3D Printing and Additive Manufacturing;with WMG and Stratasys

WIHEA Seminar24th April 2019

2

• Development of autonomous vehicle control systems in a virtual environment

• Telemeterised connecting rods for Orthopaedic frames

• Design of a biogas production plant from agricultural waste

• Smart Hot Water System

• Vibration monitoring, performance evaluation and control of a lively structure

• Flywheel energy storage systems

• WUSAT-3 Wildlife Monitoring Satellite

• Railway Challenge (IMechE competition)

• Mobile Robotics (‘Rescue Robots’)

• Formula Student (Racing cars)

• ………

4th Year Group Projects in the School of Engineering

3

• Objective is to design and build a human-powered submarine according to the ISR /eISR competition regulations

• Annual Competition, alternating between US (ISR) and Europe/UK (eISR).

• ISR is sponsored by the US Foundation for Underwater Research & Education (FURE) and hosted biennially by the Naval Surface Warfare Centre at Carderock, MA. Judges include Admirals and NASA astronauts

• eISR sponsored by the IMarEST, Babcock International, DE&S (Defence Equipment & Support, part of the UK MoD), QinetiQ and other companies.

• Both events attract truly international competition, from countries as far afield as New Zealand, Canada, USA, Netherlands, Germany, Mexico and of course the UK.

Warwick Human-Powered Submarine

4

Warwick Human-Powered Submarine

First iteration (2014): HPS Shakespeare

5

Warwick Human-Powered Submarine

Subsequent developments (2015 – present): Godiva I - V

6

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpgRqtDd32Y&t=2s

Warwick Human-Powered Submarine

7

Warwick Human-Powered Submarine

Competition success:

2014 Shakespeare:• Winner of Day 3 Racing• ‘QinetiQ Award for Best Drama’• (2nd place poster and 3rd place presentation)

2015 Godiva I:• $1,000 Innovation Award

2016 Godiva II:• Best Design Report

2017 Godiva III:• Most Innovative Use of Composites• Best Design Outline• Third fastest in class

2018 Godiva IV:• DNQ

2019 Godiva V:• ???????

8

Introducing:Justin Cunningham (Marketing Manager, North East EMEA)Richard HoyMatt Jones

So: how can this technology help you in your teaching …?

Enhanced contextual problem solving by engagement in design and build competitions: A case study-based review.

Ian Tuersley & Kate Mawson,University of Warwick

HEA STEM Conference 2018:Creativity in Teaching, Learning and Student Experience

10

Perceived Benefits to the Students;

• Authentic Assessment (Frey et al, 2012)

• Enhanced student engagement through creative practices

(Zepke & Leach, 2010)

• Experiential Learning

• Legitimate Peripheral Participation (LPP)

• Real-World experience of sponsors, outreach, media coverage

(marketing/promotion)

• … all delivered in an environment of supportive competition.

11

Evidence of benefits?

Project marks against non-competition based projects:

64.0

66.0

68.0

70.0

72.0

74.0

76.0

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Ave

rage

Mar

k

Year

Group Project Average Marks 2013-17

Competition-based(average marks)

Not Competition-based(average marks)

(Each year comprises a total of ~25 projects, each comprising 6-8 students. Typically, about 20% of these will be ‘competition based’)

Paired t-testing suggests a very highly significant difference between the average marks –importantly, across the 1st/2(i) grade boundary.

12

Verena Oetzmann, (2016/2017 team leader):

“In addition to all the challenges that we women in

engineering face, being the female leader of an otherwise all

male team was a demanding but very rewarding role. The

lessons I have learnt throughout my time, coupled with the

many skills procured along the way, have been invaluable as

preparation for working life after university.

Despite being the most difficult venture that I have undertaken

at university, it is certainly among the most enjoyable,

rewarding and memorable experiences I have ever had.”

Evidence of benefits?

Student feedback:

13

Evidence of benefits?

Staff (Project Directors) feedback:

• Consistently elevated level of student engagement;o the end goal is ‘real’ (and often high-profile)

• Enhanced employment opportunities;o Reports of ‘competitive’ projects being a highlighted feature of job interviews.

Many engineering companies and organisations now target these events for graduate recruitment and ‘future leader’ programmes

o Establishes strong links with sponsor companies. A number of these students have gone straight into related internships or jobs as a direct result of their involvement with the project.

