vertical stream curricula integration of problem-based learning using an autonomous vacuum robot in...

European Journal of Engineering EducationVol. 36, No. 5, October 2011, 485–504

Vertical stream curricula integration of problem-based learningusing an autonomous vacuum robot in a mechatronics course

Cheng China* and Keng Yueb

aSchool of Marine Science and Technology, Armstrong Building, Newcastle University,Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE1 7RU, UK; bTemasek Polytechnic, Singapore, Singapore

(Received 7 December 2010; final version received 28 June 2011)

Difficulties in teaching a multi-disciplinary subject such as the mechatronics system design module inDepartments of Mechatronics Engineering at Temasek Polytechnic arise from the gap in experience andskill among staff and students who have different backgrounds in mechanical, computer and electricalengineering within the Mechatronics Department. The departments piloted a new vertical stream curriculamodel (VSCAM) to enhance student learning in mechatronics system design through integration of educa-tional activities from the first to the second year of the course. In this case study, a problem-based learning(PBL) method on an autonomous vacuum robot in the mechatronics systems design module was proposedto allow the students to have hands-on experience in the mechatronics system design. The proposed worksincluded in PBL consist of seminar sessions, weekly works and project presentation to provide holisticassessment on teamwork and individual contributions. At the end of VSCAM, an integrative evaluationwas conducted using confidence logs, attitude surveys and questionnaires. It was found that the activi-ties were quite appreciated by the participating staff and students. Hence, PBL has served as an effectivepedagogical framework for teaching multidisciplinary subjects in mechatronics engineering education ifadequate guidance and support are given to staff and students.

Keywords: problem-based learning; vacuum robot cleaner; mechatronics systems design; microcon-troller; assessment; evaluation

1. Introduction

The ultimate goal of this article is to illustrate a case study of applying a vertical stream curriculumusing an autonomous vacuum robot as a problem-based learning (PBL) project on a mechatronicscourse in Singapore. Similar methodology can also be applicable to other institutions around theworld. The subject of mechatronics has often been described as a combination of the subjects ofelectrical engineering, mechanical engineering and computer engineering – in the union betweenthese subjects, the discipline of mechatronics emerges. Mechatronics is a rapidly emerging fieldthat uses the abilities of computer- or microprocessor-based automatic control to enhance theoperation of mechanical systems. It is often associated with robotic systems but can also be foundin applications ranging from automobiles to electric toothbrushes.A recent forecast (World FutureSociety 2011) for the next decade predicts the intervention of robots and the Internet into human

*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

ISSN 0304-3797 print/ISSN 1469-5898 online© 2011 SEFIhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2011.603039http://www.tandfonline.com

486 C. Chin and K. Yue

activities to facilitate first-hand handling of information in real time, which is based, to a largeextent, on the implementation of mechatronics in technological applications. As more industriesare expanding their implementations of mechatronics systems, the demand for mechatronicsengineers will increase.

Recently, the followings situations (Currier et al. 2010) have been observed. Most engineeringcurricula, especially in the United States, focus on the more traditional areas of engineering:mechanical engineers learn about mechanics, stress analysis, thermal sciences and fluid dynamics;electrical engineers learn about electronic circuits, communications and power transfer systems;computer engineers learn about integrated circuits and software. Mechatronics designs ofteninclude aspects of all of these fields and require engineers with a broad enough base of knowledgeto understand how to integrate these varied disciplines into working systems. In this respect,mechatronics requires engineers who can comprehend and perform systems engineering tasks inways not well covered in traditional curricula (Lyshevski 2002).

Outside of the United States (Currier et al. 2010), especially in Europe and Asia, the solution tothis need has been found in the form of multidisciplinary undergraduate mechatronics curricula.These curricula draw aspects from each of the traditional disciplines to expose students to abroad enough range of topics to allow them to become successful mechatronics engineers. A veryactive interest in mechatronics engineering exists in Turkey. Industrial demands have led to thecreation of programmes in mechatronics education from the high school level to graduate school(Akpinar 2006). Turkish universities have taken a variety of approaches, from offering coursesas a subset of mechanical engineering to the case of Antilim University’s separate mechatronicsdepartment (Akpinar 2006, Yavuz and Mistikoglu 2009). Mechatronics has also become verypopular in Germany, with the University of Applied Sciences in Bochum pioneering the discipline(Grimheden and Hanson 2005), and other countries (Grimheden and Hanson 2005, Sergiu et al.2007, Tutunji et al. 2007, Yavuz and Mistikoglu 2009).

In Singapore, there are few mechatronics engineering courses (Ministry of Education 2010,Temasek Polytechnic 2010). For case study purposes, the Department of Mechatronics Engi-neering at the Temasek Polytechnic, which conducts a three year Diploma in MechatronicsEngineering was selected. In the department, practical teaching of mechatronics modules from thefirst two years comprises: practical work in the laboratory devoted to using applications such ascomputer-aided design (CAD), computerised numerical control tools for machining, microcon-troller applications such as computer programming, sensors and actuators. The understandingson how to design the mechatronics systems are not readily experienced by the students. One mainsubject that is included in the mechatronics course syllabus is mechatronics system design. Somestudents do not seem to be active and motivated during lectures and tutorials. Many students areunable to pass the module within three years. In fact, some of the staff found it difficult to teachthis multidisciplinary subject as the students came from different backgrounds and interests.

To circumvent the problems, a new vertical stream curricula model (VSCAM) to enhancestudents’ learning in mechatronics system design through integration of educational activitiesfrom the first year to the second year of the mechatronics diploma course was implemented in2008. In the new vertical flow curricula, the knowledge is acquired during the first two years ofstudy and, now, they will be experiencing how to use this knowledge in the mechatronics systemsdesign module. This helps students to prepare for the final year project, which consists of a highercredit involving mechatronics-related industrial projects. The curricula also merge and reorganisematerial to more effectively present and reinforce key objectives and interconnectivity betweenthese modules. Although the vertical curricula stream (Mina et al. 2005) for mechatronics courseis common in most technical universities, mostly it contains the fundamental subjects that arerequired for the academic procession to the next level. However, the knowledge and skill ofstudents need to be assessed prior to their final year graduating project. The PBL method on amechatronics project is used to substitute the formal assessment methods that use quizzes, tests

European Journal of Engineering Education 487

and examinations to assess the students. A commonly found mechatronics system in households,such as an autonomous vacuum robot, was selected as it is not too complicated for students towork on. On the other hand, the autonomous vacuum robot is one example of mechatronics, a niceexemplification that may not necessary represent the entire field. In addition, it illustrates fairlywell the concept of synergy that is reached when combining knowledge in electrical and computerprogramming with models of mechanical parts to reach the design of the final mechatronics system.

