The Mechanical Engineering Design Project (MEDP) is a third-year module intended to prepare students for their final-year capstone projects. My aim was not simply to guide students towards completing a design report, but to help them develop a structured approach to engineering design, justify their decisions, and critically evaluate possible solutions.
One aspect I particularly wanted to address was concept generation and selection. Students can sometimes approach this stage as a formality: they settle on a preferred design early and then generate alternatives primarily to justify their initial choice. I wanted students to recognise that concept generation should be a genuine exploration of possible solutions, while concept selection should provide a reasoned basis for choosing between them.
During the first two weeks, I introduced students to the expected standard of engineering reporting and discussed the purpose of the different sections of a design report. I also devoted substantial attention to concept generation and selection, challenging students to develop three credible design alternatives rather than simply producing weaker versions of their preferred concept.
The remainder of the semester included a series of staged submissions and regular individual feedback sessions. I divided the available consultation time between the students, providing each student with approximately 30 minutes of individual contact time per week for around 10–11 weeks. These sessions focused on their progress, feedback on previous submissions, and the engineering decisions underlying their designs.
The project culminated in a final design report and an oral presentation. I also made participation in the final presentations part of the assessment. Students were expected not only to present their own work, but also to engage with their peers' designs by asking questions and identifying potential weaknesses. My intention was to move beyond a format in which students simply present and the lecturer does all the critical questioning.
I was encouraged by the quality of some of the concepts students eventually developed. This suggested that explicitly discussing the purpose of concept generation and challenging students to explore alternatives could help them move beyond treating the process as a reporting requirement.
The final presentations also created valuable opportunities for students to engage with engineering decisions beyond their own projects. By asking students to question and critique their peers' work, I sought to encourage them to apply the same critical thinking that I had modelled during individual consultations. It was particularly interesting to see the interaction that developed when students were given the opportunity to evaluate designs from an engineering perspective.
I viewed this as an important learning opportunity because the module is intended to prepare students for capstone projects. The third-year environment provided room to practise defending design decisions, identifying shortcomings and considering alternative approaches before encountering the greater formality and complexity of a final-year project.
One of the most valuable aspects of this approach was the opportunity to engage with students individually throughout the design process. The regular consultations allowed feedback to form part of the ongoing development of their projects rather than being confined to the assessment of completed work.
However, the approach also required a substantial time commitment from me. Allocating approximately 30 minutes per student each week was valuable, but I recognise that this model may not be sustainable without modification. In future iterations, I would like to retain the benefits of regular, individualised feedback while investigating ways to use consultation time more efficiently.
I would also like to evaluate more systematically whether students are applying feedback in subsequent submissions, producing more diverse and credible concepts, and becoming more effective at critically evaluating other designs. This would help me distinguish between an approach that generates positive classroom interaction and one that demonstrably improves student learning.
Overall, this experience reinforced my view that engineering design should be taught as a process of exploration, justification and critical evaluation, rather than simply as the production of a finished design. I want students to leave the module better equipped to explain not only what they designed, but why they made particular decisions and how they would evaluate or improve their solutions.