25).
- Project based learning (PjBL): In PjBL, the students apply and assimilate previously
acquired knowledge by doing actual projects. PjBL begins with an assignment to carry
out one or more tasks that lead to the production of a final product- a design, a model, a
device or a computer simulation. The culmination of the project is normally a written
and/or oral report summarizing the procedure used to produce the product and presenting
the outcome (11). In the literature, PjBL is also called Design-based learning (DBL)
when the project is focused on the active cooperation of students in design tasks with the
purpose of designing new products and systems with increased performance (26).
Readers interested in DBL approaches can refer to reviews in (27,28).
- Learning Factories (LFs). The Learning Factory was firstly coined and patented in
1994 by Penn State University and it refers to interdisciplinary hands-on senior
engineering design projects with strong links and interactions with industry (44).
Basically, the idea of learning factories is to train engineering students through hands-on
experiences at university facilities that recreate real factories. LFs are commonly based
on experiential learning or project-based learning methods and they are well-suited to
integrate design and manufacturing issues and provide previously unavailable
opportunities for hands-on engineering experience in the Learning Factory (45).
 Figure 1. Some active learning approaches applied in Engineering Education.

2. Project-based Learning in Engineering Education

Although previous approaches have been applied in engineering education, PjBL is the
active learning approach most widely used mainly because project tasks are closer to professional
reality in engineering. Furthermore, project work is more directed to the application of knowledge
whereas other approaches such as problem-based learning is more directed to the acquisition of
knowledge (3,19). Excellent reviews of PjBL are given in (29–31) where it is reviewed some of the
main factors influencing the success of project-based learning experiences at higher education such
as those that are likely to affect motivation and thought, difficulties that students and teachers may
encounter with projects or how to effectively design the project experience.
Other educational experiences that reinforce the benefits of this learning approach have been
also reported in engineering education. In (32), the authors introduced the PjBL approach in an
introductive course on mechanical engineering with the aim of simulating the process of design and
development of a new product, and emotionally engage students in this process. During the course,
students worked in small groups to design and built a device that performs a specific task and the
quality of the designs was evaluated through a competition among all groups. After the competition,
each team was required to submit a final technical report detailing the research and development
process, the engineering considerations that led to the final design, a review of the relevant
engineering literature, and the team’s conclusions. The authors gathered data from students and
instructors interviews, observations in the classroom and students’ reports to study the students’
perceptions in a PjBL environment. According to students’ opinion, the course helped to develop
their engineering thinking and their intuition, increased motivation to study and made them feel like
responsible collaborators in the learning process. However, the study was only based on students’
perceptions, with no objective evaluation of the benefits of the PjBL approach. Hadim et al. (33)
presented the implementation of the PjBL approach in a first-year course on Mechanics of Solids
and a second-year course on Mechanism and Machine Dynamics. The project was related to the
design and analysis of a tower crane used for lifting heavy loads and it was monitored by periodic
reports and instructor’s feedback. The implementation of the PjBL required the reduction of
homework assignments to 50% and the material covered by lectures was also reduced to 25%. The
assessment of the educational experience was conducted through a survey of the students at the end
of the semester. The students increased their motivation and interest of practical illustration of real-
life applications but they demanded more guidance in completing the project, which is a critical
issue in this kind of learning methodologies. The analysis about the exam performance showed a
measurable improvement of the students especially in the examination of design components.
Palmer and Hall (34) applied the PjBL approach in a first-year engineering of a bachelor of
Engineering Technology, however, they did not find any significant difference in the students’
performance although they observed a high students’ satisfaction. Similar to other studies the
project was focused on engineering design (i.e., mechanical, electrical and civil design projects),
and after administering a questionnaire they pointed out that the best aspects of PjBL according to
students’ perception were team working and practical approach and the worst aspect was the
necessity of more time to work on the project. In this educational experience they also remarked
common issues related to group work among students and the challenge of how to fairly rate the
contribution of each team member. Although they used a self- and peer-assessment (SAPA)
procedure to assess each student’s contribution to the group, they also suggested a revision of this
system for a better work group assessment.
Vila et al. (35) showed an educational experience in a 5-year engineering course on
Integrated Manufacturing Technologies. The purpose of the project was: i) design a new component
for a given car toy, ii) prototype the component in a 3-D printer in order to validate the component
and its assemblability and iii) design the cavity mould for the injection process. The project was
conducted through a Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) software and the students/instructors
worked following a predefined workflow. The instructors reviewed the students’ designs and, using
the PLM and a web-browser visualizer, made annotations to correct the designs. The approval for
the next stage of the project was given when all corrections were made and no design errors were
