Project-led PBL with a Mixed-Mode Approach for aMidterm Freshman Course in Electrical EngineeringRealizing All-Electric Powertrains for Vehicles

Erland StrömstedtDiv. of Electricity, Dept. of Electrical Engineering

Uppsala UniversityUppsala, Sweden

erland.stromstedt@angstrom.uu.se

Abstract—This Full Paper on Innovative Practise introduces asuccessful pedagogical approach to active student learning andstudent centred teaching in a large project course in electricalengineering for 70 midterm freshmen students in two educationalprograms at Uppsala University. Each program is challenged withthe complex electrical engineering task of realizing an all-electricpowertrain from component level for a passenger car. The first tworounds of the course struggled and not until the presentedapproach was taken into practise were the main project objectivesachieved. The principles for the approach are based on project–led PBL with a so-called mixed-mode approach by adding a varietyof supporting content supplied through various teaching methodsand by applying adapted concurrent project management methods.The paper addresses the arguments for the approach, the coursedesign, objectives, and some of the successful solutions over thelast 6 years. The approach has been evaluated by extensive writtenstudent course evaluations, student examination results, theexperiences of the team of teachers from faculty, and comparedover time. It is shown how the approach effectively enablesachievement of the project and learning objectives, increasessubject interest, provides valuable experiences from a project workenvironment, and in the process inspires and motivates studentstowards a career in engineering, thereby increasing the retentionwithin the education. Both students and teachers have greatlyappreciated the course and it is likely that the presented approachcan be used also in other similar project courses in engineering.

Keywords—Pedagogical approach, PBL, mixed mode, projectcourse, electrical engineering, freshman, powertrain, vehicles.

I. INTRODUCTION

Demands on engineers are constantly developing, givingrise to new demands on the engineering education. TheFuture of Jobs report 20181 from the World Economic Forumstates the top 10 skill demands for 2022 as follows:

1. Analytical thinking and innovation2. Active learning and learning strategies3. Creativity, originality and initiative4. Technology design and programming5. Critical thinking and analysis6. Complex problem-solving7. Leadership and social influence8. Emotional intelligence9. Reasoning, problem-solving and ideation10. Systems analysis and evaluation

Today, classical engineering skills need to be combinedwith skills in cooperation, communication, decision-making,life-long learning, multidisciplinary knowledge, creativity,social responsibility and sustainable development, amongother transferable skills [1-6]. Meanwhile, practicing

1 http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2018.pdf [accessed 2020-04-13]

engineers are responsible for solving uncertain, complex,open-ended workplace problems [7]. With these demands,problem-based learning (PBL) has been widely adopted inengineering education, often in project-oriented or project-led form, during the last 50 years because of its expectedbenefits in improving students’ academic achievement andtransferable skills [8]. However, there is a global recognitionthat, the prevailing engineering education has, in general, notadjusted to the demands made on the modern engineer [1-6,9-13]. To overcome this, established engineering educationneeds to adopt new and different instructional methods.

Engineering education has in recent years been movingtowards more implementation of student-centered teachingand student-activated learning based on the fundamentalprinciple that students are motivated by themselves andbecome owners of the learning process [14, 15]. Felder et al.[9] identifies 7 instructional methods, including establishingthe relevance of the course material and to teach inductively,to balance concrete and abstract information, to promoteactive learning in the classroom and to use cooperativelearning. Student-activating learning activities such asseminars, group projects, giving the students realisticproblems and relating the teaching to current research havebeen pointed out as effective for teaching non-technical skillsin engineering education [10]. Teamwork activities based onproject-based learning and implementing theory in real-worldpractical exercises can also improve creativity, given that thestudents are able to influence how the task is designed andsolved [6, 16]. Another method particularly effective forlearning beyond pure technical competence is pointed out byLombardi [17], in which authentic learning and continuousevaluation is combined in a context similar to the real world.A mixed-mode approach has been argued by Mills andTreagust [11], where project-based teaching is mixed withtraditional teaching and that it would be the most suitablemethod for the engineering education. Douglas et al. [18] hasstressed the importance of engineering students practicing onsolving open-ended engineering problems.

In February 2020, J. Chen, A. Kolmos and X. Du from theAalborg Centre for Problem-Based Learning in EngineeringScience and Sustainability under the auspices of UNESCO,Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark, published acomprehensive review on forms of implementation andchallenges of PBL in engineering education [19]. Earlierreviews on PBL exist in literature [20-26], mostly withinmedicine, but according to Chen et al. [19] they are all basedon the assumption that PBL is uniform, thereby neglectingthe diversity in practice and how PBL vary in different

methods. Chen et al. [19] also identified that challenges inPBL implementation was little addressed in earlier literature.The recently published review article by Chen et al. [19]presents a summarized overview of the current diverse PBLpractices and clarifies individual, institutional and culturalchallenges. 108 English written academic publications werefound in four databases (EBSCO, ERIC, Web of Science andScopus) by limiting the search to empirical research onimplementation of PBL in College/University engineeringeducation for the last 20 years. Among all the interestingconclusions they also concluded that there is a need for moreempirical evidence to illustrate the efficiency of PBL atdifferent levels, to give instructions, and to share experiencesfor better implementation of PBL strategies. The authorscalled for more details on learning objectives, PBL principles,students’ learning outcomes, learning and teamworkexperiences, and impact factors in current PBL practices toprovide guidance for engineering educators to optimizecurrent PBL courses, curricula, and program designs. Theauthors also called for empirical evidence of PBL design withmixed-mode approaches and stated that “when various PBLpractices are facing similar challenges, more exploration isneeded through empirical research to share effectivestrategies and experience, cope with current challenges, andforesee the future development directions of PBL.”

