ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN CAPSTONE PROJECTS

Home » ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS ...

ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN CAPSTONE PROJECTS

R. Bragós, L. Aoun, S. Bermejo, J. Pegueroles, G. Charosky (2022).  ANALYSIS OF STUDENTS’ PERFORMANCE IN CAPSTONE PROJECTS. 622-633.
2022 18th International CDIO Conference, Reykjavik University, Iceland
PDF icon 144.pdf

After 10 years of having implemented the design-build project courses path according to the CDIO standard 5 at the ICT Engineering School of UPC in Barcelona, we have carried out an analysis of the students’ performance in the 12 ECTS capstone project course performed in the 4th year of the bachelor and in which most of the challenges are set by external companies and institutions. In these 10 years, 1440 students have participated in 138 different projects. The course is called Advanced Engineering Project (AEP). This conference communication presents the results of the analysis of the individual students’ performance according to different project features. We have considered the challenge source, (internal/external), the promoter type, the promoter involvement, for external promoters, the contact person profile, the result type, the degree of finalization, the size of the team and the term (Fall /Spring). The chosen performance index used for this study is the individual assessment result, which is quite integrative. About the Internal/External character of the promoters, there is a significant difference (p<0.001) in the AEP average of the individual marks of 0.42 points between projects with external promoters (8.68) and projects with internal promoters (8.26). Considering the type of promoters’ significant differences (p<0.05) are found between projects proposed by companies and both the internal projects proposed by teachers and by research groups. The projects in which the main component was ideation or more ideation than technical performed better than the mostly technical projects (up to 0.92 points in a scale of 10, p<0.001). We have not found any significant differences due to the team size or academic term (Fall or Spring). The reasons for the observed differences are probably due to a different degree of motivation and also to a higher pressure when an external stakeholder is involved, although the differences are smaller than 1 point in a 10 points scale in all cases.