The following covers a brief history of PBL. Since PBL implementation at McMaster Univer-sity in 1969, it has been used extensively to improve the students’ abilities to work as a team, tolearn and to think for themselves even in the early phase of their studies. The first applicationof PBL was in medical schools, which rigorously tests the knowledge base of graduates. ThePBL method (Wood 1994, Barrows 1996) has become popular because of these benefits to stu-dents’ learning. PBL was first applied in the Faculty of Health Sciences of McMaster University(Canada) and in the School of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University (United States). Themain objective was to develop problem-solving skills and bring learning closer to real medicalproblems. Over 80% of medical schools use PBL methodology to teach students about clinicalcases, either real or hypothetical (Vernon and Blake 1993, Wood 1994, García 2005). In a typicalPBL setting, the work by the students (and faculty) is organised into projects, where the projectaims at working towards solving a particular problem. As a result, there have been many appli-cations of PBL on mechatronics education in the past decade. Just to name a few, the currentsituations in mechatronics education focused on using the PBL method are discussed below.

The new course syllabus (Bradbeer 2003) for the first year mechatronics degree programmewas introduced in 2002. In the paper, there was no discussion on the type of projects used in theproposed new course syllabus to improve the students’ learning. As shown in Bradbeer (2003),the students had only a year to acquire knowledge in mechatronics before embarking on thefinal year graduating project works. In 2003, the current situations (Grimheden and Hanson2003) in mechatronics education focused on using the PBL method were also discussed. In thecurriculum, it was broken down into smaller projects or learning objectives varying between amonth to a term. However, the projects were performed on electronics components such as abipolar junction transistor and a sequential logic counter. These components constitute only a smallpart of the entire robotic systems and, hence, it is difficult to understand the overall designof the robotic systems that involve both mechanical and electrical components. In the sameyear, another PBL (Doppelt 2003) was conducted on an engineering project for high schoolstudents during summer camp. It consists of several hours on PBL to provide students with someknowledge to work on a few simple engineering problems. The activities were analysed and shownto be successful in improving students’ final year examination results. But, the focus was just tointroduce fundamental knowledge of PBL to the high school students. In 2005, a learning stream(Mina et al. 2005) was introduced at the Iowa State University to improve students’ learningthrough vertical integration of education activities for general engineering courses. It was notmeant for the mechatronics course and the details of the projects used to integrate these activitieswere not discussed. On the other hand, the Auckland University of Technology (Beckerleg andCollins 2007) started to use in-house-developed robot and laboratory equipment, such as a mobileinverted pendulum, for engineering undergraduate projects in 2007. The idea (Beckerleg andCollins 2007) was to help students to develop knowledge and interest in research. It can be difficultto develop research interest in the undergraduate students, who are typically less motivated anddo not see the link to real applications of mechatronics. Moreover, the curriculum involved andhow this project integrates into the present curriculum was not mentioned. Recently, in 2010,simulation software (Grepl 2010) was used to improve teaching of the mechatronics subject.The students had to complete the works in the laboratory. The work involves standard laboratorymodels such as a magnetic levitation system, an inverted pendulum, a helicopter with two degreesof freedom and one student project involving a remote-control car. As observed in Grepl (2010),


the laboratory sessions involved were in some ways common in all engineering courses. It wouldbe interesting to show how the laboratory works and/or the curriculum could prepare students todesign a mechatronics system instead of using the standard laboratory equipment.

In this paper, the proposed PBL method allows students to experience mechanical design,computer programming, microcontroller design, system integrations, testing and troubleshootingprocesses in a real mechatronics system, such as the autonomous vacuum robot cleaner. Moreover,as the students are exposed to various industrial mechatronics projects after their graduation, aproblem-solving skill is quite essential during the course of their works. The proposed PBL projectenables the students to work as a group to solve problems and, hence, enable them to develop theiractive learning, team participation, work responsibility and resource-finding skills. In summary,to the best of the present authors’ knowledge, the vertical stream curricula using the autonomousvacuum robot as a PBL project has not been shown in a single publication.

The paper is organised as follows. The overview of the mechatronics courses in Singapore isdescribed in section 2. This is followed by the description of the proposed VSCAM in section3. The project on an autonomous vacuum robot cleaner for the mechatronics system design isdescribed in section 4. This is followed by the assessment and evaluation methods for VSCAMin sections 5 and 6 respectively. Finally, conclusions are drawn in section 7.

2. Review of mechatronics courses in Singapore

A review of Singapore (Ministry of Education 2010, Temasek Polytechnic 2010) engineeringcourses indicates that many institutions are offering courses in mechatronics engineering. Also,as can be seen in Table 1, mechatronics engineering courses come under different departments.This shows that the emphasis on the mechatronics course varies according to the strength ofthe departments. For example, the mechatronics course under the Department of MechanicalEngineering tends to focus on mechanical design and less on programming and electronic circuitryworks. The same applies to mechatronics courses with aeronautical engineering options, whichtry to concentrate more on electronics circuit design and programming and less on the mechanicaldesign. Hence, there are some difficulties in teaching the mechatronics modules as the membersof staff in mechatronics department each have a different expertise in electronics, computer andmechanical engineering. In this school, mechatronics is treated as a multidisciplinary subject.Each of the discipline retains its methodologies and assumptions without change or developmentfrom other disciplines.

The proposal is therefore to adopt theVSCAM, which uses the autonomous vacuum robot as thePBL project to minimise the gap in mechatronics teaching in this institution (or other institutions).As mentioned earlier, the autonomous vacuum robot is one example of mechatronics, a nice

Table 1. Engineering courses majoring in mechatronics at higher education institutions in Singapore(non-exhaustive list).