detected by the instructors. After the project, the students were asked to complete a questionnaire
and the authors reported a high engagement where students evaluated positively the experience and
acknowledge their high improvement in abilities related to computer aided design, computer aided
manufacturing and product data management. In (36), the same authors evaluate different PLM
software to support the execution of collaborative practices during the development of project-based
learning activities in higher education.
Ignacio de los Ríos et al (37) presented a review of two decades of PjBL experiences in the
Technical University of Madrid thank to the collaboration agreement with the regional
administration. The educational projects conducted at different course levels were accorded
annually by the university and the regional administration, defining projects with real content,
which require students to integrate the knowledge they have already gained from other courses with
new knowledge attained in developing the project. The project-based methodology was adapted
throughout two decades. For instance, the class time for lectures was cut to 50%, the group
activities related to the project in class was increased from 5 to 20 hours together with an important
increase of on-line tutoring. The authors claimed that PjBL is the most adequate methodology for
the development of competences, linking teaching with the professional sphere. However,
according to them a critical issue is the role of both teachers and students who should be more
active and, particularly for the students, they have to show greater responsibility for their own
learning.
In the field of manufacturing courses, a general problem instructors may find is to keep the
students focused on explanations which tend to be very descriptive and theoretical. Even though the
frequent use of videos with great explanations such as TV series like How It’s Made can increase
students’ motivation, traditional lecturing generates a lack of real engagement on manufacturing
processes. A straight forward solution to overcome this situation is to promote the participation of
students in real manufacturing activities by acting as process planners to manufacture predefine
parts. For this purpose, Learning Factories have been implemented at colleges which offer students
in traditional engineering disciplines an alternative path to a degree that directly prepares them for
careers in manufacturing, design and product realization (46). However, the implementation of
Learning Factories in small universities without the support of local industries is not feasible and
other project-based experiences using basic manufacturing equipment should be considered. For
instance, Ssemakula and Liao (46) describe the adaptation of the Learning Factory approach in
regular academic programs without having to build an actual factory. They coordinated different
projects in five engineering courses where the students generate the CAD drawings of a product,
produce the process plans and manufacture and assemble all product components. Similarly, Maliky
et al (47) proposed an active learning experience based on hands-on machining/fabrication to
integrate the contents of several manufacturing courses. The proposed project-based activities were
focused on real products such as acoustic guitar or compressed-air engine and they were fabricated
using CNC machine-tools and welding machines. The authors stated that this experience greatly
enhanced the development of the students’ design and industrial abilities and the student and
instructor ratings were very positive.
 Despite of the above literature review, it is important to remark that some authors are
sceptical about the usefulness of these approaches. Kirschner et al (38) discussed that minimally
guided instruction such as the active methodologies presented above may be less effective and less
efficient than instructional approaches. According to their study, only a less guidance of the student
learning process is effective when learners have sufficiently high prior knowledge. Therefore, it is
critical to consider a good trade-off between guidance and self-discovery when designing efficient
active learning approaches.
In this paper we show a PjBL experience conducted in a 4-year course of mechanical
engineering degree at the Universitat Jaume I, Castellon, Spain. Through this education experience
the students learn from real engineering problems and face real manufacturing issues at shop-floor
level. The experience has been conducted for two consecutive academic years and the goal of the
project is the manufacturing of a part at the university facilities covering all process planning
activities such as creation of sand moulds, sequence of machining operations, cutting-tool and
fixture selection, geometric validation through tolerance charting, generation of CNC programs,
machining and quality inspection of resulting parts. Therefore, the project-based approach presented
in this paper is combined with the experiential learning methodology. We compare the results of
this 2-year experience with the results of previous years where the course was taught following
other active learning techniques based on short problems and computer sessions not connected to
each other and without the goal of manufacturing a real part. By this study we want to analyse the
potential effect of conducting real projects, not only based on a final report but also based on the
elaboration of physical objects. The elaboration of real objects and the impact of right or wrong
decisions on them along the project may increase the engagement of students throughout the course
and improve knowledge acquisition and retention.
The paper is organized as follows. First, the hypothesis of the research is exposed together
with the scope and goal of the educational experience. Then, the methodology conducted during the
semester is explained and the activities, group definitions and grading system are detailed. The
sections that follow show the implementation and the results of the educational experience and
discuss them to analyse the benefits of this project-based method with real manufacturing activities
in comparison with the results from previous years. Finally, the last section presents the conclusions
of the research.

