Session F3G

INCORPORATING PROJECT ENGINEERING AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE INTO THE MAJOR DESIGN EXPERIENCE

Joseph L.A. Hughes’

Abstract - The culminating major design experience is a critical element in students’ preparation for professional practice. Large, diverse programs face significant challenges in providing suficient and appropriate design opportunities that incorporate a wide range of issues and constraints, as required by Engineering Criteria 2000. With the switch from quarters to semesters in 1999, the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Georgia Tech introduced a new major design experience that addresses these limitations. All electrical engineering and computer engineering seniors complete a new course, Project Engineering and Professional Practice, followed by a specialized team-based design project. This new course, using a combination of lectures and interactive recitations, includes topics related to design methods, project management, teaming, engineering economics, ethics, risks, and professional issues. A formal paper and multiple presentations develop communication skills and provide a lead-in to the team project in the follow-on course. This paper describes the new course, emphasizing the unique elements, and summarizes initial assessment results.

Index Terms - Design methods, Engineering Criteria 2000, major design experience, professional issues.

INTRODUCTION

While not all engineering graduates are employed as design engineers, the ability to successfully complete meaningful design projects is one of the defining elements of preparation for professional practice. Thus, the culminating major design experience is one of the most important elements of an engineering curriculum. ABET Engineering Criteria 2000 [l] formalizes this major design requirement and also requires programs to demonstrate that their graduates have sufficient competence with regard to several outcomes that are more closely allied with professional preparation and practice than with traditional curricular topics.

With Georgia Tech’s switch from quarters to semesters in 1999, the School of Electrical and Computer Engineering introduced a new major design experience intended to address the ABET requirements and provide a consistent experience across a broad range of technical specialties within both the electrical engineering (EE) and computer engineering (CmpE) programs. This is complicated by the large size of Georgia Tech’s programs, which combined produce over 300 bachelor’s graduates per year.

Under the new structure, all EE and CmpE seniors complete a two-course sequence consisting of ECE 4000 - Project Engineering and Professional Practice - followed by a team-based design project course. The second course is selected from several options, including both general and highly specialized courses. As the common lead-in to the project courses, ECE 4000 covers design methods, project management, teaming, engineering economics, ethics, risks, and professional issues. A formal paper and multiple presentations develop research and communication skills.

Although both parts of the major design sequence are important, this paper focuses on the new Project Engineering and Professional Practice course, emphasizing its unique elements. A summary of assessment results and plans for course improvement also are provided.

THE MAJOR DESIGN EXPERIENCE

While recognizing its importance within the engineering curriculum, many departments find it difficult to effectively teach design, particularly in ways that approximate current industrial practices. Factors such as time and cost typically limit the scope of academic design projects, while many faculty members have little recent industrial experience (if any at all) and may feel unqualified to direct such projects.

Design Experience Objectives Criterion 4 of Engineering Criteria 2000 includes the following minimum requirements: “Students must be prepared for engineering practice through the curriculum culminating in a major design experience based on knowledge and skills acquired in earlier course work and incorporating engineering standards and realistic constraints that include most of the following considerations: economic; environmental; sustainability; manufacturability; ethical; health and safety; social; and political.” [I] It is important to note that the criterion does not specify that all elements of the major design experience must be found within a single course or project.

A program also must demonstrate that its graduates satisfy the mandated outcomes in Criterion 3. [l] While many of these outcomes are relatively easy to demonstrate, there are several “professional” outcomes that may not be included within traditional engineering courses. Depending upon its structure, the major design experience may effectively contribute to achieving some of these outcomes, including the following:

’ Joseph L.A. Hughes, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332-0250, joe.hughes@ece.gatech.edu 0-7803-6669-7/01/%10.00 0 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13,2001 Reno, NV

31“ ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference F3G-16

Session F3G

(d) an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams THE PROJECT ENGINEERING AND ( f ) an understanding of professional and ethical PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE COURsE

resDonsibilitv (g) an ability to communicate effectively (i) a knowledge of contemporary issues

Implementation Alternatives

Each institution’s implementation of the major design experience tends to have unique local elements. In recent years, multiple sessions at the Frontiers in Education Conference and the ASEE Annual Conference have been devoted to design courses. Several widely used course elements are summarized below; however, it should be noted that this is by no means an exhaustive list of options and that many programs use a combination of these techniques.

