Abstract
Project-based education has recently been incorporated into the first undergraduate reinforced concrete design class at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) to enhance student learning. Students participate in diverse open-ended projects that challenge them to work in small groups to address a contemporary issue in structural concrete. Projects during the first four semesters typically fell into one or more of the following four areas: design, construction; materials, and research/testing. This approach to project-based education has generated significant student initiative, practical learning, and excitement. This paper summarizes key the features of team projects, including: advantages related to student learning and fulfillment of ABET criteria; design project concept; teammate and project selection; project proposals; project execution; oral presentations; formal reports; and teammate grading. In addition, student response and faculty challenges to implementing team project are addressed. Excerpts from project guidelines, a summary of project topics, and slides of team presentations are also provided. I. Introduction Project-based education has recently been incorporated into the first undergraduate reinforced concrete design class at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) through the introduction of a major team design project. Project-based education was implemented to improve student learning and to fulfill many ABET criteria not normally addressed in such a class. Project-based education is known to improve student learning by increasing relevance, student motivation, active learning, the level of reasoning, and the balance of concrete and abstract information. In addition, studies have shown that the use of team projects enhances cooperative learning, including positive dependence, individual accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, and interpersonal and teamwork skills, thereby improving achievement, persistence, and attitudes. 1 At present, most structural engineering design courses address very few aspects of Criterion 3 of the ABET 2002-2003 Criteria. 2 Typical classes help develop a student’s ability to apply knowledge of Math, Science, and Engineering and to design a component, and most require the use of techniques, skills, and modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice. However, surprisingly few classes help students develop abilities to: design a structural component in the realistic context of a structural system; solve practical engineering problems; know contemporary issues; function on teams; communicate effectively; design and conduct experiments; understand professional and ethical responsibility; understand the impact of Proceedings of the 2002 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright © 2002, American Society for Engineering Education Main Menu