Higher education institutions Courses

Temasek Polytechnic Diploma in Mechatronics Engineering (School of Engineering)Singapore Polytechnic Diploma in Mechatronics Engineering (School of Mechanical and Aeronautical

Engineering)Nanyang Polytechnic Diploma in Mechatronics Engineering (School of Engineering)Ngee Ann Polytechnic Diploma in Automation and Mechatronic systems (School of Engineering)Nanyang Technological University BEng (Mechanical Engineering with Mechatronics Stream) (School of Mechanical

and Aerospace Engineering)National University of Singapore BEng (Mechanical Engineering with Mechatronics Specialisation) (Faculty of

Engineering)


exemplification that may not necessarily represent the entire field. However, it illustrates fairlywell the concept of synergy when combining knowledge in electrical and computer programmingwith the mechanical parts to obtain the final mechatronics system design.

3. Description of PBL in VSCAM

The overall flow of VSCAM can be seen in Figure 1. As shown, VSCAM is not simply a setof modules for students to achieve the academic progression. Instead, it provides the requiredmodules that are critical to the mechatronics systems design. Each modules are made as a pre-requite for the others. Effectively, it provides sufficient time for students to understand the subjectsbefore embarking on the mechatronics project that require the demonstration of knowledge andskill. The following are the characteristics of VSCAM.

The ideas ofVSCAM span the first to the second year of the mechatronics course. The objectivesare to effectively present, reinforce key objectives and apply the concepts through the PBL project.It addresses one of the most important questions in engineering education, that is, how to achievebalance between theory and practice. With VSCAM, the fundamentals through the applicationson the mechatronics systems design using the PBL method are assessed.

Table 2 shows the modules that are closely linked to the mechatronics system design. In thefirst year, the CAD subject allows students to develop an initial model of the autonomous vac-uum robot cleaner with the given specifications. This includes selection of materials and designof platforms to hold the electronics and mechanical components such as microcontroller, circuitboards, motors and gears system. The aesthetic of the robot was refined to enhance the overallappearances through the CAD software. While in the machining technology module, students hadto perform machining of metal parts and composite materials. They were taught to use a turretpunching machine, computerised numerical machining, sheet metal works and injection mould-ing. With the CAD drawings for the vacuum robot cleaner completed, they were required to planfor the types of machining required for the proposed design. This includes the manufacturing

Figure 1. Overall flow of the vertical stream curricula model used in Temasek Polytechnic. PBL = problem-basedlearning.


Table 2. Vertical stream curricula model for diploma in mechatronics engineering.

Core modules in ProcessYear the stream Process Contents Learning stage

1 (Semester 1) Computer-aideddesign

Start of Stream Engineering drafting – parts,assembly and drawings usingcomputer, materials selection andengineering calculations

Knowledge acquiring(preparation)

1 (Semester 2) Machiningtechnology

Middle Stream Machining methods – turret punchCNC, injection moulding and sheetmetal works.


2 (Semester 1) Microcontrollerapplications

Computer programming, microcon-troller concepts, control algorithmdesign, sensors and actuators


2 (Semester 2) Mechatronicsystems design

End of Stream Hardware and software integration,prototype testing, troubleshootingprocess and PBL project

Skill demonstrating(vacuum robotcleaner)

CNC = computerised numerical machining; PBL = problem-based learning.

processes involving various machines, materials and cutters. After successfully completing thesetwo modules in the first year, they proceed on to learn how to integrate and use a microcontrollerwith sensors and actuator to a program control algorithm for the robot during the second year.The sensors and actuators topic was actually covered in the microcontroller applications. Thetopic only provides a brief overview to equip students with a basic knowledge of sensors andactuators. The students are required to use these fundamentals to gain further understanding intohow to integrate sensors and actuators into the microcontroller (such as preparing inputs/outputsand acquiring digital/analogue data). With that, the students had to bring the completed micro-controller board and the program to the next module (or the last module of the stream) forintegration with the mechanical designs to form the final autonomous vacuum robot cleaner usingthe PBL method.

One of the primary features (University of California 2011) of PBL for this project is thatit is student-centred. ‘Student-centred’ refers to learning opportunities that are relevant to thestudents, the objectives of which are at least partly determined by the students themselves withguidance from the facilitators. This does not mean that the facilitator abdicates his/her authorityfor making judgements regarding what might be important for students to learn; rather, this featureplaces partial and explicit responsibility on the students’ shoulders for their own learning, hencedeveloping independent, inter-dependent learning and brainstorming skills.

A common criticism of student-centred learning is that students, as novices, cannot be expectedto know what might be important for them to learn, especially in this mechatronics system designsubject, to which they appear to have no prior exposure. Often, the students have greater contentand skill knowledge than the facilitators (and they) would expect. In some cases, whether theirprior learning is correct is not the issue. Regardless of the state of their prior learning, it can both aidand hinder their attempts to learn new information. It is therefore imperative that facilitators havesome sense of what intellectual currency the students bring with them. One way to determine this isby being witness to how students go about addressing intellectual challenges. Active, interactiveand collaborative learning, on which PBL is based, allows a facilitator the rare opportunity toobserve students’ learning processes and understand parts of the work that are not related to theirdiscipline. By collaborating, students see other kinds of problem-solving strategies used; theydiscuss and present the case with classmates and facilitators using their collective information.Hence, it promotes some staff learning opportunities during the process as well. As observed, thestudents begin to take responsibility for their own learning. Hence, they also begin to developteamworking, interpersonal, oral/written communication and problem-solving skills.


The context for learning in PBL is highly context-specific. It serves to teach content by pre-senting the students with a real-world challenge similar to one they might encounter when theyare practitioners of the discipline, such as designing an autonomous vacuum robot cleaner for arobotic company. The ‘problems’ in PBL are typically in the form of ‘cases’, such as designingan autonomous vacuum robot cleaner for table top cleaning. There is no right or wrong answer;rather, there are reasonable solutions based on application of knowledge and skills deemed nec-essary to address the issue and also the availability of time. The ‘solution’, therefore, is partlydependent on the acquisition and comprehension of facts, but is also based on the ability to thinkcritically. For these purposes, critical thinking refers to the ability to analyse, synthesise and eval-uate information, as well as to apply that information appropriate to a given context. It is bothcritical and creative in that synthesis, in particular, requires the students to take what informationis known, reassemble it with information not known and to derive their new body of knowledge totackle the problems. Note that students are not necessarily being asked to create new knowledgein the way a practising scholar does; instead, students are asked to learn something that is at leastnew to them. Hence, it develops the students’ critical thinking or deep learning skills. In somecases, revisiting and enhancing the ‘unpopular solution’ provides an opportunity for students todevelop their reflection thinking skills.

