Archive Material

(May contain scanning errors)

A Case Study of a Group-project in Aerospace Design Engineering

Martyn Pressnell
Original Location Chapter 17, in Using Group-Based Learning in Higher Education, Lin Thorley & Roy Gregory (eds), published1994 by Kogan Page, London, pps 123-126
Reproduced on the HE Academy website by kind permission of Taylor and Francis Ltd

Key words Group projects, Aerospace Design Engineering, assessment Summary This Chapter presents a study of group projects in the final year of an engineering degree which aims to simulate the engineering design processes and the personal skills required.

About HEC: HEC was a national project of the Royal Society of Arts focused on encouraging higher education institutions to develop programmes that enabled students to become more personally capable, and to share their experiences with others. HEC was set up in 1988 and was hosted by Leeds University and Leeds Metropolitan University from 1991 to 1997 and by Middlesex University till 2004. The HEC Archive comprises items submitted to national conferences, many of which have been published either in compilations or in HECs journal, Capability. As such the HEC Archive provides insights into issues and initiatives during that period.

Downloaded from http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/

Scanned by Keyline Consultancy for Middlesex University Press

From Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education, Lin Thorley & Roy Gregory (eds), Kogan Page 1994

Chapter Seventeen A Case Study of a Group Project in Aerospace Design Engineering

Martyn S Pressnell

Introduction
As the culmination of three years of study towards the BEng in aerospace engineering, students undertake a group aircraft design study. During this project students find that the difficulty of problems associated with group dynamics rivals that of the technical problems of aircraft design. The course aims to simulate the situation which occurs in industry during the early stages of a new aircraft design. At that time there will be relatively few engineers involved, but they will have a good deal of experience. Political and economic factors will invariably be present and will tend to produce obstacles only overcome by the most persistent design organization.

Organization of the project

The task specified for the project is topical, in that it is one of the most critical issues currently facing the aerospace industry, namely the regional airliner. About 100 students operate in groups of five or six. Their work is largely self-directed, with staff acting in a consultative or advisory role. The project represents one module of student work. It is recognized that students will not be able to fully design, or even fully specify, an aircraft in the time available. The intention is that they will sample the design experience and go as far as time and other constraints permit. The work requirement for each student designer is individually defined. Each student is expected to work as a collaborative partner within his or her team, to face the technical issues together, and to share the decision taking. The student team leader, responsible for organization and management, plays a unique role in promoting the harmony of the team and must be elected by the group with some care. Students are assigned to groups in a random order. Each group must nominate all individuals to group roles by the end of the first day of project work. Roles are specified as group leader and designers for five aircraft sections, namely wing, fuselage, tail unit, engine installation and undercarriage. Responsibilities for these roles are specified in some detail in the project brief. A member of staff is attached to each project group, in accordance with a five-week rota. It may be that a group wanting to do aerodynamics work will have a supervisor expert in structural design. It would then be important that the group makes full use of the advice immediately available, while ensuring that some group members pursue aerodynamics by self-directed reading and research. In other words, the group must forward plan and not be thrown into disarray by events. This situation is reflected in industry, where projects are managed to facilitate the interplay of all disciplines. Indeed, there is no step-by-step sequence by which the task will logically be accomplished. It will be helpful to take arbitrary decisions from time to time in order that work can proceed, even if ultimately the decision proves second best. The design groups are expected to imagine that they represent an international consortium of manufacturers, with the necessary financial capacity to launch a new aircraft. They will need to study competitive machines, but may not simply produce another airliner of similar capability. For
2

From Using Group-based Learning in Higher Education, Lin Thorley & Roy Gregory (eds), Kogan Page 1994

marketing reasons their solution must be modern and distinctive in style, ahead of, or certainly at, the' state of the art'. The project is timetabled to operate for three hours per week. There are 16 student groups, tutored by eight academic staff. There is also librarian support. Each member of academic staff supervises two groups at the rate of one hour per week per group. This cycles through a rota, so that each staff member handles eight groups in total. The programme is divided into four phases of supervision, the last week of which will be for staff/peer assessment of each student's effort. The course concludes with submission of portfolios of work and group presentations. During supervision, staff will act in the role of consultant. It is the responsibility of the group, acting under the general direction of their chosen leader, to maximize this consultancy opportunity. Emphasis will be on the group leader to organize and manage their group's effort, with the guidance of staff as required.

Assessment
Marks come from four individual phase assessments of 12 per cent each, (ie, 48 per cent), a group presentation (22 per cent) and an individual portfolio of work (30 per cent). The emphasis is on team activity, and the assessment reflects this throughout. In the four phases there is a strong element of peer assessment, each group member being required to complete an assessment of each of his or her peers in the group, using a phase assessment pro forma. The individual assessment is then discussed between the leader of the group and the supervisor, in private consultation. The supervisor meets with the whole group to receive general comments, and to ask pertinent questions of individuals. Finally, the supervisor discusses the work of the leader in his or her absence. The supervisor moderates and awards the marks as judged appropriate, completing the staff assessment form, which is similar to the students' form. Grades are published after the second and fourth phases, using the letter grades A (excellent) to F (fail). The actual presentation of the group's work is made by the leader, with contributions from some or all of the other members, as the group decides. The time allowed is 40 minutes, after which an overall assessment is made jointly by the supervisors present. The group is awarded a joint mark, each member being equally rewarded. However, in exceptional circumstances, if a member plays no part in the preparation or presentation, or is absent from the proceedings for no good reason, a zero mark may be recorded. The portfolio of individual work is a collection of the work undertaken, suitably indexed and introduced. Portfolios are assessed by a panel of supervisors. Typically the portfolio should contain:

a summary of work undertaken. The leader of a group should also include a summary of the organizational aspects of work specific to the role of leader. Others may comment on working as part of a team; general aspects of the aircraft designed, any work relevant to the individual role being specially identified. Common material such as specifications and drawings; a summary of calculations undertaken, with the results presented as graphs, or tables; drawings to show the layout of specific components assigned to the individual role. Schematic drawings and details as defined for the particular designer; a description of common policies adopted, including the methods of manufacture. In the case of the leader, a market strategy.