3. Scope and research objectives

The educational experience is conducted in a 4-year course of mechanical engineering, named

Manufacturing Process Planning. The course has 6 ECTS (European Credit Transfer and
Accumulation System) which refers to 60 hours with the instructor and 90 autonomous working
hours. The contents of the course are: i) introduction to manufacturing process planning, ii) process
planning in casting, iii) process planning in machining, iv) economics of process planning.

Four academic courses are analysed in this paper. During the first two years (courses 2014/15 and
2015/16), the course had an important theoretical workload complemented with practical activities
with the instructor. For instance, activities in shop-floor were conducted to build sand moulds,
computer room activities were given to show how a Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAM)
software such as SolidCam works and some activities related to machining were also conducted.
However, the role of the student here was limited and in some cases they acted as a mere observer.
For instance, the machining activity was just to launch a predefined CNC program, not a program
created by the students, or the CAM sessions were used to generate CNC programs for practicing
purposes without uploading and launching the CNC program in our machine-tools.
Although the performance and degree of satisfaction of the students was adequate, the
methodology was modified for the following courses (courses 2016/17 and 2017/18) in order to
have a complete view of the manufacturing process of a part, and the project-based learning
approach proposed in this paper was adopted. Unlike the first two years, all manufacturing process
planning activities learnt along the course were applied to the final purpose of manufacturing a real
part. There are no independent or unconnected activities, all computer room and shop-floor
activities are centred on manufacturing the part and the role of the student is critical to reach the
final purpose since they have to provide the solutions in patterns design, selection of fixturing and
cutting-tools, geometric verification, CNC programs for machine-tools and methodology for part
inspection. The role of the instructor is also critical since he has to closely monitor the learning
process and review the students’ solutions in order to make feasible the manufacturing process.
Readers can notice the challenge of this approach. First, the goal of the project is planning
the manufacturing process to ensure that the parts manufactured are within specifications, which
involve many different and complex activities such as process planning in casting, in machining,
and estimation of cost manufacturing. Secondly, the project should be validated through real
experimentation according to students’ decisions (pattern design, machining sequence, CNC code,
and so on), which makes the students participate in a real manufacturing process development and
learn about the errors made.
We believe that this PjBL methodology will increase student’s motivation and improve their
performance in the exam. In this experience, the following aspects will be analysed in order to
quantitatively define the benefits of this type of learning methodology.
 Class attendance
 Students’ satisfaction about the course
 Students’ performance at the exam according to project performance
 Number of students that stay at the University to conduct a Master degree in
manufacturing.
 Instructor’s satisfaction

4. Methodology
4.1. Project activities
As explained in the introductory part, this educational experience shows a PjBL approach
where real experimentation is applied. The activities conducted during the project are shown in
Figure 2. We basically distinguish four types of activities: lectures, computer room sessions, shop-
floor sessions, and seminars. The lectures are given as the traditional approach but the topics are
covered at the time the project needs. The computer room sessions are used for learning the
software that the students need to apply in the project. For instance, pattern design for casting is
conducted using SolidWorks; the files to be printed are checked with Netfabb and the 3D printing
process is done with Slic3r; the CNC programs are simulated with CNCSimulator, WinUnisoft and
itnc530 software from Heidenhain. The shop-floor activities are used to conduct real manufacturing
activities such as 3D printing, sand casting, machining and part inspection. The seminar activities
are used to promote the interaction between instructor and students, review the students’ solution
given in the deliverables, monitor the learning process and ensure that the progress of the project is
adequate. Note that a proper guidance in project-based experiences is necessary to obtain an
effective learning process (38), and some studies recommend frequent feedback and revision
activities to efficiently monitor student work progress (29,30,41). For this project, the students’
progress is monitored in three seminars.
After all these activities, the students have to write a final report and give a presentation
about the results of the project. The presentation is considered mandatory and should participate all
the members of the group. The importance of the presentation is reported in some studies where it is
remarked its usefulness to assess the project and to boost global learning since each group see the
results of their companions and leads to self-criticism and group discussion (30,39).
Figure 2. Project Overview. Planning of project activities: computer room, shop-floor, seminars and
final project presentation.

4.2. Project teams definition

The definition of the members of the group is a key issue for the correct development of a project-
based experience. In the literature, groups of three or four students are commonly recommended
whereas larger groups may encourage the appearance of ‘parasite’ members and make it harder to
individualize marks (29,30). In general, it is discouraged to let the students determine the
composition of the project teams based on friendships and working relationships from previous
courses which can affect the fair evaluation of both individual contributions and the overall team
performance (33). Therefore, in this project the groups are composed of 3-4 members and the
members of each group are selected by the instructor in a random manner but trying to create
groups not very different in terms of students’ grading performance, i.e., there are no teams with a
priori better performance in students’ grades than others.

4.3. Grading System

The grading system of the course is based on two grades: the project grade and the exam
grade. The project grade accounts 40% and the exam grade 60% of the final grade. The course has
no midterm or additional homeworks or tests since the workload during the semester is quite high.
The exam has two parts: a theoretical part and a practical part, where practical exercises are similar
to the ones solved during the project such as manufacturing process selection, geometric
verification, machining process planning or CNC programming. The final grade of the project is
given by the seminars grades (30%), the presentation grade (20%), and the grade of the final report
(50%). All the grades in the project are given according to a rubric following Eur-Ace guidelines
(4).
In order to deal with groups where some students might have worked less than their
companions, the project includes a co-assessment activity where all students have to assess the
contribution to the project of each member of the group. According to this information, the final
project grade may be adjusted among the members of the group. For instance, if one member of the
group has clearly worked much more than all the rest, this student can have up to +1 more in the
project grade while the other students in the same group, if we assume a group of 3 students, would
have -0.5 points less. This procedure is applied except for special cases where a student has made
no contribution whatsoever to the experience. In those cases, the student fails the project. The
importance of the co-assessment is reported in the literature to avoid unfair practices among group
members (30,33) and it seems reasonable that the co-assessment let the instructor to allocate from
5% to 15% of the final mark (30).

5. Project implementation

As shown in Figure 2, the project starts at the first week of the semester with the creation of project
groups and the definition of the parts that should be manufactured. Figure 3 shows one of the parts
that were assigned to the students (one part per group). The activities were conducted according to
the planning shown in Figure 2. According to the material, geometrical specifications and
production volume, the students decided the best group of manufacturing process candidates to be
applied for the assigned part, and the final selection was reasoned. In the first seminar, the students
interacted with the instructor to explain the procedure followed and discuss about possible errors.