In order to allow students to have a chance to experience different roles or leadership in theteam, they changed their roles during the PBL process. Everybody in the team could practise atleast twice the roles of a team leader, a secretary, an observer and, of course, a member of thegroup. As a team leader, the student was responsible for coordinating the works and time schedulewithin the team. The team leader also had to encourage the members to express their opinions.The secretary handled the writing of the minutes of the meeting so that each member knew theexact task to be performed. Hence, it helps to develop students’ chairperson and teaching skills.

As shown above, the mechatronics system design is delivered using the PBL method, whichplaces as much emphasis on the process leading to the acquisition of knowledge than theknowledge itself. Thus, these desired outcomes as the results of PBL are summarised asshown below:

(1) Chairperson skills.(2) Brainstorming skills.(3) Teamworking skills.(4) Teaching skills.(5) Oral/Written communication skills.(6) Interpersonal skills.(7) Independent learning skills.(8) Inter-dependent learning skills.(9) Problem-solving skills.

(10) Deep learning abilities (or critical thinking skill).(11) Reflection thinking abilities.

In addition to acquiring the above skills, students also have the opportunity to learn some con-tents and skills through seminars and training sessions that are arranged for them. To give studentssome background and fundamentals of PBL, a weekly mandatory PBL orientation programme wasstructured for the first year students. Due to the large cohort size, the programme was conductedin two semesters during the first year. The programme prepares the students for the mechatronicssystem design project. The PBL sessions are held weekly in the laboratory where the equipmentand facilities are available. For consistency in facilitating, each facilitator was given a lecturer’sguide to ‘steer’ students’ learning to achieve the desired outcomes and content.

492C

.Chin

andK

.Yue

Table 3. Matrix of delivery components.

Task/Stage Oral/Written Independent Inter- Problem- Deep ReflectionDesired learning Chairperson Brainstorming Team-working Teaching communication Interpersonal learning dependent solving learning thinkingOutcomes skills skills skills skills skills skills skills learning skills skills abilities abilities

Problem statements X X X X X X XDiscovery journal X X XPeer teaching and quiz X X X X X X XPeer evaluation X X XReflective journal X X X X XProject feedback and interview X X X X XProject presentation and report X X X X X X


Figure 2. Problem-based learning flow chart process with marks allocations.

In summary, the following tasks, as shown in Table 3, are planned to develop the students’skills. They are, namely, problem statements, a discovery journal, peer teachings and quiz, peerevaluations, a reflective journal, project feedback, a project interview, project presentation and,finally, report writing. As shown on the flow chart in Figure 2, the immediate feedback to thestudents provides a bi-directional channel for staff to comment on the students’ performance. Italso provides an ‘early warning symptom’for the staff to identify students who are not performingand contributing to the project. Conversely, it gives an opportunity for students to ask and providefeedback on project matters or personal issues regarding the team. From the features of the PBLmethodology, it is by no means to facilitate the memorising of large quantities of data but ratherto create an understanding, and a meaning of a contextualised problem that is basically deeplearning. By managing the time and work distributions among the group members, students arethus given a larger freedom to draft the group approaches to the project and the use of appropriateinformation. By doing so, it was shown (Vernon and Blake 1993) that this normally also leads tomore self-motivated students.

In addition to students’ learning in the PBL project, it also improves the faculty staff collab-oration. The faculty staff work together in specially coordinated, three to four person teamsto ensure the modules meet the final learning outcomes in the mechatronics system design.Modules in the first two years are cross-fertilised as faculty staff typically work on morethan one module in a given semester; hence, it helps to promote the notion of ‘member-ship’ for both faculty and students. They feel a sense of bonding in the mechatronics subjectwith the members in the groups or classes. In addition, a program assessment is also per-formed in VSCAM. The specific learning outcomes coordinate with module learning outcomesas well as mapping the program outcomes for the mechatronics systems design stream. Atthe end of each cohort, VSCAM is formally reviewed for its relevance to the industry andtechnology trends.

Hence, the VSCAM model supports the need for effective and efficient team teaching andlearning. Additionally, due to its adaptable PBL structure and multidisciplinary nature in thesubjects, it gives a diverse faculty base (expertise and training) between research and curriculumand cyclic reviews for continuous improvement.


4. Project descriptions on autonomous vacuum robot cleaner

This section covers the descriptions of the autonomous vacuum robot cleaner used in the PBLproject. In addition to explaining the details of the proposed PBL method, it is useful to havesome understanding of the basic design of the robot and how it works on the actual ground. Forexample, what are the design features of the robot? What are the tasks required in this PBL projectand how could these tasks be broken down into smaller learning objectives for students to workon? The robotic system, such as the autonomous vacuum robot, is an inherently multidisciplinaryfield, covering many aspects of mechanical, electrical and computer engineering. Robots are nolonger the preserve of elite, well-funded research laboratories. It is predicted that robots (Clusteret al. 2001, Tettey et al. 2007) will assist in a vast range of tasks, including firefighting, search andrescue, removing significant danger, dealing with hazardous materials, military reconnaissanceand surveillance, care for disabled or older people, education and even for domestic chores, suchas vacuum cleaning.

To estimate the likely future demands of engineering (Perrenet et al. 2000, Mills and Treagust2003) graduates with technology or robotic experience, it may be helpful to first gain at least arudimentary understanding of trends within the field. One of the approaches is to consider someactions that the current generation of robots can and cannot do autonomously. An analysis alongthe above lines suggests that much of the future work in robotics may be in areas of autonomouscontrol, improving the ability to operate in unstructured or unforeseen circumstances and to safelyoperate in environments that are also populated by humans. To enable students to understand thefunctions of the autonomous robot and, at the same time, to be not too complicated as to requirethem to perform extensive research, the autonomous robot cleaner for table top cleaning wasfound to be a viable option to begin with.

With robotic vacuum cleaners, people can practically leave the cleaning task off the ‘to-do-list’,reducing people’s effort needed to perform these repetitive and time-consuming tasks. There area variety of robotic vacuum cleaners available on the market (All On Robots 2009). However,there is a lack of a class of vacuum robot cleaner for table top cleaning. With the above marketreview and requirements, the basic objectives for the autonomous vacuum robot cleaner for tabletop cleaning are formulated as follows:

• To design, program and build a vacuum robot cleaner prototype.• To clean up small pieces of paper or eraser residue.• To clean table tops of different sizes.• To avoid obstacles on the table.