Several programs have developed separate courses that emphasize professional issues. [2]-[4] These courses may utilize seminars, case studies, or team projects. Many programs have integrated some of the professional issues into freshman programs [5]-[6], often in conjunction with an introduction to engineering design.

Design project courses exhibit wide variation in format. Some emphasize multidisciplinary [7] or cross-functional [8] teams. Others utilize industry-based projects [4], [9], [ 101 or national design competitions. [l 11 If there is not a separate professional issues course, then those topics may be introduced through lectures or assignments. [12] One innovative approach is service-based learning with projects that require students to address professional issues in the context of a community-based design project. [ 131-[ 141

Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses. Freshman programs may improve student motivation and retention, but clearly are not a culminating experience. Seminar courses are efficient for covering a wide range of professional topics, but generally are not designed to assess the extent to which students actually master the material. Forming multidisciplinary teams is difficult if there is a large disparity in the number of students among the various majors or specialties. Multidisciplinary and service-learning projects may not be closely aligned with a particular students’ technical specialization. The most innovative approaches tend to thrive because of a local champion who invests substantial effort into sustaining the program.

Large, diverse programs face additional challenges in providing sufficient and appropriate design opportunities, while ensuring that all graduates have satisfied the accreditation constraints. The most obvious limitation is the scaling of resources and staffing. For example, with over 300 graduates per year, a minimum of 75 industrial projects and sponsors would be needed each year to implement that approach for Georgia Tech’s EE and CmpE programs. Some disciplines, including electrical and computer engineering, may find it difficult to satisfy Criterion 4, since traditional discipline-specific senior-level design projects do not inherently require students to consider constraints related to environmental, social, or political concerns.

0-7803-6669-7/01/%10.00 0 2001 IEEE 316’ ASEE/IEEE Frontiers

F3G

In designing the new major design experience for EE and CmpE majors at Georgia Tech, the primary constraints were to satisfy ABET requirements and to provide a consistent design experience. Given the large size of the programs, it had to be administratively manageable, sufficiently flexible to accommodate multiple course sections and instructors, and to allow students to complete the requirements in any of the academic terms during the year. Ultimately, the decision was made to implement the major design experience as a two-course sequence; the common first course ensures consistency and content coverage, while the second course provides a culminating team-based project experience in an appropriate technical specialty for each student.

ECE 4000 was developed specifically to serve as the first course in the sequence. While certain elements were drawn from existing ECE courses, the outline and most of the content are new. The author was the principal developer of the new course and the lead instructor for an experimental section in Spring quarter 1999 (29 students) and the first four semester offerings, with enrollments of 276, 106, 77, and 168 students.

The basic course structure consists of two 50-minute lectures per week in a single large section (two sections in fall semester), plus a 75-minute recitation per week in sections of 15-20 students. All of the recitation sections are led by faculty members or lecturers, not graduate students. Grading is determined primarily by three exams (including the final) and a formal paper and presentation; assignments and attendance contribute a small portion of the grade.

Course Lectures

Figure 1 lists the topical outline for the course lectures. While the course has a primary lecturer, the faculty members leading recitation sections may provide one or two lectures each. The common lecture section also allows the use of outside speakers, which would not be practical if the course were taught in four or more traditional lecture sections. This approach provides scheduling flexibility, involves all of the instructors, and allows the use of specialists for some topics. However, care is needed to ensure that the students perceive the course as a rigorous, integrated unit rather than as a sequence of disjoint and independent talks.

The outline balances technical and non-technical issues throughout the semester and relies on two key themes - product lifecycle and economic impact of decisions - to tie the course together. There is some variation in content and topic order from term to term, depending upon the expertise of the primary lecturer and the availability of outside speakers. The course attempts to balance the breadth of coverage needed to understand the context of engineering practice with sufficient topical depth to allow the students to use the techniques to solve real engineering problems.