This article presents a case study of a project-led mixed-mode PBL approach for a midterm freshman project coursein electrical engineering. The article explains the mixed-mode method of PBL with reference to literature. Detailedinstructions are given for the course design with the mixed-mode approach. Learning objectives, as well as projectcontent, are explained. Experiences are shared and empiricalevidence provided on a course level from 7 years ofimplementation. Section II describes the overall method ofthe PBL approach as well as the assessment methods adoptedin the article. Section III presents practical implementation ofthe approach in the course. Section IV summarizes the resultsof the assessment, and section V discusses the impact of amixed-mode project-led PBL approach, partly in terms ofperformance, and partly in terms of how well the approachmanages to deal with the challenges, with brief conclusionsin section VI.

II. METHOD

The course presented in this article is based on a project-led PBL method with a mixed-mode approach to teaching andlearning. In 2014, M. Savin-Baden presented a conceptualframework for various constellations of PBL practices [27].The mixed-mode approach presented in this article includeselements from several of the PBL constellations in Savin-Baden’s framework, and combines it with the concept ofmixed-mode described by Mills and Treagust [11], whereopen-ended, ill-structured PBL activities in a project contextare combined with structured traditional course elements,such as classroom lectures, various kinds of workshops,seminars and structured laboratory exercises, to name a few.

The resulting method consists of a unique set of combinedPBL practices carried out in a project format on campus,combined with selected traditional course elements wherecourse elements are inserted in parallel with project elements.The traditional course elements need to be carefully adaptedto the project content and context, to the needs of the students,and with regard to a detailed timing of introduction. The

purpose of the traditional course elements is to support theplanned project-led PBL activities by ramping up thestudents’ collective knowledge, readiness and abilities inorder to prepare them for the tasks within the project. Ideallythe students reach a new level of common understanding afterthe introduced course elements, which facilitates productivecollaboration and enables efficient achievement of bothlearning and project objectives. Since we are dealing withfreshman students, there is a particular need of expedientexpansion of their knowledge base and to train their abilitiesaccurately and adequately. This is necessary if they are tocope with the real-world, often open-ended, and relatively ill-structured assignments within their project work. The workprocesses methodology, especially within the transferableskills, may also need facilitation, or scaffolding, to overcomehurdles known beforehand by faculty in order to secureintended implementation of the expected methods to beutilized. It is thus important to equip the students with theright knowledge, methods and “tools”, and to ensure aprocess for adequate and expedient learning of those “tools”.The gain in elevated abilities and individual growth occursthereafter, when the students implement the “tools” andmethods within the project. This is particularly important inhighly interconnected projects with many participants, sincepeople need to speak the same language and be able tocollaborate and cooperate efficiently. The process ofachieving learning objectives is benefitted, especially withregard to transferrable skills, with the aspired side effect ofcreating the circumstances for achieving project objectives.Both categories of objectives need to be achieved within thelimited time frame of the course. Either the project objectivesare successfully achieved with a delivery of a verified andvalidated end product or the project is abruptly halted with atleast a chance of reaching learning objectives. Achievingproject objectives is a very valuable experience of satisfactionamong the students. It becomes an inspiration affecting thestudents’ views of the entire education. It supports identityformation, elevates subject interest, and increases retention inengineering education, among other things. [28]

In a large project with 30 students or more, subgroups canovercome many of the difficulties in large group interaction[29, 30]. The size of the subproject groups, i.e. collaborativelearning groups, are important for group dynamics. In oursetting, 5 – 7 students per subproject group tends to result inthe best outcome, which we also find support for in literature[30, 31]. A large project with freshman students subdividedinto subproject groups also need tight project management,scaffolding and supervision. This is carried out by a team ofteachers. The head teacher leads, manages and supervises theentire project, while the other teachers in the team assumesthe roles of subproject leaders, each one focusing on thedevelopment of different subsystems and how theassignments should be structured for the students within thesubjects related to the subsystems. The head teacher leads theproject sometimes in direct contact with the students andsometimes through the other teachers who sort of acts asmiddle management. Project meetings, control documentsand various channels of communication are used. The headteacher also supervises a number of cross-functional teamswith students from each subproject with aim of coordinatingspecific joint tasks necessary to reach the objectives for theentire project. The subproject leaders are experts within theirrespective technical field of focus within each subproject.

Students focus on their tasks, on learning and operating asproject and subproject members. Some students participate incross-functional teams, which can be centering on productverification and/or final assembly and validation of thecombined system with all subsystems operating together.

Project management and other selected subjects aimed tosupport the progress are initially introduced through lectures.Project management is however expected to be experiencedin action and learned from observing the teachers acting asproject and subproject leaders. Management principles andcontrol documents are agreed upon and each organizationallevel has a set of predefined tools. Project management isimportant for freshman students to observe and familiarizewith during their first academic project, but only in thecapacity of project participant. They will be challenged withthe responsibility of project management in later courses.

III. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION

The mixed-mode project-led PBL approach has beenimplemented in this on-campus course named “Project workin electrical engineering” for 15 credits (60 credits constitutesa year). It is included in the Bachelor and Master of Scienceprograms in electrical engineering at Uppsala University, andoffered to 70 registered midterm freshman students (approx.35 students per program) each year from the end of Octoberto mid-March. Learning objectives center on transferableskills, which constitutes a framework we fill with relevanttechnical content based on the requirements within theselected project. After passing the project course the studentshould, according to the syllabus, be able to:

A) Apply previous and independently acquired newknowledge to, under supervision, contribute toconstructing and realizing a solution to a complexelectrical engineering task.

B) Verify that a proposed solution meets a givenspecification.

C) Independently search for information to answer agiven question.

D) Plan and implement both a shorter and a longer oralpresentation.

E) Write a technical report and present the mostimportant results on a poster.

In general, the complex electrical engineering task inpoint (A) above can either be several different tasks managedin smaller completely separate projects for teams of about 7students/project, or be a joint task in a large project involvingall students. We have chosen a large project based on a jointtask of realizing an all-electric propulsion system/powertrainto be implemented in a passenger car, giving the course thenickname "the electric car course". It is our opinion thatstudents benefit from gaining experience from participatingin large projects placing higher demands on communication,interaction and collaboration, among other things.