To illustrate the flow of the PBL method on the mechatronics systems design project, thefollowing shows the steps taken from the initial to the final stage of the project presentation. Theabove objectives stated in PBL are broken into smaller learning objectives as follows:

• Systems requirements and mechanical design using CAD.• Systems calculations of required torque and motors and the selection of appropriate motors,

gearboxes and sensors.• Design of control algorithms and programming.• Hardware and software implementations of control system algorithms.• Prototype testing, analysis and improvements of mechanical design and control systems.

Note that the first two items have been completed during the first year module. Now the emphasiswas on the third to fifth items. There are, namely, the hardware and software implementations,prototype testing and the improvements of the entire robot design.A key to this theme was to furtherbreak down the ‘problem’of designing a robot into even smaller ‘problems’or learning objectives.


The suggestion was to divide the components (as shown above) into four smaller problems withinthe allowable timeframe of one semester for each group. This enables each member (consisting ofa maximum of four students) of the group to undertake at least one learning objective. Examplesof the learning objectives used in a PBL setting can be shown as follows:

• Hardware implementation.• Software implementation.• Control algorithm and programming.• Prototype testing, analysis and improvements.

After the first year, most of the students had decided on the features of the robot. The features tomeet the specifications were then finalised. For example, the autonomous vacuum robot cleanerin Figure 3 had the following hardware features that were implemented:

• Two × battery holder AA × four cells.• PICkit2.• Two × RC servo motor 360◦ rotation.• Two × 12 VDC motor.• Object sensor (ultrasonic sensor).• Two × floor/boundary sensors (infrared (IR) sensor).• Buzzer.• Two × potentiometers.• 7 × LED.• Four-way dual in-line (DIP) switch.• Two × ball bearings.• Two × tyres.

For the software implementation, the PICkit™ 2 Development Programmer/Debugger(PG164120), as seen in Figure 3, was used to control the hardware via C language program-ming software. It is a low-cost development tool with an easy-to-use interface for programmingand debugging Microchip’s (Microchip Technology Inc. 2004) Flash families of microcontrollers.The full featured Windows® programming interface supports baseline families of 8-bit, 16-bitand 32-bit microcontrollers and many Microchip Serial EEPROM products. With the Microchip’s

Figure 3. Autonomous vacuum robot using MPLAB IDE- PICkit™ 2.


powerful MPLAB Integrated Development Environment, the PICkit™ 2 enables in-circuit debug-ging on most PIC® microcontrollers. The software used the microcontroller has the followingfeatures:

• Input voltage – 12V.• Interface with PC using USB.• Two × 12 C bus.• Processor – PIC18F4620.• Data memory – 64 K.• CPU Speed – 40 MHZ.• Two × PWM signal channels.• Digital I/O Ports – 16 used by 2-IR Sensors, 7 LED, four-way DIP switch, one buzzer.• Analogue input ports – ultrasonic sensor.

Before computer programming of the control algorithm, working principles or the program flowchart of the robot was developed to illustrate the flow of computer programming. The operationsof the robot are as follows. The movement of the robot begins upon power up. The motors controlthe forward movement. As the driving motors start to rotate, the robot moves forward. Whilemoving forward, the robot constantly tracks the input signal of sensors that are positioned inthe front and bottom of the robot. In a typical operation scenario, the front sensor is activatedwhen an obstacle is met. The microcontroller inputs the appropriate signal to the H-bridge circuit,which reverses the direction of the driving motor counter-clockwise. It basically drives the robotin reverse direction to avoid the obstacle. On the other hand, the bottom sensor is activatedwhen the edges of the table are detected. The microcontroller inputs the appropriate signal to theH-bridge circuit, which reverses the direction of the driving motor counter-clockwise and thensteers the robot to avoid the edges of the table. This helps to prevent the robot from falling offthe table.

Finally, the students had to complete the prototype testing, analysis and improvements. Thecompleted program in C code (as shown in Figure 4) was implemented by downloading theprogram into the embedded processor, as shown in Figure 5. For prototype testing, students hadto test the robot in real time on the table top, as shown in Figure 6. After completing the prototypeand testing, they were required to perform the project presentation and to complete group reportsfor formal assessment, as seen in the next section.

Figure 4. MPLAB software for downloading C code into embedded processor.


Figure 5. Hardware set-up for downloading of C code into embedded processor.

Figure 6. Prototype testing to remove paper chips and to avoid obstacles on table top.

5. Assessments

In assessment practices, whether they are for formative and summative purposes, some importantprinciples or values of assessment must be applied. According to Brown et al. (2005), there aremany assessment principles used. To ensure validity (Carpenter 2006) in the project assessment,it is essential to ensure that the objectives of the assessment are fairly addressed. The projectstudents were briefed on the requirements of the flowchart and the use of different functions in thecomputer program. The final computer program must be able to interface with the correct inputand output devices to perform the vacuum cleaning on the top of the table.

To ensure consistency (Merriam 1988, Carpenter 2006) in marking the mechatronics systemdesign project, the module leader has to brief the teaching members with the assessment criteria(or simply the criteria marking scheme) used and there must be a shared common understandingbetween markers as to what constitutes a good, average or poor grade for each criterion.As for eachmarker, they have to provide a clear explanation to the students of the assessment criteria used in themarking scheme. In addition, a second marking should be carried out on all assessed work, whichcontributes towards the final award. The module or subject leader was asked to moderate acrossthe assessments to ensure consistency. A short report was written to highlight whether the markingis consistent and accurate, consistent yet the marks are higher than anticipated (‘marked easy’),consistent yet the marks are lower than anticipated (‘marked harshly’) or inconsistent. The reportswere discussed with the markers to see whether the marks need to be adjusted across the cohort.

Importantly, the makers should not mark their own class to avoid bias (Merriam 1988, Carpenter2006) in marking the projects. The anonymous marking of a different class was to eliminate anybias that might exist on the part of the markers and to reassure students of the impartiality of themarking process. As shown in the breakdown of the marks in the mechatronics system design


Table 4. Overall marking scheme for mechatronics system design.