October 10 - 13,2001 Reno, NV in Education Conference -17

Session F3G

Product life-cycle (1 lecture hour) The design process (2 hours) -- Formal models -- Similarities and differences among disciplines -- Hierarchy/modularity/partitioning -- Needs, requirements, and specifications -- Quality Function Deployment Three key economic principles (1 hour) -- Time-value of money -- Assets vs. cash-flow -- One-time vs. recurring income and expenses Engineering economics (3 hours) -- Time value of money formulas -- Applications and examples Project management and scheduling (2 hours) Statistical models of manufacturing variation (2 hours) -- Product/process design trade-offs -- Effect of component variation on product design Manufacturing flow (2 hours) -- Defects, yield -- Design trade-offs, testing Professional issues (4 hours) -- Licensure, FE and PE exams -- The engineer as consultant or entrepreneur -- Sustainability and environmental issues Engineering ethics: models and examples (1 hour) Engineering disasters and risks (2 hours) -- Ethics failures vs. appropriate risks -- Riskheward trade-offs, risk analysis Legal issues: standards, liability, intellectual property (2 hrs) Reliability measures and prediction (1 hour) Software systems (2 hours) -- Development models -- Hardware/software co-design -- Software testing Testing principles for electronic circuits/systems (1 hour) Organization and fmances of high-tech fums (1 hour) Technology forecasting and roadmaps (1 hour)

FIGURE 1 TOPICAL OUTLINE FOR ECE 4000 LECTURES

Two aspects of the course deserve specific mention. The material on statistical models of manufacturing variation and manufacturing flow was derived from a concurrent engineering course that the author developed approximately a decade ago at the recommendation of a member of the School’s Industrial Advisory Board. The course was developed cooperatively with Motorola, and included industrial examples and case studies drawn from Motorola’s 6-sigma design practices. [15] This material serves to illustrate three important concepts: formal design methods, such as experiment-based design; applications of statistics to engineering problems; and the limitations of circuit design based on nominal values or worst-case analysis.

The sequence of topics on engineering ethics, engineering disasters, risks, and legal issues typically generates considerable class discussion. After a lecture on engineering ethics and a video describing several well-

0-7803-6669-7/01/!$10.00 0 2001 IEEE

known engineering disasters, students are asked to assign responsibility for disasters such as the explosion of the space shuttle Challenger, the collapse of the Hyatt walkway, and the collapse of the Tacoma Narrows bridge. These examples help students understand the challenge of balancing competing interests and illustrate that many engineering decisions do not have yeslno answers that can be easily evaluated by mathematical formulas and technical analysis.

Recitation Exercises

Weekly recitations are the other main element in the structure of ECE 4000. The small, faculty-led sessions are designed to be highly interactive and serve three primary purposes: group activities, such as brainstorming and consensus building; presentations to develop communication skills; and providing examples of how the principles discussed in lecture can be applied to specific problems. Student attendance is mandatory at the recitations and is included in the computation of the course grade.

Figure 2 lists the recitations topics used in Fall 2000. Each recitation lasts for 75 minutes. A wide variety of methods are used in the recitations, both to sustain student interest and to expose them to a wide range of techniques.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6. I . 8. 9. IO.

Informal speaking exercise Needs and requirements (QFD) Product design case study Economic decision-making exercise Career plan presentations and discussion (2 weeks) Statistical variation (beads and coins) Manufacturing process flow exercise Engineering project management Small group analysis of ethicdrisk situation Formal presentations (3 weeks)

FIGURE 2 RECITATION TOPICS FOR ECE 4000.

Several of the recitations require the students to prepare individual responses in advance, based on materials distributed the previous week. During the recitation, the students will use their prepared responses as the basis for the group activity. For example, prior to recitation 2, the students have been instructed to identify a set of customer needs and technical characteristics for a specific type of product and to develop a Quality Function Deployment diagram illustrating the relationships among these factors. During recitation, groups of 4 or 5 students then utilize brainstorming and consensus decision making techniques to develop a group response, which is presented to the entire recitation section. Finally, the instructor leads a discussion of both the technical issues and the effectiveness of the group decision-making processes.

Recitation 3 is organized as a case study, with the instructor leading the discussion by asking students questions about a product design example they studied in

October 10 - 13,2001 Reno, NV 3lSt ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

F3G-18

Session F3G

advance. Recitations 4 and 7 are guided problem solving sessions in which the instructor leads the class step-by-step through a complex engineering problem, allowing the groups time to work on each step before discussing the solution and leading them on to the next step in the problem. These recitations were designed to improve students’ ability to apply the economic and manufacturing principles discussed in lecture to specific problems.