In the fall of 2013 the division of electricity acquired twoused Volvo cars of model V40 with the internal combustionengine, flywheel, exhaust system, fuel tank, and airbagsremoved. In each course round two projects are conducted inparallel, with one educational program of 35 students perproject. Each project is subdivided into 5 subprojects with 7students/subproject. Each project receives a car at the start ofthe course. In the projects, students are actively challengedby relatively open-ended and ill-structured tasks to design

and build their subsystems from the smallest componentlevel, mechanically and electrically. Verification is firstperformed on subsystem level and then on system level in atest bench. Finally validation is performed with all systemsimplemented in the car during a test drive. The main projectobjective is to implement the powertrain incl. all subsystemsin the car and to demonstrate system performance during thefinal test drive. One of the objectives is to reach 50 km/h ona 300-400 m long road strip outside the University workshop.Another is to provide enough power and battery capacity forthe operation. Other project objectives relate to system andsubsystem performance and the operational abilities of thecar. The technical content in the project and the division oftasks among subprojects change a little from year to year, buta typical distribution of subprojects content is the following:

1) Electric motor with gearbox connection in the car andtemperature measurements on the motor;

2) Electrical inverter for sequencing the power supply tothe electric motor, temperature measurements on theinverter, measurements of AC-current and voltage;

3) Motor control system program, measurements of therotor position and angular velocity of the motor;

4) Graphical user interface, a data acquisition system forlogging measured data, multipurpose printed circuitboards, various measurements, such as the outputtorque of the rotor in the electrical motor;

5) Energy storage, battery management system, humanuser interface for manual control of the car, start andstop circuits, emergency stop, fuses and breakers,measurement of battery state of charge, DC-currentand voltage.

Between course rounds tasks can be added, subtracted,substituted and redistributed among the subprojects. For twoyears we had a sixth subproject on remote distance sensingaround the car with a separate GUI. It got removed in favorof core technologies focusing on the powertrain. The controlsystem and the data acquisition and measurement systems areall controlled by LabVIEW software using myRIO hardwarefrom National Instruments, which have been selected from aneducational standpoint [32]. All subprojects receive a myRIOmodule. All myRIOs are, after final assembly, used in eachcar in an interconnected distributed system.

Table I presents the project course design, with projectelements (PE), course elements (CE), active time spent foreach element, deadlines, a description of each activity, with astated relation to the learning objectives. The basics in projectwork methodology are, for instance, taught in lecture 9 as apart of a CE denoted CE-L9. Some elements relate to morethan one learning objective. The project work is divided into7 phases outlined in table I. The phases signify the differentcharacteristics of the work carried out within each phase.Photographs from the course activities are presented in fig. 1

Apart from main tasks in electrical engineering, it wasdecided that all subprojects should include mechanical tasks,various measurements tasks and software programming.Subproject objectives were developed based on the technicalrole of the respective subsystem within the powertrain andunder the guidance of the subproject supervisors. A lot ofdifferent control documents are used for project management,including meeting protocols. Most control documents areprepared ahead of the course, since it would take too muchtime to develop from scratch during the planning phase and

WEEK 44 Course start and project introduction phaseAbbrev.: Course/Project Element (CE/PE): Time (min): Comment/Explanation: Learning Obj.:CE/PE – L1 Lecture 1: Course introduction and project kick-off 90 Separated into part A and part B (See below). A – F

Part A) Course introduction (45) Introduction to the subject of electric cars, pedagogical approach,course objectives, structure, content, examination, grading criteria.

Part B) Project kick-off (45) Project introduction, objectives, organization, time plan, cognitivetools, communication, indicative system overview, security, etc.

CE – L2 Lecture 2: Technical subject common to the project 90 Introduction to electronics and electrical components. ACE – L3 Lecture 3: Technical subject relating to subproject 1 90 Introduction to electric motor technology. ACE – L4 Lecture 4: Technical subject relating to subproject 2 90 Introduction to power electronics. ACE – L5 Lecture 5: Technical subject relating to subproject 3 90 Introduction to electric motor control. ACE – L6 Lecture 6: Technical subject relating to subproject 4 90 Introduction to measuring technology for electric vehicles. ACE – L7 Lecture 7: Technical subject relating to subproject 5 90 Introduction to electric powertrains and battery systems. A

Subproject groups randomly formed by head teacher Collaborative learning groups, 7 students/subproj. prior to PE-SPM1.PE – SPM1 Subproject meeting 1 90 Supervised subproject kick-off. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, C

WEEK 45 Project planning and study phaseCE – L8 Lecture 8: LabVIEW & myRIO, part 1 90 Guest lecture by National Instruments (Ni) on the software & device. ACE – L9 Lecture 9: Project work methodology 90 Introduction to project planning and management methodology. APE – SPM2 Subproject meeting 2 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CCE – LVWS1 LabVIEW workshop 1 90 Supervised computer tutorials w. exercises. 2 occasions (1 per proj.). ACE – WSIS Workshop on information/literature search 90 Demo. and supervised computer exercises. 2 occasions (1 per proj.). C

WEEK 46 Project planning and study phaseCE – L10 Lecture 10: Collaborative groups 90 Introduction to group dynamics, human behavior and conflicts. ACE – LVWS2 LabVIEW workshop 2 90 Supervised computer tutorials w. exercises. 2 occasions (1 per proj.). APE – SPM3 Subproject meeting 3 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CCE – L11 Lecture 11: The myRIO in-depth 90 In-depth lecture on the embedded device for multiuses in the course. ACE – LVWS3 LabVIEW workshop 3 – implementing myRIO 90 Supervised computer tutorials w. exercises. 2 occasions (1 per proj.). A

WEEK 47 Project planning and study phaseCE – L12 Lecture 12: Introduction of a 3 step laboratory series 90 Introduction of equipment, material, exercises and soldering theory. A

– ”The little electric car” Labs will provide simplified system comprehension for the projects.CE – Lab1 Lab 1: ”Power electronics” – 1st stage in lab. series. 180 Produce and verify electric circuit board. 5 occasions (2 subproj./occ.). ACE – LVWS4 LabVIEW workshop 4 – individual assignments 90 Supervised computer tutorials w. exercises. 2 occasions (1 per proj.). APE – SPM4 Subproject meeting 4 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CPE – P1 Project meeting 1 90 1) Status update from the project leader (head teacher); 2) Students A, D

discuss project in cross-cutting splinter meetings; 3) Project leaderheads joint session with subproject supervisors and students reporting;4) Decisions are taken on important project related common issues.2 occasions (1 per project).