Components Group Individual Proportion

Problem statements 10% 30% (project participation)Peer evaluation 10%Individual interview 10%Group Preparation 10% 60% (project presentation)Demonstration of functionality 10% 20%Contents 10% (30%)Problems and question handling 10% (30%)Report 10% 10% (project documentation)Total 60% 40% 100%

Note: The italicised values indicate the sub-total.

module in Table 4, the project presentation constitutes 60% of the final score of the mechatronicssystem design module. The criteria marking scheme used for the formal assessment of the projectpresentation is shown in Table 5.

Teamwork is one of the fundamentals of PBL. However, justified scepticism is often expressed.The balanced compromise between the individual study and teamwork is the strategy in the PBL.The team is the source of inspiration, place for discussions and interactive learning, but goals andresponsibilities must be clearly defined for each student. As a result, it can be seen that there isslightly more contribution on individual performance as compared to the traditional PBL method,which is team-orientated. In the proposed marking scheme, the individual efforts that affect theperformance and cohesiveness within the groups are weighted 40%. On the other hand, the teamefforts have a weightage of 60%.

In addition to using the criteria marking scheme for the project presentation, a weekly assess-ment was conducted to indicate how the students would have performed during the project. Atthe beginning, the groups were asked to give the problem statements. In the initial stage of PBL,

Table 5. Criteria marking scheme for project presentation.

Criteria A B

Preparation – effectiveintroduction

–speakers introduced using proper etiquettewith no errors.

–speakers introduced using proper etiquettewith 1–2 errors.

(10 marks) –objectives and main objectives are clearlystated and agree with presentation.(9–10 marks)

–objectives and main objectives areclearly stated with some deviation frompresentation.(7–8 marks)

Contents(10 marks)

–able to describe an overview of themicrocontroller architecture.

–able to describe an overview of themicrocontroller architecture with 1–2errors.

–able to use and explain instructions to writeworkable programs

–able to use and explain instructions to writeworkable programs with 1–2 errors.

(9–10 marks) (7–8 marks)Demonstration of

functionality–able to build, compile and run the program

successfully.–able to build, compile and run the program

with 1–2 errors.(15 marks) –able to meet the project objectives.

(13–15 marks)–able to meet the project objectives with 1–2

errors.(10–12 marks)

Problems and questionhandling

–able to troubleshoot and solve the programerrors (if any).

–able to troubleshoot and solve the programerrors with 1–2 errors.

(5 marks) –show teamwork, project participation andable to handle question during testing.(5 marks)

–how teamwork, project participation in mostoccasions and-able to handle questionduring testing in most occasion.(4 marks)

European

JournalofEngineering

Education

499

Table 5. Criteria marking scheme for project presentation (Continued).

Criteria C (average) D F

Preparation – effectiveintroduction

–speakers introduced using proper etiquette withsome errors.

–speakers introduced haphazardly. –speakers not introduced

(10 marks) –objectives and main objectives are stated with somedeviation from presentation.

–objectives and main objectives are stated but do notagreed with presentation.

–objectives and main objectives are not stated.(0–3 marks)

(5–6 marks) (3–4 marks)Contents

(10 marks)–able to describe an overview of the microcontroller

architecture with some errors.–able to describe an overview of the microcontroller

architecture with numerous errors.–unable to describe an overview of the

microcontroller architecture.–able to use and explain instructions to write

workable programs with some errors.–able to use and explain instructions to write

workable programs with numerous errors.–unable to use and explain instructions to write

workable programs.(5–6 marks) (4–5 marks) (0–3 marks)

Demonstration offunctionality

–able to build, compile and run the program withsome errors.

–able to build, compile and run the program withnumerous errors.

–unable to build, compile and run the program.

(15 marks) –able to meet the project objectives with some errors. –unable to meet the project objectives. –wrong project objectives.(8–9 marks) (5–7 marks) (0–4 marks)

Problems and questionhandling

–able to troubleshoot and solve the program errorsin some occasion.

–able to troubleshoot and solve the program errorsin few occasion

–unable to troubleshoot and solve the programerrors.

(5 marks) –show teamwork, project participation in someoccasion and able to handle question duringtesting in some occasion.

–show teamwork, project participation in oneoccasion and able to handle question duringtesting in few occasion

–no teamwork, project participation and unable tohandle question during testing.

(3 marks) (2 marks) (0–1 marks)


each member in the groups must solve at least one problem statement, which was agreed amongthe members.

Each week the tutor would grade individual contributions on a 10-point scale through individualinterview. The average points obtained contribute to 10% of the total marks, as shown in Table 4.Peer evaluation was conducted electronically to gage the contributions made by each member.It was done through the peer evaluation software designed by the school. Through the groupmembers’ evaluation, higher marks were awarded to members who had contributed to the project.The total peer evaluation marks constitute 10% of the total marks.

As shown in Table 4, the group presentation was marked against group preparation, demonstra-tion of functionality, contents, problems and question handling. Instead of judging the functionalityof the final robot through the group performance, the individual contributions on the project wereconsidered. VSCAM employs a formula that weights the overall group mark, based on a combi-nation of presentation and report marks up to 70%, with the level of contribution of the individualmark of the student varying up to 30%. Initially, problems, question handling and the demon-stration of functionality during the project presentation were considered as the group marks;however, since not all of the students were involved in the presentation, it was considered inap-propriate. Consequently, 30% was awarded to individual efforts made in the project and 30% forgroup performance, which involves teamwork and cohesiveness. Finally, students were assessedon their report writing skills. The project reports were submitted after the presentation. As arequirement, the members’ contribution to the project was shown on the report. It gives a clearindication of the individual efforts made in the project and it also provides a fair marking schemefor the members.

6. Evaluations

Integrative evaluation was conducted, based on the process described by Draper et al. (1996),where the focus is on understanding the experience of students engaged in the learning activity.At the beginning, a series of evaluation questionnaires were used. Although, quality functiondeployment (QFD) (Akao 1990) is another viable option, it was not chosen as simpler and quickerways to obtain the results are a priority at the moment of the evaluation. As QFD is known tobe a comprehensive quality system that systematically links the needs of the customer (in thiscase the students and staff) with various functions and processes to align the entire departmenttoward achieving a common goal, it was found to be too exhaustive to implement during theinitial stage.