Figure 3. Example of technical drawings provided for the project.

Then, a computer session is used to learn how to design patterns with SolidWorks given the
final parts. The concepts of machining allowance, drafts, shrinkage and runner, riser and sprue
design are covered and the application of these concepts to the project is done and reviewed in
seminar 2. After discussing the proposed pattern designs with the instructor, the validated patterns
are then ready to be printed in our 3D printer machine using a Polylactic Acid (PLA) filament, a
vegetable-based plastic material commonly used in 3D printing. The patterns printed are used to
create the plates that will be mounted in the sand boxes to create the cavities for casting in shop-
floor 2 (Figure 4). The most significant difficulties at this stage experienced by the students were
the creation of the sand moulds due to the collapse of the cavity when releasing the pattern. One
group had to redo the mould up to fourteen times to correctly obtain the mould. This group did not
design properly the pattern and the drafts designed were too low for releasing the pattern without
problems. Here, the instructor remarked the importance of a good pattern design to avoid this kind
of problems, which was quite evident for the students after the repetition of the mould fourteen
times.

a) b) c)

Figure 4. Real manufacturing results from students’ activities. a) 3D printed patterns for the cope
and drag to be used during sand casting; b) Pattern plate to be used for creating the drag (lower part
of the sand mould); c) part obtained after casting.

At this stage, the casted parts are obtained and the students have to plan the machining
process to manufacture the final part. Machine-tool, fixturing and cutting-tool selection is
conducted together with the machining sequence and the geometric validation of the part through
tolerance charting activities. The results of these activities are reported in the deliverable number 3,
and it is reviewed and discussed between the instructor and students. After all corrections are made,
the students are ready to program the CNC code that is needed for machining the parts. To learn
about the simulation of CNC code, two computer sessions are used to practice CNC programming.
Then, the students elaborate the CNC programs to machine the parts in the project. A shop-floor
session is used to simulate the programs in the machine-tools, check fixtures, check where the
workpiece references are, how to clamp the parts, and other details. Then, in shop-floor 4 and 5 the
programs elaborated by the students are launched in the CNC lathe and the CNC machining centre.
After machining, the inspection of the part is conducted with a caliper, and it is checked if the part
is within specifications according to the technical drawing. Figures 5 and 6 show some of the results
at these stages of the project.
In the last week, each group presents their project results to the class and the final report is
delivered before the last day of the semester.

a) b)

Figure 5. Real manufacturing results from students’ activities: a) CNC simulation using WinUnisoft
software; b) launch of the CNC program in the CNC lathe at the shop-floor.
 a) b) c)

Figure 6. Real manufacturing results from students’ activities: a) launch of the CNC program in the
CNC machining centre at the shop-floor; b) inspection activities to measure part quality and
validate the manufacturing process; c) final parts obtained from different groups.

During the shop-floors many important problems related to real manufacturing arose which
could not be observed and learnt without a real experiential approach. First, the part obtained after
casting in one group was clamped in the 3-jaw chuck of the CNC lathe and the part crushed due to
clamping forces (Figure 7-a). Due to this problem, the instructor asked the students to think about
the possibility of reducing the clamping forces of the 3-jaw chuck to avoid the crush while ensuring
enough fastening forces during machining. Some students proposed and justified the modification,
but when machining the part the cutting force exceeded the 3-jaw forces and the part was released
breaking the protection window of the lathe (Figure 7.b). The problem here was that the
irregularities of the part from casting made that, in some point of the machining, the depth of cut
was higher than the expected, exceeding the admissible clamping force and releasing the part. When
trying to machine other parts, we saw that the crushed issue did not show up using the same
clamping forces that the initial one. At this moment, we realize that the problem with the first part
was not an excessive clamping force but a casting defect. Probably a cold shut occurred and the
internal quality of the part was deficient producing the crush when clamping.
Other problems were related to mistakes made by the students in the CNC code. For
instance, one part was not machined correctly because the coordinates programmed did not consider
the machining allowance. Thus, part of the workpiece material was not removed and the final part
had an additional cylindrical feature (Figure 7-c). Another interesting error is shown in Figure 7-d
and refers to the deficient surface roughness of the internal surface of the part. This surface is
machined by a boring cutting-tool with an important overhang. It was observed that the cutting
conditions in this operation were too aggressive and the tool overhang produced steady vibrations
that generate a deficient surface roughness.
It should be noted that all these errors cannot be detected if the parts are not manufactured
and the students’ challenge to understand and propose solutions to real errors is a key aspect that
engineering curricula should face. Besides, the students understanding of manufacturing problems
is greatly increased since the problems come from their manufacturing proposals and they see in
situ the problems interacting with the instructor to find the possible solution.
 a) b) c) d)

Figure 7. Problems during the 2-year experience. a) crush of the workpiece after clamping due to
casting defects (probably a cold shut problem which arises when two streams of molten metal do
not join properly when the piece is being cast); b) Breakage of the protection window of the lathe
due to low clamping force during machining; c) machining error due to a student’s mistake about
X-Z coordinates in the CNC code; d) deficient surface roughness of the internal surface due to an
excessive overhang of the boring cutting-tool and incorrect cutting conditions.