• Significantly improved ‘key skills’, such as;o Problem solving, team-working, planning/time management, budgetary

awareness etc.

Developing leadership skills through competition-based group projects.

Ian Tuersley & John Thornby,University of Warwick

HEA STEM Conference 2019:Delivering Next Generation Higher Education in STEM

15

• Literature identifies a competence gap between UG capabilities in teamwork (including leadership) vs. industry requirements; i.e. Willey and Garner (2008) and Martin et al (2005).

• Implicitly assumed that these skills will naturally develop with practice

• Keppell et al (2006) and Boud and Falchikov (2007) advocate that assessment design should promote and encourage these skills more explicitly

Does conventional group work actually achieve this?

Leadership and Teamwork Skills

16

• Terms “group” and “team” often used interchangeably

• Review by Fisher and Hunter (1997) identifies key features that set teams apart from groups, including: common goals, shared vision, mutual accountability

“work group becomes a team when shared goals are established, and effective methods to accomplish those goals are in place… members feel involved and valued, and their work is of higher quality”

– Söderhjelm et al (2018, p.203)

Leadership and Teamwork Skills

17

• Drawing on Tuckman’s (1965) theory: stages of small group development

Group work vs. “Teamwork”

From OKPalad (2015), based on Tuckman and Jensen (1977)

“Conventional” projects often remain here

Competition-based projects achieve a greater sense of shared vision, focus and mutual accountability

18

Teamwork and Leadership Attributes

Teamwork skillsLeadership skills

From OKPalad (2015), based on Tuckman and Jensen (1977)

19

• Conventional projects sometimes suffer from a lack of coherence among group members• Hangers-on / freeloaders

• Individuals’ priorities

• People aiming / settling for different outcomes

• Competitive project and self-selecting nature of participants tends to force those groups more quickly into norming and performing stages, where the leadership skills are most evident

Competitive Vs Conventional Projects

20

Possible Drawbacks?

• Competitive element may encourage ‘gaming’;

• research being conducted into improved ‘peer assessment’

methodologies

• Misplaced priorities;

• enjoyment of competitive elements can lead to too much time being

spent to the detriment of other, higher-stakes assessments.

21

Driving Teaching Excellence - How?

• We recommend the use of team-based projects in STEM

teaching environments.

• We recommend that such projects engage with (external)

competition events wherever possible

• Providing LPP via enforced deadlines , budgets and assessment.

• Achieving enhanced provision of teamwork and leadership skills

• If such competitions don’t exist?

• Create them! (potential for profile-raising engagement). We would be very

interested and willing to discuss opportunities.

(ian.tuersley@warwick.ac.uk, john.thornby@warwick.ac.uk or K.Mawson@warwick.ac.uk)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GlNfoLm4aYQ&t=10s&fbclid=IwAR18Ly_UpKmiizmgxOHy2e3tdE1vH8biWOCkG_Ll8QNSGPAvE-FO_Yz1TWk

22

References

Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. eds., 2007. Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term.

Routledge.

Fisher, S.G. and Hunter, T.A., 1997. Team or group? Managers’ perceptions of the differences. Journal of

Managerial Psychology, 12(4), pp.232-242.

Keppell, M., Au, E., Ma, A. and Chan, C., 2006. Peer learning and learning‐oriented assessment in

technology‐enhanced environments. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 31(4), pp.453-464.

Martin, R., Maytham, B., Case, J. and Fraser, D., 2005. Engineering graduates’ perceptions of how well they were

prepared for work in industry. European journal of engineering education, 30(2), pp.167-180.

OKPalad, 2015. CULCokpalad. [Online]. Last accessed 17 January 2019. Available from:

https://okpalad.wordpress.com/author/okpalad/.

Söderhjelm, T., Björklund, C., Sandahl, C. and Bolander-Laksov, K., 2018. Academic leadership: management of

groups or leadership of teams? A multiple-case study on designing and implementing a team-based development

programme for academic leadership. Studies in Higher Education, 43(2), pp.201-216.

Tuckman, B.W., 1965. Developmental Sequences in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, pp. 384-99.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C., 1977. Stages of Small-Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization

Studies, 2(4), 419–427

Willey, K. and Gardner, A., 2008. Improvements in the self and peer assessment tool SPARK: Do they improve

learning outcomes?. ATN Assessment, 1(1).