WEEK 48 Subsystem design and construction phaseCE – Lab2 Lab 2: ”Electric DC-motor” – 2nd stage in lab. series 135 Measure and characterize a DC-motor. 5 occasions (2 subproj./occ.) APE – SPM5 Subproject meeting 5 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CDEADLINE1 Submission of individual LabVIEW assignment result files Electronic upload of individual result files to the course homepage on A, B, C

– introduced during CE-LVWS4 the Student Portal Internet learning platform by the end of the week.

WEEK 49 Subsystem design and construction phaseCE – L13 Lecture 13: Oral presentation techniques 90 Guest lecture by the University language workshop specialist. DCE – Lab3 Lab 3: ”Motor control with Labview” 90 Create a LabView code to run a toy car using the produced electric A

– 3rd stage in lab. series circuit board from lab. 1 and the electric DC-motor from lab. 2.The created system emulates a simplified electrical powertrain.

PE – SPM6 Subproject meeting 6 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, C

WEEK 50 Subsystem design and construction phasePE – SPM7 Subproject meeting 7 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CCE – SEM1 Seminar 1 135 1) Group-based 12 – 15 min oral student presentations by subprojects A, C, D

on applied method and theory. 2) Examiner and student peer assess-ment with oral and written feedback on technical content and presen-tation technique. 2 occasions (1 per project). Last 30 min are organizedas a project meeting for brief status updates and decision making.

DEADLINE2 Submission: Written draft of subproject method and theory Required upload on the course homepage, and a valued opportunity E– intended to provide students with instructional feedback to acquire written feedback from the examiner before the final

report is due at the end of the course. 10 drafts (1 per subproject).

W. 51-01 Winter intermission – a three week breakNo course activity. Projects awaiting ordered deliveries. Week 51: Students have exam in another course.

Week 52-01: Holiday rest and studying for written exam in week 02.

WEEK 02 Subsystem design and construction phaseCE – Exam Written exam 180 The exam is limited to the contents in CE – L3, L4, L5, L6, L7 and L9. A

Together with participation in Seminar 1, it represents 3 credits.CE – L14 Lecture 14: Practical workshop guidelines and security 60 Guest lecture by a mechanical workshop specialist at the University. APE – SPM8 Subproject meeting 8 90 Supervised subproject meetings. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CCE – SSW Supervised security walk-through in the assembly hall 20 Technician responsible for the assembly hall takes the students on A

a walk-through the assembly hall while explaining security issues.10 walk-throughs (1 per subproject).

TABLE I. SUMMARIZED OUTLINE FOR THE COURSE ROUND FROM FALL 2018 TO SPRING 2019. EACH COURSE- AND PROJECT ELEMENT IS ABBREVIATEDIN THE 1ST COLUMN (FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES) AND STATED IN FULL IN THE 2ND COLUMN. EFFECTIVE TIME FOR EACH ELEMENT IS STATED IN THE 3RD COLUMN.COMMENTS/EXPLANATIONS ARE STATED FOR EACH ELEMENT IN THE 4TH COLUMN, AND RELATED COURSE LEARNING OBJECTIVES IN THE 5TH COLUMN.

CONT. TABLE I: SUMMARIZED OUTLINE FOR THE COURSE ROUND FROM FALL 2018 TO SPRING 2019.

WEEK 03 Subsystem design and construction phasePE – SPM9 Subproject meeting 9 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CPE – P2 Project meeting 2 90 Supervised project meeeting. PE – P2 has the same structure of A, D

activities as PE – P1 in week 47. 2 occasions (1 per project).

WEEK 04 Subsystem design and construction phasePE – SPM10 Subproject meeting 10 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, C

WEEK 05 Subsystem design and construction phasePE – SPM11 Subproject meeting 11 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CCE – L15 Lecture 15: LabVIEW & myRIO, part 2 90 Guest lecture by NI. Network implementations between 5 myRIOs. ACE – LVWS5 LabView workshop 5 180 Supervised computer tutorials w. excercises. 2 occasions (1 per proj.) APE – P3 Project meeting 3 90 Supervised project meeeting. PE – P3 has the same structure of A, D

activities as PE – P1 in week 47. 2 occasions (1 per project).

WEEK 06 Subsystem design and construction phasePE – SPM12 Subproject meeting 12 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CCE – L16 Lecture 16: Scientific writing and poster production 90 Guest lecture by the University language workshop specialist. A, E, F

WEEK 07 Subsystem design and construction phasePE – SPM13 Subproject meeting 13 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CDEADLINE3 Factory approval test (FAT) 1 completed by subprojects Midweek, before ”Technical demonstration 1". FAT 1 is com- B

(Result: subsystems verified) pletely processed within subprojects. Written specifications forFAT 1 are approved by each supervisor before FAT 1 is performedin week 6 and 7, resulting in verified powertrain subsystems.

PE – TD1 Technical demonstration 1 (Exam of product, stage 1) 20 Examination of verified powertrain subsystems realized by the A, B, Dstudents in the subprojects and verified through FAT 1. Technicaldemonstrations are carried out in the assembly hall, while stu-dents present results from FAT 1 and hand over test protocols.10 occasions (1 per subproject).

PE – P4 Project meeting 4 90 Supervised project meeeting. PE – P4 has the same structure of A, Dactivities as PE – P1 in week 47. 2 occasions (1 per project).

DEADLINE4 Joint submission of specification for FAT 2 of powertrain End of week, 2 submissions (1 per project), to be approved by Bproject leader (a.k.a. head teacher & examiner) and supervisors.The 5 subprojects in each project collaborate to create aspecification for FAT 2 of the assembled powertrain. FAT 2 isperformed by each project outside the car in a test rig (see fig. 1).