6. Results and discussion

In general terms, the educational experience was positive and the students’ engagement and
satisfaction reported from the students during the project development was quite high. However, in
order to evaluate the effectiveness of this educational approach, a more quantitative and objective
assessment is required. For this purpose, three different analyses are conducted. First, the students’
performance is compared between the last 4 years. The student’s performance comparison considers
three aspects: i) class attendance; ii) exam and project grades; and iii) number of students that enrol
into a manufacturing master degree the following year. Please, remind that during the first 2 years
(courses 2014/15 and 2015/16) the teaching methodology was based on traditional lectures, short
problems and shop-floor and computer sessions. All the activities were not connected to each other
and without the goal of manufacturing a real part. Therefore, many of the activities conducted were
paper-based such as homeworks related to manufacturing process planning in casting and
machining, although some shop-floor demonstrations were also conducted in casting and
machining. During the last 2 years (course 2016/17 and 2017/18), the course follows the
methodology explained in this paper and thus, the course contents were centred on developing a
project for planning the manufacturing activities of a given technical drawing that ends with the real
manufacturing of the part. For the sake of clarity, the educational experience at the first two years is
named the traditional approach and the one at the last two years is named proposed approach, where
the proposed PjBL approach with experiential learning is applied.
Second, it is analysed the students’ perception by studying a questionnaire that they have to
complete at the end of each course. The students are asked to complete a questionnaire to answer
questions related to their perception on: i) student’s workload; ii) learning process; iii) student’s
motivation; iv) general satisfaction about the project. Furthermore, the questionnaire also included
open-ended items for students to express their opinions about the project, and they are asked to
write at least one positive and one negative aspect and one aspect that they would change for future
years.
Third, the instructor’s perception is also studied by another questionnaire. As instructors, we
give our point of view in aspects related to: i) instructor’s workload; ii) student’s motivation; iii)
engagement of students at theoretical classes; iv) perception of the learning process.
 6.1. Students’ performance comparison
The results of students’ performance for both traditional and proposed approaches are shown
in Figure 8. The class attendance was expected to be higher in the proposed learning approach since
all lectures are closely related to all project activities. One may think that the interest of learning the
techniques to be applied in the project during the lectures should increase class attendance.
However, the class attendance seems to be similar except for the last year, where it is clearly lower
(see Figure 8-a). The missing point here is that in the last year, classes started at 8:00 a.m., unlike
other years where classes started at 5:00 p.m. Furthermore, the last year, several students dropped
out the course due to their jobs. Under these considerations, we may say that the attendance is
similar in both methodologies as indicate the results from the third year (course 2016/17).
The results about the enrolment of students in a manufacturing master degree shown in
Figure 8-b are clearly conclusive. Unlike the previous 2 years where only 2 from 27 students
continued their studies in our manufacturing master degree, it seems that the proposed methodology
increases the students’ interest in manufacturing since 5 from 18 students finally enrolled in our
manufacturing master degree. These results agree with the research in (42) where it is reported that
project-based experiences can serve as a powerful tool for retaining students in engineering
programs. However, a medium/long term evaluation should be necessary to confirm the trend.

Figure 8. Students’ performance: a) class attendance; b) Students that enrol the following year in a
manufacturing master degree; c) correlation of exam and project grades.

Another interesting aspect about the comparison of students’ performance between both
learning approaches is shown in Figure 8-c. This graph shows the relationship between the average
exam grade of the members of each group and the project grade. One may think that a good project-
based experience should boost the learning process and thus, the solution provided in the projects
should serve the students to improve their knowledge and have a better performance during the
exam. On the other hand, if the students do not work well during the project, it would be harder for
the students to master the contents of the course. Under this hypothesis, a good project experience
should show a high correlation between project grades and exam grades. If the average grade of the
exams of all members of one group is low but the performance at the project was high, it seems that
the lessons learnt during the project do not help the students in the learning process. In Figure 8-c, it
is shown the relationship between exam and project grades for both traditional and proposed
approaches. It can be noticed that the proposed learning approach helps the student to improve their
performance at the exam (linear regression with coefficient of determination around 80%), while in
previous years the project grades were not correlated with the exam grades (no linear regression is
available), meaning that the activities in the traditional approach were not well-designed. At this
point it should be noted that these results could be influenced by different aspects such as the
students’ grades from previous courses (overall entry grade), students’ skills in English (the course
is taught in English), students’ availability for working in groups, etc. In this 4-year experience, the
characteristics of the students enrolled in the course have been rather homogeneous: overall entry
grade of 6.3±0.6 on a scale of 0-10, English level B1-B2 and availability for working in groups
since they were not yet employed.

6.2. Students’ perception

In order to analyse the students’ perception on the educational experience, we study the results of
two questionnaires. The first questionnaire is the official questionnaire that the university asks the
students to complete at the end of each semester in all courses. Although there are many questions
about the student’s satisfaction in this questionnaire, for comparison purposes we only consider the
average satisfaction of the students at each academic year. The second questionnaire is prepared to
ask the students about their opinion of the proposed approach, and it was provided at the end of the
course in the last two academic courses. All questionnaires were anonymous and individual.