Recitation 6 consists of a series of hands-on experiments related to sampling and statistical variation. Initially, students are shown a large container of colored beads. Each group takes a sample and counts the beads of each color. The results are then summarized and used to discuss a number of statistical properties related to sampling. The second set of experiments involves flipping coins to demonstrate the differences between random behavior in aggregate and the behavior of a single random source. Finally, these statistical issues are related to the characteristics and limitations of simulation as a tool for analyzing and verifying designs. Student reaction to this recitation generally has been very favorable. Two of the assignments, covering random value generation and the effects of component variation on circuit behavior are closely integrated with this recitation.

Three of the recitations are devoted to the development of communication skills, particularly oral presentations. During the first week, students give an unplanned 60-second speech in response to a randomly selected question on a general interest, non-technical topic. AAer the talks, the instructor discusses the experience, identifying key elements of good speaking technique and common areas of difficulty (e.g., filler words, body language, eye contact). Students are encouraged to work on evaluating and improving their speaking skills. Several weeks later, students make a planned 3-minute presentation that is graded on both content and speaking skills using a standard rubric. At the end of the semester, students make an 8-minute formal technical presentation using Powerpoint visuals and based on their research paper. These recitations provide a variety of speaking experiences, provide feedback and opportunities for improvement, and prepare the students for the presentations in the design project course.

Individual and Group Assignments

Both individual and group assignments are given during the course. Additionally, students are encouraged to work together in solving the study problems that are distributed. While they contribute slightly to the course grade, most of the assignments are designed to ensure that students are prepared to participate in the recitation activities. The assignments can be grouped into the following categories:

Individual preparation for recitations (QFD, design case study, Myers-Briggs types and organizational behavior, and ethicdrisk situations). Individual preparation of a resume and written career plan, which is used as the basis for a presentation.

0-7803-6669-7/01/%10.00 0 2001 IEEE

0 Small group (2 or 3 students) projects related to statistical sampling, random value generation, and analysis of component variation models. The major individual assignment is the formal report

and presentation, which requires the student to research, evaluate, and report on the design of a real product. This assignment involves a series of checkpoints: a one-page proposal, a topical outline and annotated bibliography, a formal paper, and presentation slides. Formal guidelines are provided for the paper, similar to those used for a typical conference paper. The slide guidelines are provided as a PowerPoint presentation, which can then be used as a template by the students. Students are strongly encouraged to select a product that is related to the area in which they plan to do their design project.

Course Management Issues

Not surprisingly, smooth operation of this course requires substantial course management effort, particularly when students are spread across two lectures and eight or more recitations. Additionally, since the lecture schedule may change slightly from term to term, it is necessary to ensure that the recitation schedule is properly synchronized with the lectures and that assignments are properIy distributed.

The other major management task is development and grading of exams. Because of the class size, grading is very time-consuming and requires the participation of multiple faculty members. Over several terms, the exam structure has evolved to a mixture of multiple-choice, numerical calculation, and short answer questions, with a longer essay question on the final exam. While the multiple-choice and numerical problems are easier to grade, they are not well suited to evaluating student understanding of some course topics. To ensure consistency, each short answer or essay question is graded by only one person.

ASSESSMENT There are two important assessment issues: “Does the course content and structure enable achievement of the desired outcomes?” and “To what extent are students achieving the desired outcomes?”. While these issues are somewhat interwoven, it is important to examine them separately.

Evaluation of the Course

The primary mechanism for student evaluation of the course is the online Georgia Tech Course Instructor Opinion Survey. The lecture and each recitation section are surveyed separately. The usefulness of this survey is limited by four major factors: the response rate has averaged only 36% (ranging from 25% to 46%); those who respond may not be representative of the entire class; the fixed set of questions does not match well to the ECE 4000 structure; and it is difficult to separate issues related to lecture content from lecture delivery, since multiple lecturers are involved. The survey also allows students to submit written comments.

October 10 - 13.2001 Reno. NV 3lSt ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

F3G-19

Session F3G

Additional evaluation of the effectiveness of the course has come from the faculty involved in teaching it. Since three to six faculty members are typically involved each term, a wide range of perspectives are provided.

During the first offering, in Fall 1999, both student comments and faculty evaluations identified problems related to the order and balance of material during the semester and the structure and grading of specific exam questions. These concerns were addressed by adjusting the topical outline, adding more problem solving exercises to the recitations, supplementing the textbook [ 161 with course handouts, and distributing study problems.