WEEK 08 Test phase for assembled powertrain systemPE – SPM14 Subproject meeting 14 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, C

WEEK 09 Test phase for assembled powertrain systemPE – SPM15 Subproject meeting 15 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, CDEADLINE5 FAT 2 completed by projects (Result: powertrain verified) Mid-week to end of week, before ”Technical demonstration 2". BPE – TD2 Technical demonstration 2 (Exam of product, stage 2) 30 Examination of verified powertrains assembled in the testrigs. A, B, D

Technical demonstrations are carried out in the assembly hall,while students present results from FAT 2 and hand over testprotocols.

PE – P5 Project meeting 5 90 Supervised project meeeting. PE – P5 has the same structure of A, Dactivities as PE – P1 in week 47. 2 occasions (1 per project).

WEEK 10 Test phase for assembled powertrain systemPE – SPM16 Subproject meeting 16 90 Supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproject). A, B, C

WEEK 11 Final delivery phasePE – SPM17 Subproject meeting 17 90 Final supervised subproject meeting. 10 occasions (1 per subproj.). A, B, CDEADLINE6 Powertrain installed, FAT 2 repeated and verified in car Mid-week to end of week, before ”Technical demonstration 3". A, BPE – TD3 Technical demonstration 3 (Exam of product, stage 3) 60 Site acceptance test (SAT) with final delivery outside the assembly A, B, D

hall. Subprojects present installed subsystems and system status.A testdrive for validating fullfillment of project (and subproject)objectives is carried out with a checklist by the project leader.

PE – J Celebrations of successful final delivery from projects (?) Speech is given by the project leader and celebrations follow inthe assembly hall with non-alcoholic sparkling beverages.

DEADLINE7 Submission of poster (1 poster/subproject) Mid-week to end of week, before ”Seminar 2" and ”Posters session”. FCE – SEM2 Seminar 2 - joint with both projects 300 1) Group-based 15 - 20 min oral presentations by subprojects on the A, D

technical development of subsystems. 2) Examiner and student peersboth assess each presentation and provide oral and written feedbackon the content and presentation technique. 1 occassion. Students w.the same technical focus oppose each with questions and feedback.

CE – PS Poster session 120 All subprojects present their results on A1-poster at a project fair. F

WEEK 12 Project termination phaseDEADLINE8 Submission of written technical reports – (1 report/subproject) E

WEEK 13 Post project phaseDEADLINE9 Submission of reflection documents – (1 document/subproject) AC-EVAL Course evaluation initiated

WEEK 14 Post project phaseDEADLINE10 Submission of peer evaluations – (1 evaluation/student, on peers within each subproject)

Fig. 1. Photos from different stages of the “Electric car project course”.A) Theoretical presentation in a subproject group. B) Practical project workin progress in the assembly hall. C) Preparations for technical demonstrationof subsystem functions after subsystem verification through testing (FAT 1).D) BLDC-motor built by students. E) Inverter built by students. F) Test rigused for verification of powertrain functions and technical demonstrations ofassembled powertrain outside the car (FAT 2). G) Final realization of the all-electric powertrain with subsystems, excl. main battery pack, in a Volvo V40. H) A successful validating test drive (SAT) at the end of the course.

students are not yet prepared to productively contribute to theexpected content. On project level, a simplified schematicoverview of the entire system illustrates expected technicalsystem content, interconnections and division of subsystems.A matrix document describes technical deliveries betweensubprojects, i.e. signals, power supply, parts and calculatedquantities. Another matrix document describes physicalinterfaces, i.e. exactly where a subproject starts and anotherone begins in the system. A project milestone plan is preparedfor the entire project focusing on milestones of relevance toall subprojects/students. In the subprojects most controldocuments are also prepared in advance and introduced bysubproject leaders, although some are produced in sessionwith students during the early subproject meetings. Threetypes of visualizing structures are produced in advance, forthe subsystem functions, the subsystem deliveries, and thework breakdown structure. A Gantt chart and a milestoneplan is produced for each subproject. Students and subprojectleaders formulate a document describing norms and rules forcollaboration and expected behaviors that everybody mustagree to commit to. Finally, a responsibility chart (or matrix)is created at the end of the planning phase of the project.

Both projects, incl. the 10 subprojects, are fully integratedinto the course. They are all needed to solve the challengingcomplex engineering task. The students are taught to engagein PBL and are encouraged to share and collaborate in thelearning process. The subproject groups go through differentphases in group dynamics [31]. In most cases they end up ashigh performance learning teams [29, 30]. By learning howto work in and relate to a project context, they are adapting toa situation they will be encountering professionally in theirfuture working life. This is an educational goal in the UppsalaUniversity pedagogical program, among other programs. Inparallel with the PEs the CEs support the progress, and CEsneed to be concurrent with PEs, as in table I. Several teachingmethods are utilized that build on each other, e.g. lectures,structured laboratory exercises, flipped classroomassignments, workshops and seminars. Lectures of relevanceto early progress in subprojects are introduced early, whileteaching on various methodologies for examination, such asoral presentation, poster production and scientific writing, areinserted later. Students are expected to develop an ability tosearch for information in library databases, so a computerworkshop on how to use the library search tools is introducedquite early. Further specializing into the technical areas of thesubprojects takes place within the subprojects through PBL.All of these parts are important for securing a coherent andconstructive alignment throughout the course [33].

IV. RESULTS

This freshman project course, denoted “Project work inelectrical engineering” (15 credits) where students realize all-electric powertrains for passenger cars was originally createdin 2011, with the first course round stretching from fall 2011(F2011) to spring 2012 (S2012). The same course was thengiven again from F2012 to S2013. Learning objectives, i.e.transferable skills, and the main project objectives ofrealizing an all-electric powertrain in a car and then drive it,were established from the start in 2011. However, the mainproject objectives were not achieved during the first twocourse rounds. Not until the course was re-created fromscratch in 2013, along the lines of the pedagogical approachpresented in this paper, did the students actually achieve themain project objectives. After the introduction of the course

design, presented in table I, students have achieved the mainproject objectives in 11 out of 12 projects for the last 6 years.This outcome is considered very good, taking into accountthe complexity of the project, the level of risk involved andthe rigid time frame of the course.