The results from the first questionnaire reported an average student’s satisfaction of 4.04 points
over 5 for courses 14/15 and 15/16 with a standard deviation of 0.49. These values come from the
answers of 23 students. For the courses 16/17 and 17/18, the average student’s satisfaction is 4.42
over 5 from 17 answers. In order to analyse if the proposed methodology increases the student’s
satisfaction reported in the official questionnaire, the following statistical hypothesis testing is
conducted:

H0: μ = 4.04

H1: μ > 4.04

where µ is the average student’s satisfaction of the students population when the proposed approach
is applied. The questionnaire gives a 4.42 points of average satisfaction from 17 samples and the t-
test statistic with and α level of 0.05 is 3.2 which mean a maximum value of 4.21 to reject the null
hypothesis. Since the average satisfaction is 4.42, we can reject the null hypothesis and confirm that
the proposed approach significantly improves the student’s satisfaction about the course around
10%.

The second questionnaire asks the students about: i) hours dedicated to the project; ii)
perception of the learning process; iii) project influence on student’s motivation; iv) student’s
satisfaction on project activities. The results are shown in Figure 9. According to the answers, the
degree of students satisfaction about the proposed approach is really high: all students believe that
this project improved their learning process (83% of students agreed that the learning process was
much more better); all the students considered that this approach was motivating (58% answered
that was very motivating and 42% motivating); and the students’ satisfaction on project activities
was high. However, more than half of the students (58%) considered that the workload of the
project was higher than the 60 hours that were expected to be needed according to the
characteristics of the course (6 ECTS and 40% of the grade is based on the project).
Additionally, the questionnaire presents some open-ended questions about: i) positive
aspects of the project; ii) negative aspects of the project; and iii) modifications suggested for next
years. As positive aspects, almost the 70% of the students answered about the real contact to shop-
floor activities and 30% about the better understanding of the theoretical concepts thank to the real
experimentation. As negative aspects, 42% of the students considered too much workload for the
project, 20% complained about the low weight of the project to the final grade of the course, 20%
reported the difficulty of following the theoretical classes due to the language (the course was
taught in English according to the course specifications while all the students are Spanish), and
other issues were reported in the remaining 18%. It can be seen that the main problem of this
approach, according to the students, is the workload which has been also reported by other
researchers when project-based experiences are conducted (3,29,34). It is reasonable that the main
suggestions reported by the students for next years are related to the increase of the weight of the
project grade over the course grade in order to compensate for the workload dedicated in
comparison with the exam. This demand was written in the 35% of the questionnaires.

Figure 9. Student’s answers to the questionnaire.

6.3. Instructor’s perception

From the instructor’s point of view, the main issue in this educational experience is the
excessive workload that the instructor should bear in order to successfully manufacture the parts.
For instance, all pattern designs should be checked to validate if the creation of the mould is
feasible (e.g., correct core dimensions, correct drafts, etc.) and the CNC code should be carefully
reviewed in order to detect potential problems before launching the program in the machine-tools.
Note that in this course there is no teaching assistants or technicians that directly work with the
students. Therefore, the proposed project-based approach could be manageable only if the size of
the class is around 15 students or less, which means 4-5 groups of 3-4 students and 4-5 parts to be
manufactured. In a course with a larger number of students we do not recommend this experience
and an alternative in these cases could be the simulation of casting and machining processes
through software. However, we believe that the real contact with the manufacturing process and the
execution of the student activities at the shop-floor makes the student have a realistic view of the
difficulties and problems of their designs.
Due to the nature of PjBL activities, the collaboration among the students of each team is a
critical issue. In this experience we observed problems of collaboration in one group where tasks
were completely divided in order to finish the project with minimum interaction. After warning the
students we found out that one student worked outside the university and had low availability to
work in group. Other expected problems in PjBL could be poor group participants or conflicts
between them. In order to rapidly identify these issues, we highly recommend the use of seminars to
evaluate the progress of the project and interact with all members of the group. Note that if proper
actions are not taken at the early stages of the project some of the curriculum topics could not be
covered as expected due to task division practices and some students may fail to engage the course.
Helle et al. (29) also reported this issue in their work and remarked the challenge for promoting the
student responsibilities to learn about all aspects of the subject instead of specializing in some
specific aspects. To avoid this instructor’s concern, we believe in the importance of co-assessment
and the use of the project presentation as a tool to inquire through questions and answers if all
students in the group have cooperated throughout the project.
Unlike student’s perception, we do not agree with the main student’s criticism about the
project which relies on the excessive time dedicated to the project. In our opinion, the problem
when working in groups is the inefficient use of time among students. Students are not used to work
in groups and collaboration and coordination are important drawbacks. Some basics of how to work
in groups efficiently should be incorporated at the beginning of the project in order to overcome this
issue. However, previous PjBL experiences in the literature also reported that the time-consuming
nature of this approach is a negative aspect that should be considered in advance by the instructors
(3,29,34).
In relation to students’ motivation, we have a bittersweet feeling. During shop-floor and
computer room activities, the students had a very active interaction with the instructor and we can
notice a high engagement and excitement in students’ activities. However, according to the
instructor’s opinion, the students did not show interest during lecturing sessions even though they
were closely related to the project activities. Here, we should take into account that the lectures
were given in English while the students are Spanish, so the language is probably the main reason
of this lack of motivation and interaction since the average English level of the course, after a test at
the beginning of the semester, is B1, not enough to follow an English lecture properly. Therefore,
we are considering the application of the active learning strategy flipped classroom in some lectures
in order to increase the interaction with the students and increase the engagement during the
theoretical activities of the course. Interesting education experiences about flipped classroom can be
found in (43).