Authors (New): 
Ramon Bragós
Louay Aoun
Sandra Bermejo
Josep Pegueroles
Guido Charosky
Pages: 
622-633
Affiliations: 
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC), Barcelona, Spain
Keywords: 
Capstone Project
Industry involvement
Stakeholders
Performance
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 11
Year: 
2022
Reference: 
ABET. (2017). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs: Effective for review during the 2018-2019 accreditation cycle. ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission, Baltimore, 1- 43.: 
Berglund, F., Johannesson, H., Gustafsson, G. (2007) Multidisciplinary project-based product development learning in collaboration with industry. Proceedings of the 3rd International CDIO Conference, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, June 11-14, 2007: 
Bragós, R., Alarcón, E., Cabrera, M., Calveras, A., Comellas, J., O’callaghan, J., Pegueroles, J., Prat, L., Sáez, G., Sardà, J. & Sayrol, E. (2010). Proceso de inserción de competencias genéricas en los nuevos planes de estudios de grado de la ETSETB-UPC de acuerdo con el modelo CDIO. IX Congreso De Tecnologías Aplicadas a La Enseñanza De La Electrónica, p. 1-9. Madrid, Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/2117/10652: 
Bragós, R., Camps, A., Oliveras, A., Alarcón, E., Pegueroles, J., and Sayrol E. (2012) Design of the Advanced Engineering Project course for the third year of Electrical Engineering at Telecom BCN. Proceedings of the 8th International CDIO Conference, Quensland University of Technology, Brisbane, July 1-4.: 
Cazorla, A. & De los Ríos, I. (1996) La enseñanza del desarrollo rural y la planificación en su nueva dimensión: una estrategia metodológica. Paper presented at the II Jornadas Nacionales de Innovación en las Enseñanzas de las Ingenierías, December 3, in Madrid, Spain.: 
Cazorla, A., De los Ríos, I. & Ortíz, I. (2007) Una estrategia educativa de cooperación orientada a validar la competencia de los individuos en dirección de proyectos. Paper presented at the I Jornadas Internacionales UPM sobre Innovación Educativa y Convergencia Europea (INECE´07), December 11–13, in Madrid, Spain: 
Charosky, G. and Bragós, R. (2021), Investigating Students’ Self-Perception of Innovation Competences in Challenge-Based and Product Development Courses, International Journal of Engineering Education Vol. 37, No. 2, pp. 461–470, 2021: 
Charosky, G., Hassi, L., Papageorgiou, K., Bragós, R. (2021), Developing Innovation Competences in Engineering Students: A Comparison of Two Approaches, European Journal of Engineering Education, 2021, 1-20,: 
10.1080/03043797.2021.1968347
Chell, E., & Athayde, R. (2009). NESTA, The identification and measurement of innovative characteristics of young people Development of the Youth.: 
Crawley, E. F., Lucas, W. A., Malmqvist, J., & Brodeur, D. R. (2011). The CDIO Syllabus v2. 0 An Updated Statement of Goals for Engineering Education, Proceedings of the 7th International CDIO Conference, Technical University of Denmark, Copenhagen, June 20th, 23: 1-44: 
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach, second edition. Springer: 
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., Leifer, L. J. (2005) Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching, and Learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1), 103-120.: 
Einarson, D., Wendin, K., Saplacan, D. (2015) Learning structures of CDIO based projects in contexts of Demola. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China, June 8-11, 2015.: 
ENAEE - European Network for Accreditation of Engineering Education, EUR-ACE, http://www.enaee.eu/ accessed 12th May 2020: 
Hallin, A., Hansson, C. (2012) Industrial Involvement in Engineering Education and Industrial Structural Change. Proceedings of the 8th International CDIO Conference, Queensland University of Technology, Canada, June 2012.: 
Hassi, L., Ramos-Castro, J., Leveratto, L., Kurikka, J. J., Charosky, G., Utriainen, T. M., Bragos, R., Nordberg, M. (2016). Mixing Design, Management and Engineering Students in Challenge- Based Projects. Proceedings of the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016: 
Johnson, L. F., Smith, R. S., Smythe, J. T., & Varon, R. K. (2009). Challenge-Based Learning An Approach for Our Time. The New Media Consortium: 
Johnson, P. A. (1999). Problem-Based, Cooperative Learning in the Engineering Classroom. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 125(1), 8–11.: 
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1052-3928(1999)125:1(8)
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.: 
Lehmann, M., Christensen, P., Du, X., & Thrane, M. (2008). Problem-oriented and projectbased learning (POPBL) as an innovative learning strategy for sustainable development in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 33(3), 283–295.: 
Malmqvist, J., Rådberg, K.K., Lundqvist, U. (2015) From problem-based to challenge-based learning – motives, examples, outcomes and success factors. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015.: 
Mejtoft, T. (2015). Industry based projects and cases: a CDIO approach to students’ learning. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China, June 8-11, 2015.: 
NAE - National Academy of Engineering. (2004). The Engineer of 2020: Visions of engineering in the new century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.: 
Nordfalk, J., Bridgwood,I., Nyborg, M. (2018). Involving stakeholders in CDIO Projects. Proceedings of the 14th International CDIO Conference, Kanazawa Insitute of Technology. Kanazawa, Japan, June 28-July 2, 2018.: 
Pippola, T., Poranen, T., Vuori, M., Kairamo, V., & Tuominiemi, J. (2012). Teaching Innovation Projects in Universities at Tampere. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Engineering and Education (pp. 785-792).: 
Rouvrais, S., Jacovetti, G., Chantawannakul, P., Suree, N., Bangchokdee, S. (2020) University-industry collaboration themes in stem higher education: a euro-asean perspective. Proceedings of the 16th International CDIO Conference, hosted on-line by Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden, 8-10 June 2020.: 
Surgenor, B., Mechefske, C., Wyss, U. & Pelow, J. (2005). Capstone Design - Experience with Industry Based Projects. Proceedings of the 1st Annual CDIO Conference. Queen’s University. Kingston, Canada.: 
Thomson, G., Prince, M., McLening, C. & Evans C. (2012). A comparison between different approaches to industrially supported projects. Proceedings of the 8th International CDIO Conference, QUT, Brisbane, Australia.: 
Törnqvist, E. (2015) Cross disciplinary projects. A cooperation between Linköping University, Demola and the surrounding society. Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu University of Information Technology, Chengdu, Sichuan, P.R. China, June 8-11, 2015.: 
Ulrich, K.T. and Eppinger, S.D. (2008) Product Design and Development. 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill, New York.: 
on October 19, 2022 - 04:08   Maria Siiskonen
  • Printer-friendly version
Go to top