For evaluation, the initial questionnaires were administered online, through links distributedvia e-mail. The response rates were very low as most students did not participate or felt it wastroublesome to log in to the website. Consequently, later questionnaires were administered onpaper, during the group presentation sessions. These results should be treated with caution, sincethe response rates were low (30% or 120 out of 400 students) and there is likely to be an element ofself-selection in those who responded. Those who completed the online questionnaire are possiblymore motivated students and those who filled in the paper questionnaires are those who gave apresentation. Despite that, the results provided a useful indication of what was happening duringthe learning experience.

Confidence logs were used to record the confidence (Draper et al. 1996) of students before andafter PBL in VSCAM. It helps to monitor progresses or improvements of the students after thePBL project. Table 6 shows the score against the intended learning outcomes of VSCAM. Therewas a modest increase to all the learning outcomes, with the exception of presenting informationand giving feedback. There were some students who did not provide feedback.


Table 6. Confidence log.

Learning outcome Pre PBL Post PBL

Selecting components 3.1 3.2Designing circuits 2.4 3.1Programming 2.9 3.0Integrations 2.5 3.2Team working 2.9 3.0Defining problems 3.1 3.3Problem solving 3.2 3.5Project planning 2.9 3.6Project management 3.1 3.4Self-directed learning 3.3 3.6Communicating ideas 3.5 3.6Searching for information 3.5 3.7Presenting information 3.4 3.2Giving feedback 3.5 3.3Number of responses 31 331 = no confidence; 5 = very confident

PBL = problem-based learning.

The study process questionnaire, developed by Biggs et al. (2001), measures the students’approaches to learning, whether deep or surface (Biggs 2003, Ramsden 2003). This was appliedprior to the semester to give an indication of the types of learners engaged in the activity. Onaverage the cohort came out as having a deep learning attitude of 26 and surface learning attitudeof 24, on a scale of 10 to 50.

The learning resource questionnaire, developed by Biggs et al. (2001), measures the frequencyof use and usefulness of resources. Table 7 shows the frequency of use of resources and Table 8shows the usefulness. Clearly, a wide range of resources was used, with the Internet being used asa primary resource. Encouragingly, the discussion with other students and tutors registered highly,indicating that the students found the group work, facilitated and unfacilitated, useful. Studentswho indicated other resources mentioned the library, intranet, company data sheets, catalogues,magazines and the results of previous project research.

Perceptions of the PBL questionnaire gauge students’ perceptions of PBL and conventionallearning. Despite recognising the increase in time and responsibility that PBL entails, studentsseem happy with the support they got and would be prepared to learn this way again. Theirenjoyment of group work was of particular note. There was a preference for lectures, which maynot be surprising since this was the mode of teaching in which they had predominantly beentaught. As reflected in the table, they found it difficult to adapt to the PBL process. This was notsurprising as it was the first time they had tried PBL.

Table 7. Frequency of resource use.

Resource Frequency of use

Textbooks 2.8Own notes lectures or laboratories 3.2Borrowed notes 2.1Discussion with tutors 3.5Discussion with students 3.6Internet 3.9Other 2.8Number of responses 291 = did not use; 4 = used regularly


Table 8. Usefulness of resource.

Resource Usefulness

Textbooks 3.0Own notes lectures or labs 3.2Borrowed notes 3.2Discussion with tutors 3.4Discussion with students 3.3Internet 3.8Other 2.7Number of responses 341 = useless; 4 = vital

In addition to using the methods above to provide some form of evaluation of VSCAM usingPBL, the post-course questionnaire was used to gather more general feedback. The questionnaireconsisted of three value-neutral, open questions and an opportunity for further comments:

• What did you learn from VSCAM using PBL?Around 100 students mentioned teamworking, although 10 students suggested negative expe-riences. The remaining 10 students had no comments. Project, presentation, problem solvingand research skills were also mentioned in the questionnaire.

• What did you not like about VSCAM using PBL?Around 85 students complained that individual works were not weighted high enough assome members were not working although they had good relationships with the members.Also, 35 students complained about competing workloads from other modules in the samesemester.

• What would you like to see changed on VSCAM using PBL?There are 90 suggestions, including adding more credit to the mechatronics systemdesign module and reducing other module workload. The remaining 30 students had nocomments.

Some were supportive of the initiative but reiterated credit and workload issues. There werea few who did not value the initiative and would prefer using the tutorials, lectures, tests andexamination. For further development, an appropriate amount of credit will be implemented toenhance students’ motivation and provide a clear signal that the activity is valued and important.For example, a system can be implemented to decrease the credit requirement for students enteringthe engineering degree study in universities. In addition, the selected problems will be fine-tuned, based on the feedback from the focus groups, with more structure and guidance on howthe problems can be divided into smaller tasks. Some felt that the project planning was notwell supported during the semester. A project management module will be introduced in thenext cohort.

In addition to using higher credits and a focus group to handle feedback to improve on VSCAM,students need to be encouraged in order to motivate them to participate actively in the project.Students who do not yet have powerful intrinsic motivation (Csikszentmihalyi 1993) to learncan be helped by extrinsic motivators in the form of rewards. Rather than criticising unwantedbehaviour or penalising wrong answers, reward correct behaviour and answers. Everyone likes thefeeling of accomplishment and recognition; rewards for good work produce those good feelings.For example, competition could be established within the school to encourage and motivatestudents within the peer group. A prize or plaque could be given to the winning team or even thebest-improved team to motivate them in the coming final year project.


7. Conclusion

The new VSCAM to enhance students’ learning in mechatronics system design through integra-tion of educational activities from the first year to the second year of the course was introduced.By using the PBL method on the autonomous vacuum robot cleaner, it provides a good hands-onexperience for the students to acquire skills on brainstorming, teamworking, oral/written commu-nication, independent learning, problem-solving, deep learning abilities and reflection thinkingthrough mechanical design, computer programming, microcontroller design, system integrations,troubleshooting and testing of a mechatronics system. With the assessment methods that not onlyassess the group contribution to PBL project, the individual contributions to the project were con-sidered. It gives better indications of the teamwork and participation among the members. At theend of the vertical stream, the integrative evaluation of the new vertical curricula was conductedusing confidence logs, attitude surveys, questionnaires and a number of focus groups. It was foundthat the activity was appreciated by participating staff and students. However, there was a need toassign more credit to this activity to improve engagement and adjust the workloads of the studentsand staff in VSCAM. Although, the proposed method was mainly conducted in Singapore, it canbe applied to most, if not all, institutions worldwide. However, the general guidances are that thestaff must be trained in PBL prior to implementation. Institutions have to do their part to engageand promote the use of PBL among the students and staff in engineering education.