7. Conclusions

In this paper we have shown how to apply an active learning approach in a 4-year mechanical
engineering course named Manufacturing Process Planning. Unlike previous project based learning
methodologies, we have proposed a project based learning methodology supported by experiential
learning activities, mainly shop-floor activities with the purpose of manufacturing a real part. Under
this approach, the students have to plan and conduct all manufacturing activities to manufacture the
part assigned by the instructor. These activities are: manufacturing process selection; pattern design
for casting; mould construction and casting; machining process planning (cutting-tool selection,
fixture selection, cutting parameters selection), geometric validation using chart tolerances, and
inspection.

The paper has shown that working at shop-floor level with the students is highly positive for the
students’ performance, motivation and engagement. For instance, the student’s satisfaction about
the course from other years was increased 10%, all the students from the 2 year experience agreed
that the learning process was better or much more better through this methodology, and all of them
defined the project as motivating or very motivating. The project clearly increased the student’s
performance in the exam and the number of students that enrol in a manufacturing master degree
increase from 7% to 28% showing that student’s perception on manufacturing processes has
improved even to consider manufacturing a field of interest for their professional career. However,
the negative aspect of this approach is mainly the high workload that both students and instructors
have to deal with. If the size of the class is appropriate, the authors encourage the application of
project-based learning methodologies with real manufacturing activities when teaching
manufacturing courses. In this kind of courses, classes are usually too conceptual or descriptive, and
the rate of students’ disengagement tends to be high. The adoption of adequate active learning
methodologies as the one presented in this paper can be a good strategy to overcome these
drawbacks.
8. References
1. Spinks N, Silburn N, Birchall D. Educating engineers for the 21st century: The industry
view. London R Acad Eng. 2006;
2. Edgerton R. Education white paper. 2001.
3. Mills JE, Treagust DF. Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning
the answer. Australas J Eng Educ. 2003;3(2):2–16.
4. ENAEE. Standards and Guidelines for Accrediation of Engineering Programs. European
Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education. 2017.
5. Felder RM, Silverman LK. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Eng Educ.
1988;78(7):674–81.
6. George MD, Bragg S. Shaping the future: New expectations for undergraduate education in
science, mathematics, engineering and technology. Washington, DC; 1996.
7. Vygotsky L. Interaction between learning and development. Readings Dev Child.
1978;23(3):34–41.
8. de Vere I. Developing creative engineers: a design approach to engineering education. Glob
Eng Alliance Res Educ (GEARE)-A Compr Study Intern Abroad Progr Eng Students. 2009;
9. Bonwell CC, Eison JA. Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. 1991
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. ERIC; 1991.
10. Freeman S, Eddy SL, McDonough M, Smith MK, Okoroafor N, Jordt H, et al. Active
learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proc Natl
Acad Sci. 2014;111(23):8410–5.
11. Prince MJ, Felder RM. Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions,
Comparisons, and Research Bases. J Eng Educ. 2006;95(2):123–38.
12. Lima RM, Andersson PH, Saalman E. Active Learning in Engineering Education: a
(re)introduction. Eur J Eng Educ. 2017;42(1):1–4.
13. Kollöffel B, Jong T. Conceptual understanding of electrical circuits in secondary vocational
engineering education: Combining traditional instruction with inquiry learning in a virtual
lab. J Eng Educ. 2013;102(3):375–93.
14. Douglas EP, Chiu C-C. Implementation of Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning
(POGIL) in Engineering. Adv Eng Educ. 2013;3(3):n3.
15. Abdul-Kahar R, Esa F, Tay KG, Hashim R, Laham MN, Wong BYL. Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) in Electronics Devices and Photonics through Process Oriented Guided
Inquiry Learning (POGIL). J Telecommun Electron Comput Eng. 2016;8(6):93–7.
16. Prince M, Felder R. The many faces of inductive teaching and learning. J Coll Sci Teach.
2007;36(5):14.
17. Marrs KA, Novak G. Just-in-time teaching in biology: creating an active learner classroom
using the internet. Cell Biol Educ. 2004;3(1):49–61.
18. Slunt KM, Giancarlo LC. Student-centered learning: A comparison of two different methods
of instruction. J Chem Educ. 2004;81(7):985.
19. Perrenet JC, Bouhuijs PAJ, Smits JGMM. The Suitability of Problem-based Learning for
Engineering Education: Theory and practice. Teach High Educ [Internet]. 2000;5(3):345–58.
Available from: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/713699144