Even with these initial problems fixed, student response to the course remains mixed. Most terms, approximately 50% of the students agree or strongly agree with the survey statement “this course has been valuable to me,” while up to 20% disagree or strongly disagree. A small number of students every term adamantly object to the course, as expressed by comments such as “I already know all of this material,” “this isn’t ECE material,” or “this should be taught on the job, not in school.”

Other student concerns relate to the use of subjectively graded exam problem and the paper and presentation in determining grades, as well as the importance of lecture and recitation attendance and participation in mastering the material. Reactions to the use of multiple lecturers are mixed and specific lecturers tend to receive a mixture of positive and negative comments.

It is important to note that the negative comments and related concerns are not unique to this course. Engineering colleagues at other programs have reported similar results from attempts to introduce professional skills into their courses. Interestingly, colleagues in management have reported receiving similar comments from engineering students enrolled in management courses that utilize class discussions and case studies extensively. It also should be noted that the emphasis on student comments and evaluations in the early offerings of this course reflected an effort to quickly identify fixable problems with the course structure and administration; there was no intention or effort to modify the course content just to placate the students.

Finally, some of the most positive student comments have come informally several months after completing the course, when they discover during a job interview that the company actually uses something discussed in class, such as 6-sigma design methods or Quality Function Deployment.

Student Performance

The primary mechanism for evaluation of individual student performance is the grading of exam problems and the paper and presentation. As expected, there is a wide range of observed student performance. Variation in preparation appears to affect both students’ performance and their perceptions of the course. For example, a student with a strong statistics background may consider counting beads and flipping coins to be a waste of time, while another

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 0 2001 LEEE

student may find it a useful illustration for understanding a concept not previously grasped.

Over 40% of the EE and CmpE majors participate in the co-op program. These students tend to be stronger academically and, obviously, have more industrial experience than the average student. While this experience can be beneficial in the recitations and contribute to the group learning process, some co-op students have complained that the ECE 4000 content is redundant or doesn’t match with their own employer’s practices.

The most notable variation has been observed in the formal paper and presentation. There are a few students each term who struggle to complete this assignment. Students have reported that after searching for a week they have been unable to locate a single technical article that describes the design of a product, when a quick search of one of the online library databases (such as INSPEC) yields dozens of such articles. Other students can readily find materials on web sites, but seem poorly prepared to locate material in a library. The most difficult element seems to be writing a meaningful analysis of the design process for their product; this is probably not surprising, since it is likely to be the first time many of the students have been asked to perform such an analysis.

One of the primary goals of ECE 4000 is to improve student achievement of the professional outcomes in ABET Criterion 3. In Fall 2000, a survey was distributed on the first day of class asking the students to rate the importance of each of the outcomes and to self-assess their competence on each outcome. The same survey was also completed as part of the final exam. Table I summarizes the results of these surveys, based on approximately 155 responses. The largest gains in competence occurred on the outcomes related to broad education, understanding of professional and ethical responsibility, design of experiments, and design ability. All of these topics are significant aspects of ECE 4000, suggesting that the course is succeeding in achieving the goal of improving students’ competence in these areas.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Changing industry expectations and ABET accreditation requirements have forced engineering programs to devote more effort to the teaching of design and professional practices. ECE 4000, Project Engineering and Professional Practice, was designed to ensure that all Georgia Tech EE and CmpE students develop at least minimal competence with respect to professional issues and to better prepare them for their major design projects.

This course provides a rigorous, academic approach to the issues. The course combines large lectures with small recitations, ensuring more consistent coverage of lecture material, while providing opportunities for group learning activities and student presentations. It is not a seminar in which students are just exposed to topics; instead, it requires them to actually use the knowledge to solve problems.

October 10 - 13,2001 Reno, NV 31“ ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

F3G20

Session F3G

Outcome

ComDonent. process (d) function on multi-

problems

ethical responsibility (g) communicate

(h) broad education, societal context (i) need and ability for I lifelong learning I U) contemporary issue

modern engr tools

TABLE I ‘EY OF ABET CRITERION 3 OUTCOMES

I I ~~~

4.15 I 4.08 I 4.08 I 4.06 I (.02)

4.26 4.17 3.78 3.89

Preliminary assessment results suggest that the course is achieving the goal of improving student competence with respect to the professional issues.