Seven years of extensive student course evaluation resultsare presented in table II. The results are averaged for eachyear. The table first presents participation statistics, thenresults from evaluation statements on a scale from 1 to 5 with3 representing a perceived level of “Just right”. The finalsection of statements are answered on a scale from 1 to 5 with1 being “the worst”/”the lowest”/”not at all agreeing” and 5“the best”/”the highest”/”fully agreeing”. The last evaluationstatement (no. 23) is answered either “yes”, “no” or “do notknow” with results given in percentage (%). When the coursewas re-created in 2013, so was the student course evaluation.However, 5 questions (4, 5, 6, 9 and 23) are similar in bothquestionnaires, and valid for all course rounds. It seems astudent course evaluation was not conducted after the firstcourse round in F2011 – S2012. Experiences have also beencollected by and from the teachers, especially during the last

6 course rounds from the time the author got involved andassumed responsibility for the course in May 2013.

The results in table II can be elaborated on a lot. In thisfirst introductory conference paper, we can easily see that asubstantial improvement was achieved in the students’opinion of the course (statement no. 9) and in the perceivedbenefit from the course content (no. 23) after the pedagogicalapproach in this paper was introduced in course round F2013-S2014, and then further improved with time. Furthermore, thestudents’ opinion of prior knowledge as sufficient (no. 4) wasincreased, while the perceived difficulty level (no. 5) wasreduced, even though the objectives were the same. Theseresults provide support for the project-led PBL mixed-modeapproach in a project course of this kind with timely supportfrom appropriate course elements, structuring of project andcourse as explained in table I and by using the appropriatescaffolding, supervision and project management methodsetc. presented in sections II and III. The difference instudents’ opinions could even be greater than indicated, sinceonly 8 diligent students answered in F2012-S2013 and byconsidering opinions from faculty involved in the transition.

TABLE II. RESULTS FROM THE STUDENTS’ COURSE EVALUATIONS FROM 7 COURSE ROUNDS BETWEEN FALL (F) 2012 – SPRING (S) 2019. (COURSEROUND F2012-S2013 OCCURRED BEFORE THE PRESENTED PEDAGOGICAL APPROACH WAS INTRODUCED AND PUT INTO PRACTISE WITH ALL ITS CONTENTS.)

* Evaluation statement no. 21 – 23 are indirectly correlated to perceived fulfillment of stated course learning objectives and the faculty’s aim with the course.

Index Participation statisticsCourse rounds

F2012–S2013

F2013–S2014

F2014–S2015

F2015–S2016

F2016–S2017

F2017–S2018

F2018–S2019

1 Number of registered students at the start of the course 70 72 66 70 64 70 70

2 Number of students completing the course on time each year ? 60 56 51 52 54 55

3 Number of students answering the course evaluation 8 28 36 32 30 30 32

Evaluation statement Average results (3.0 = perceived as “just right” by the student)

4 Opinion of the student’s own prior knowledge as sufficient 1.6 3.0 2.9 2.5 3.2 2.9 2.8

5 Opinion of the course difficulty level 3.7 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.3

6 Opinion of the course workload requirement 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.2 3.5

7 Opinion of the pace of work during the course 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.9

8 Opinion of the amount of time for supervision during the course 2.7 2.9 2.8 3.0 3.0 3.0

Evaluation statement Average results (5.0 = “the best / the highest / fully agreeing”)

9 General opinion of the course 2.6 3.1 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.8 3.8

10 Perceived value of the early subject-introductory lectures 2.0 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.7 2.9

11 Perceived value of the LabVIEW workshops 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.9 4.2

12 Perceived value of the interconnected 3-stage laboratory series 2.8 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.8 4.0

13 Perceived value of the seminars 3.4 3.3 4.0 3.7 3.4

14 Opinion of the distribution of subproject tasks and responsibilites 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.7 3.5

15 Opinion of the subproject supervision 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 4.2 3.9

16 Opinion of the examination(s) providing a fair opportunity 2.7 3.7 2.9 3.7 3.6 3.7

17 Perceived value of the constructive alignment in the course 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.6 3.8

18 Perceived fulfillment of stated course learning objective A 3.8 3.9 3.8 4.0 3.9 4.1

19 Perceived fulfillment of stated course learning objective B 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.2

20 Perceived fulfillment of stated course learning objective C 3.4 3.8 3.5 4.0 3.9 4.4

21* Extent to which the course provided new challenges for growth 3.3 4.0 3.7 4.0 3.9 4.0

22* Perception of one’s own personal commitment in the course 4.1 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.1 4.4

23* I think I will benefit from the course contentin the future.

Yes (%) 50 65 92 88 90 83 94

No (%) 37 17 3 9 3 4 0

Don’t know (%) 13 18 5 3 7 13 6

V. DISCUSSION

Experiences from the freshman year of University studiescan influence student perception of and approach to the entireeducation. The idea of PBL is to bring students closer to theidea of working as an engineer, to inspire students andthereby increase subject interest, motivation, continuedeffort, and in the process produce an engineer well preparedfor the demands ahead within the engineering profession.Active student learning methods and student centeredteaching, such as project-led PBL [19], where teachersinteract more with students through scaffolding, projectmanagement and supervision, have shown to be beneficial forlearning under the circumstances presented for this course.