20. Hmelo-Silver CE. Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educ Psychol
Rev. 2004;16(3):235–66.
21. Yadav, A., Shaver, G. M., & Meckl P. Lessons learned: Implementing the case teaching
method in a mechanical engineering course. J Eng Educ. 2010;
22. Vivas JF, Allada V. Enhancing engineering education using thematic case-based learning. Int
J Eng Educ. 2006;22(2):236.
23. Kolb DA. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. FT
press; 2014.
24. Abdulwahed M, Nagy ZK. Applying Kolb’s experiential learning cycle for laboratory
education. J Eng Educ. 2009;98(3):283–94.
25. Verner IM, Ahlgren DJ. Robot contest as a laboratory for experiential engineering education.
J Educ Resour Comput. 2004;4(2):2.
26. Chandrasekaran S, Stojcevski A, Littlefair G, Joordens M. Learning through projects in
engineering education. In: SEFI 2012: Engineering Education 2020: Meet The Future:
Proceedings of the 40th SEFI Annual Conference 2012. 2012.
27. Puente SMG, van Eijck M, Jochems W. A sampled literature review of design-based learning
approaches: a search for key characteristics. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2013;23(3):717–32.
28. Gómez Puente SM, van Eijck M, Jochems W. Towards characterising design-based learning
in engineering education: a review of the literature. Eur J Eng Educ [Internet].
2011;36(2):137–49. Available from:
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03043797.2011.565116
29. Helle L, Tynjälä P, Olkinuora E. Project-based learning in post-secondary education--theory,
practice and rubber sling shots. High Educ. 2006;51(2):287–314.
30. Lantada AD, Morgado PL, Munoz-Guijosa JM, Sanz JLM, Varri Otero JE, García JM, et al.
Towards successful project-based teaching-learning experiences in engineering education. Int
J Eng Educ [Internet]. 2013;29(2):476–90. Available from:
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-
84875352674&partnerID=40&md5=b7530554f2c424f8ae64a35a07577b16
31. Blumenfeld PC, Soloway E, Marx RW, Krajcik JS, Guzdial M, Palincsar A. Motivating
project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol.
1991;26(3–4):369–98.
32. Frank M, Lavy I, Elata D. Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic
engineering course. Int J Technol Des Educ. 2003;13(3):273–88.
33. Hadim HA, Esche SK. Enhancing the Engineering Curriculum Through Project-Based
Learning. Front Educ. 2002;F3F–1–F3F–6.
34. Palmer S, Hall W. An evaluation of a project-based learning initiative in engineering
education. Eur J Eng Educ. 2011;36(4):357–65.
35. Vila C, Abellán-Nebot JV, Estruch AM, Siller HR. Collaborative product development
experience in a senior Integrated manufacturing course. Int J Eng Educ. 2009;25(5):886–99.
36. Vila C, Ugarte D, Ríos J, Abellán JV. Project-based collaborative engineering learning to
develop Industry 4.0 skills within a PLM framework. Procedia Manuf [Internet].
2017;13:1269–76. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.promfg.2017.09.050
37. Ríos IDL, Cazorla A, Díaz-Puente JM, Yagüe JL. Project-based learning in engineering
higher education: Two decades of teaching competences in real environments. Procedia - Soc
Behav Sci [Internet]. 2010;2(2):1368–78. Available from:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.202
38. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Clark RE. Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work:
 An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and
inquiry-based teaching. Educ Psychol. 2006;41(2):75–86.
39. Holubova R. Effective teaching methods — Project-based learning in physics. US-China
Educ Rev [Internet]. 2008;5(12):27–36. Available from:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED504949.pdf
41. Jollands M, Jolly L, Molyneaux T. Project-based learning as a contributing factor to
graduates’ work readiness. Eur J Eng Educ. 2012;37(2):143–54.
42. Richardson J, Corleto C, Froyd J, Imbrie PK, Parker J, Roedel R. Freshman design projects
in the Foundation Coalition. In: Frontiers in Education Conference, 1998 FIE’98 28th
Annual. 1998. p. 50–9.
43. Bishop J, Verleger M. Testing the flipped classroom with model-eliciting activities and video
lectures in a mid-level undergraduate engineering course. Proc - Front Educ Conf FIE.
2013;161–3.
44. Abele E, Metternich J, Tisch M, Chryssolouris G, Sihn W, ElMaraghy H, et al. Learning
factories for research, education, and training. In: Procedia CIRP. 2015. p. 1–6.
45. Lamancusa JS, Jorgensen JE, Zayas-Castro JL, Ratner J. The Learning Factory - A new
approach to integrating design and manufacturing into engineering curricula. ASEE Conf
Proc. 1995;
46. Ssemakula, Mukasa E and Liao GY. Adaptation of the learning factory model for
implementation in a manufacturing laboratory. In: Proceedings of the American Society for
Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. 2003.
47. Malicky DM, Kohl JG, Huang MZ. Integrating a Machine Shop Class into the Mechanical
Engineering Curriculum: Experiential and Inductive Learning. Int J Mech Eng Educ. 2010;