Several changes are being implemented in ECE 4000 to more tightly integrate the two courses in the major design experience. The product case study will most likely be replaced by an evaluation of a student design project completed in a previous term. The individual research paper will be replaced by a group project proposal, although many of the research elements will be incorporated into other assignments. In many cases, the project evaluation and proposal will actually be the first steps in the students’ major design project. However, reflecting both the varying needs of the different design projects and the operational constraints of a large program, complete integration of ECE 4000 with all of the subsequent courses will not occur.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT Russ Callen, Giorgio Casinovi, John Dorsey, Christiana Honsberg, John Matthews, William Sayle, Jay Schlag, and Whit Smith have served as lecturers and/or recitation instructors for ECE 4000. Their participation and insights have been critical in both the successful teaching of the course and in its ongoing evaluation and modification.

r11

P I

r31

r41

P I

r61

171

P I

[91

REFERENCES

Engineering Accreditation Commission, “2000-2001 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs,” Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc., Baltimore, MD.

Arora, V.K., “Integration of Liberal Arts, Management, and Technical Skills for Professional Development,” Proc: 1998 ASEE Annual ,

Conference &Exposifion, Seattle, WA, June 1998. , ,

Nagurney, L.S., Keshawarz, M.S., and Adrezin, R.S., “A Junior Course in Engineering Design and Society,” Proc. 3Vh ASEEIIEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Kansas City, MO, October 2000, p. F4ClO.

Farbrother, B.J., “A New Approach to Electrical & Computer Engineering Programs at Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology,” Proc. 1997 ASEE Annual Conference &Exposition, Milwaukee, WI, June 1997.

Kellar, J.J., et al, “A Problem Based Learning Approach for Freshman Engineering,” Proc. 3Uh ASEELEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Kansas City, MO, October 2000, pp. F2G7-F2G10.

Jacobson, D., and Licklider, B., “Freshman Year Learning Communities in a Computer Engineering Program,” Proc. 3Uh ASEEDEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Kansas City, MO, October 2000, pp. T2Bl-T2B6.

Shirland, L.E., and Manock, J.C., “Collaborative Teaching of’ Integrated Product Development: A Case Study,”IEEE Trans. Educafion, vol. 43, no. 3, August 2000, pp. 343-348.

Rover, D., “Perspectives on Learning in a Capstone Design Course,” Proc. 3Uh ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Kansas City, MO, October 2000, pp. F4C14-F4C19.

Moore, D., and Farbrother, B., “Pedagogical and Organizational Components and Issues of Externally Sponsored Senior Design Teams,” Proc. 30!h ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in,Education Conference, Kansas City, MO, October 2000, pp. FIC6-FlCll.

[ 101 Peterson, J.N., “Experiences in Capstone Design Projects: Partnerships with Industrial Sponsors,” Proc. ZOO0 ASEE Annual Conference &Exposition, St. Louis, MO, June 2000.

Design Course: The Result of a Fifteen-Year Evolution,” IEEE Trans. Education, vol. 44, no. 1, February 2001, pp. 67-75.

[ 121 Ray, J.L., “The Unrecognized Side of Senior Capstone Design,” Proc.

[ l l ] Paulik, M.J., and Krishnan, M., “A Competition-Motivated Capstone

2000 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, St. Louis, MO, June 2000.

[I31 Oakes, W.C., et a], “EPICS: Interdisciplinary Service Learning Using Engineering Design Projects,” Proc. 3Uh ASEELEEE Fronfiers in Education Conference, Kansas City, MO, October 2000, pp. T2F4- T2F9.

[14] Catalano, G.D., Wray, P., and Cornelio, S., “Compassion Practicum: A Capstone Design Experience at the United States Military Academy,”J. Engineering Education, vol. 89, no. 4, October 2000, pp. 471-474.

[15] Hughes, J.L.A., ed., Concurrent Engineering: A Designer’s Perspective, Student Guide and Instructor’s Supplement, Rolling Meadows, Illinois, Motorola University Press, 1992.

1998. [ 161 Hyman, B., Fundamenfals of Engineering Design, Prentice Hall,

0-7803-6669-7/01/$10.00 0 2001 IEEE October 10 - 13,2001 Reno, NV 3lSt ASEEOEEE Frontiers in Education Conference

F3G-21