Examination will often guide students' learning to a greaterextent than the formulated learning objectives. There areoften many different ways to certain objectives, so theobjectives do not explain about how the teaching should beplanned. It depends on the students, the teachers, and thesituation in general how teaching and learning activitiesshould be put up to best support the students' achievement ofthe objectives. The strong link between objectives, learningactivities and examination may seem obvious, but it has notyet fully characterized higher education [33]. The ideadeveloped by J. B. Biggs et al. [33] called "constructivealignment" focuses on the constructivist starting point that thestudents construct their knowledge and the direct connectionbetween objectives, teaching and examination. In the conceptof constructive alignment there is also a connection to aholistic view and progression. The importance of variation inteaching and examination is presented as good, both forqualitative learning, but also for the sake of equality linked tohow students benefit from different learning styles.

The fact that we chose to focus the course on developmentof an all-electric powertrain coincides with our aim to includecontent from, and knowledge transfer between, research andeducation. The project format fits the size of the course andthe number of participants even though the time frame ischallenging. When the course started in the fall of 2011, twoyears before the author became involved, the idea of thecourse was brilliant, but the course content, projectmanagement and constructive alignment, among other things,was lacking. The students did not progress far enough tocomplete the objectives, and faculty did not cooperate wellenough. Nor did the students manage to realize an all-electricpowertrain or test it in a car at the end of the course. In orderto address the problems, a complete overhaul of the coursewas made as the course was re-created from scratch in 2013.A comprehensive project work methodology was introducedfor structuring the projects and subprojects. Managementtools and steering documents on both project and subprojectlevel were developed, accompanied by an improvedmultilevel structure for meetings, coordination andcommunication. New course content and different teachingmethods were introduced to build the student ability up to thelevel of being able to take on the challenges in the projects,e.g. a series of workshops and laboratory assignments aimedat supplying system comprehension of a model powertrain ona simplified level. Examination also changed. A systematicapproach to technical verification and validation withprotocols and testing methods from industry was applied andutilized in three steps; first on subproject level, then on

project level in a test bench, and finally after the systems wereinstalled in the passenger cars and test-driven. These methodswere appreciated by students and faculty. So-called technicaldemonstrations were used to check for fulfillment of variousproject objectives, and perceived as valuable by students.

Scientific presentation in written and oral form at the endof the course were more systematically evaluated with newgrade criteria further improving the constructive alignment.Acquired knowledge from early lectures and seminars werechecked using written exams for higher grade and oral examsfor pass or fail. Grading criteria for the examination of writtenreports, posters and oral presentations were considerablyimproved and more accurately specified. The CEs inserted inparallel with the PEs supply the students with appropriatespecific knowledge at appropriate times in order to improvelearning and the chances for success. In other words, thecourse content and project content became more coherent andconstructively aligned with the course objectives and theexamination of those objectives.

The course has shown that it is possible for mid-termfreshmen students to achieve both the learning and projectobjectives stated in section III, while realizing a complexmultilevel challenge in electrical engineering as advanced asan all-electric powertrain for a car. The students achievedboth the learning and project objectives with good results andmanaged to drive the car in 11 out of 12 projects. PBL hasbeen used with overall success to stimulate required studentactivation and student centered learning within a multilevelproject organization requiring extensive coordination andcommunication efforts. The mid-term freshman studentshave, based on their performance in the course, developedfrom the status of having very limited technical knowledgeand no confidence in scientific problem solving into inspiredmore confident problem solvers with experience fromworking within a project environment. By the end of thecourse the students definitively were perceived as membersof high performance learning teams, as defined in [30], bothby teachers and in most cases by themselves.

In conclusion, the course design presented in table I,backed up by the student evaluation results in table II and thelevel of achievement with regard to both learning and projectobjectives provide good evidence for the successful project-led PBL method with a mixed-mode approach in the case ofa large and complex project course for freshman engineeringstudents. The method provides adequate support from courseelements needed for rapid progression through the projectelements, while promoting a high level of commitment andopportunity for growth. The perceived level of constructivealignment between objectives and examination has improvedin the view of the teachers and steadily been growing in theperception of the students. An absolutely convincing numberof students acknowledges the future benefit of the coursecontent after the implementation of the course design outlinedin table I, as it improved over time.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Project-led PBL with a mixed-mode approach, such asoutlined in this article, has proven to be successful in a largeproject course in electrical engineering, for midtermfreshmen, with the aim of realizing a complex all-electricpowertrain in a car and in the process learning transferableskills. The teaching approach has been evaluated by extensive

written student course evaluations, student examinationresults, by the experiences of the involved teachers, andcompared over time. The pedagogical approach has proven toeffectively enable achievement of both learning objectives,project objectives, with a valuable experience from workingwith open-ended, ill-structured, real-world problems in awell-structured project environment. The elevated subjectinterest and the inspiration for the engineering professionimproves retention within the education. Both students andthe teachers have greatly appreciated the course and it wasstrongly indicated that the students’ theoretical and non-theoretical knowledge, and understanding of the subjects hadbenefitted, both with regards to the technical depth and to thenon-technical engineering skills from working in a projectformat. It is likely that the presented teaching approach canbe used also in other similar project courses in engineering.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author is thankful to the head of the division ofelectricity for initializing a freshman project course aimed atthe development of an all-electric powertrain and for bringingthe course into the curriculum of two educational programsin electrical engineering in 2011. The author is also thankfulto the team of teachers involved in the course over the yearsfor their teaching efforts, and would like to express gratitudeto the department of Electrical Engineering at UppsalaUniversity for supporting the participation at the conference.

REFERENCES

[1] A. Rugarcia, R. M. Felder, and D. R. Woods. 2000. “The future ofengineering education I: A vision for a new century”, ChemicalEngineering Education, vol. 34(1), pp. 16-25.

[2] H. J. Cruickshank, and R. A. Fenner. 2007. “The evolving role ofengineers: Towards sustainable development of the built environ-ment”, Journal of International Development, vol. 19, pp. 111-121.

[3] S. Beder. 1999. “Beyond technicalities: Expanding engineeringthinking”, Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Educationand Practice, vol. 125(1), pp. 12-18.

[4] J. J. Duderstadt. 2008. “Engineering for a Changing World: Aroadmap to the future of engineering practice, research andeducation”, Springer, New York.

[5] E. De Graaf, and W. Ravensteijn. 2010. “Training completeengineers: Global enterprise and engineering education”, EuropeanJournal of Engineering Education, vol. 26(4), pp. 417-427.

[6] C. Zhou. 2012. “Fostering creative engineers: A key to face thecomplexity of engineering practice”, European Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 37(4), pp. 343-353.

[7] D. Jonassen, J. Strobel, and C. B. Lee. 2006. “Everyday ProblemSolving in Engineering: Lessons for Engineering Educators” Journalof Engineering Education 95 (2): 139–151.

[8] A. Kolmos, and F. K. Fink. 2004. “The Aalborg PBL Model:Progress, Diversity and Challenges” Edited by L. Krogh. Aalborg:Aalborg University Press.

[9] R. M. Felder, D. R. Woods, J. E. Stice, and A. Rugarcia. 2000. “Thefuture of engineering education II: Teaching methods that work,”Chem. Engr. Education, vol. 34(1), pp. 26-39.

[10] J. Grimson. 2002. “Re-engineering the curriculum for the 21stcentury”, European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 27(1), pp.31-37.

[11] J. E. Mills, and D. F. Treagust. 2003. “Engineering education: Isproblem-based or project-based learning the answer?”, AustralasianJournal of Engineering Education, online publication.

[12] A. Hanning., A. Priem Abelsson, U. Lundqvist, and M. Svanström.2012. “Are we educating engineers for sustainability?: Comparisonbetween Obtained Competences and Swedish Industry's Needs”,International Journal of Sustainability, vol. 13(3), pp. 305-320.

[13] A. Azapagic, S. Perdan, and D. Shallcross. 2005. “How much doengineering students know about sustainable development: Findingsof an International Survey and Possible Implications for theEngineering Curriculum”, European Journal of EngineeringEducation vol. 30(1), pp. 1-19.

[14] K. Edström, and A. Kolmos. 2014. “PBL and CDIO:Complementary Models for Engineering Education Development”,European Journal of Engineering Education 39 (5): 539–555.

[15] M. P. Lehmann, P. Christensen, X. Du, and M. Thrane. 2008.“Problem-Oriented and Project-Based Learning (POPBL) as anInnovative Learning Strategy for Sustainable Development inEngineering Education”, European Journal of Engineering Education33 (3): 283–295.

[16] A. S. Blicblau, and J. M. Steiner. 1998. “Fostering creativity throughengineering projects,” European Journal of Engineering Education,vol. 23 (1), pp. 55-65.

[17] M. Lombardi. 2007. “Authentic learning for the 21st century: Anoverview”, Educause Learning Initiative, vol. 1, pp. 1-12.

[18] E. P. Douglas, M. Koro-Ljungberg, N. J. McNeill, Z. T. Malcolm,and D. J. Therriault. 2012. “Moving beyond formulas and fixations:solving open-ended engineering problems,” European Journal ofEngineering Education, vol. 37(6), pp. 627-651.

[19] J. Chen, A. Kolmos, and X. Du. 2020. “Forms of implementationand challenges of PBL in engineering education: a review ofliterature”, European Journal of Engineering Education.

[20] R. E. Thomas. 1997. “Problem-Based Learning: MeasurableOutcomes.” Medical Education 31 (5): 320–329.

[21] J. C. Perrenet, P. A. J. Bouhuijs, J. G. M. M. Smits. 2000. “Thesuitability of problem-based learning for engineering education:Theory and practice”, Teaching In Higher Education: Abingdon,Vol. 5, Issue 3.

[22] F. Dochy, M. Segers, P. Van den Bossche, and D. Gijbels. 2003.”Effects of Problem-Based Learning: A Meta-Analysis.” Learningand Instruction 13 (3): 263-278.

[23] D. Gijbels, F. Dochy, P. Van den Bossche, and M. Segers. 2005.“Effects of problem-based learning: A meta-analysis from the angleof assessment.” Review of Educational Research 75 (1): 27–61.

[24] J. Strobel, and A. Van Barneveld. 2009. “When is PBL MoreEffective? A Meta-synthesis of Meta-analyses Comparing PBL toConventional Classrooms.” Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning 3 (1): 44–58.

[25] K. D. Beddoes, B. K. Jesiek, and M. Borrego. 2010. “IdentifyingOpportunities for Collaborations in International EngineeringEducation Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning”,Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning 4 (2): 7–34.

[26] B. Johnson, and R. Ulseth. 2016. “Development of ProfessionalCompetency through Professional Identity Formation in a PBLCurriculum.” In Proceeding of 2016 IEEE Frontiers in EducationConference (FIE), 1–9. Erie: Wiley IEEE press.

[27] M. Savin-Baden. 2014. “Using Problem-Based Learning: NewConstellations for the 21st Century.” The Journal on Excellence inCollege Teaching 25 (3&4): 197–219.

[28] T. L. Doolen, and M. Long. 2007. “Identification of retention leversusing a survey of engineering freshman attitudes at Oregon StateUniversity”, European Journal of Engineering Education, 32:6, 721-734.

[29] D. Jaques, and G. Salmon. 2007. “Learning in groups: A Handbookfor face-to-face and online environments”, 4th edition, Routledge,New York, USA.

[30] L. K. Michaelsen, A. B. Knight, and L. D. Fink. 2004. “Team-basedlearning : a transformative use of small groups in college teaching”.Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA, USA.

[31] S. A. Wheelan. 2009. “Group Size, Group Development, and GroupProductivity”. Small Group Research, vol. 40, issue 2, p. 247–262.

[32] N. L. Toner, G. B. King. 2016. “Restructuring an undergraduatemechatronic systems curriculum around the flipped classroom,projects, LabVIEW, and the myRIO”. Proceedings of the AmericanControl Conference, 2016-July, art. no. 7526826, pp. 7308-7314.

[33] J. B. Biggs, and C. S. Tang. 2011. “Teaching for quality learning atuniversity: what the student does”, 4th edition, McGraw-HillEducation (UK), Society for Research into Higher Education & OpenUniversity Press.