Further educational research in this area is recommended. Fruitful avenues for further researchcould include an effort to integrate the mechatronics engineering course with the local mecha-tronics degree programme to create a preferred pathway to postgraduate research in mechatronicsengineering. This so-called Degree-to-Postgraduate Stream approach is useful to analyse the rela-tive effectiveness of attempts to enable engineering students to work effectively in other institutionsthat are performing mechatronics systems research.

References

Akao, Y., 1990. Quality function deployment: integrating customer requirements into product design. New York:Productivity Press.

Akpinar, B., 2006. Mechatronics education in Turkey. Mechatronics, 16, 185–192.All On Robots, 2009. Robot vacuum cleaners [online]. Available from: http://www.allonrobots.com/robot-vacuum.html

[Accessed 6 July 2011].Barrows, H.S., 1996. Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: a brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and

Learning, 68, 3–11.Beckerleg, M. and Collins, J., 2007. Producing research from undergraduate projects. Proceedings of the AAEE 2007

conference, Melbourne, Australia, 9–13 December 2007. London: The Society for Research into Higher Educationand Open Univeristy Press.

Biggs, J., 2003. Teaching for quality learning at university. 2nd ed. London: The Society for Research into HigherEducation and Open University Press.

Biggs, J., Kember, D. and Leung, D.Y.P., 2001. The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133–149.

Bradbeer, R.S., 2003. An introductory course in electronic engineering using a collaborative problem based learningapproach in a studio environment. Proceedings of the international conference on engineering education, Valencia,Spain, 2003.

Brown, S., Race, P. and Smith, B., 2005. 500 tips on assessment. London and New York: Routledge Falmer.Carpenter, G.I., 2006. Accuracy, validity and reliability in assessment and in evaluation of services for older people: the

role of the InterRAI MDS assessment system. Age and Ageing, 35, 327–329.Cluster, R.L., Valesey, B.G. and Burtke, B.N., 2001. An assessment model for a design approach to technological problem

solving. Journal of Technology Education, 12 (2), 5–20.Csikszentmihalyi, M., 1993. The evolving self: A physiology for the third millennium. New York: HarperCollins.Currier, P., Goff, R. and Terpenny, J., 2010. A proposed learner-centered mechatronics engineering instructional program.

Proceedings of the 2010 ASEE Southeastern Section conference, Blacksburg, Virginia 18–20 April 2010, 1–9.Doppelt, Y., 2003. Implementation and assessment of project-based learning in a flexible environment. International

Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13, 255–272.


Draper, S.W., et al., 1996. Integrative evaluation: an emerging role for classroom studies of CAL. Computers Education,26 (1–3), 17–32.

García, F.M., 2005. Problem-based learning: a case of study in computer science. International conference on Multimediaand ICT in Education. Cáceres, Spain, 7–10 June 2005, FORMATEX 2005.

Grepl, R., 2010. Problem based learning in mechatronics. 3rd international symposium for engineering education,University College Cork, Republic of Ireland, 30 June – 2 July 2010, 1–4.

Grimheden, M. and Hanson, M., 2003. How might education in mechatronics benefit from problem based learning? 4thinternational workshop on research and education in mechatronics, Bochum, Germany, 9–10 October 2003, 1–8.

Grimheden, M. and Hanson, M., 2005. Mechatronics – the evolution of an academic discipline in engineering education.Mechatronics, 15 (2), 179–192.

Lyshevski, S., 2002. Mechatronic curriculum – retrospect and prospect. Mechatronics, 12, 195–205.Merriam, S.B., 1988. Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Microchip Technology Inc., 2004. PIC18F2420/2520/4420/4520 data sheet [online]. Available from: http://ww1.micr-

ochip.com/downloads/en/devicedoc/39631a.pdf [Accessed 6 July 2011].Mills J.E. and Treagust, D.F., 2003. Engineering education – Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Aus-

tralasian Journal of Engineering Education [online]. Available from: http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf [Accessed 6 July 2011].

Mina, M., et al., 2005. Learning streams: a case study in curriculum integration. 35th ASEE/IEEE frontiers in educationconference, Indianapolis, IN 19–22 October 2005, FID-5.

Ministry of Education, 2010. Post-secondary education. [online] Available from: http://www.moe.gov.sg/education/post-secondary/index.php#private-universities [Accessed 6 July 2011].

Perrenet, J.C., Bouhuijs, P.A.J. and Smits, J.G.M.M., 2000. The suitability of problem-based learning for engineeringeducation: theory and practice. Teaching Higher Education, 5 (3), 345–358.

Ramsden, D., 2003. Learning to teach in higher education, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.Sergiu, S., Balan, R. and Maties,V., 2007. Using PC’s and micro-controllers in mechatronics education. IEEE International

Conference on mechatronics, Kumamoto, Japan, May 2007, 1–5.Temasek Polytechnic, 2010. School of Engineering [online]. Available from: http://www-eng.tp.edu.sg/eng_home/eng_

courses/eng_ft_courses/eng_mtn_home.htm [Accessed 6 July 2011].Tettey, G.A.M., Dias, M.B. and Browning, B., 2007. Robotics education in emerging technology regions. AAAI spring

symposium ‘Robots and Robot Venues: Resources for AI Education’, 26–28 March 2007, 1–5.Tutunji, T.A., et al., 2007. Mechatronics curriculum development at Philadelphia University in Jordan. Mechatronics, 17,

65–71.University of California, 2011. Problem-based learning faculty institute: bibliography [online]. Available from:

http://www.pbl.uci.edu/winter2000/bibliography.html [Accessed 6 July 2011].Vernon, D.T. and Blake, R.L., 1993. Does problem-based learning work?A meta-analysis of evaluative research. Academic

Medicine, 68 (7), 550–563.Wood, D.R., 1994. Problem-based learning: How to gain the most from PBL. Hamilton, Ontario: Donald R. Woods.World Future Society, 2011. 20 forecasts for 2011–2025 [online].Available from: http://www.wfs.org/forecasts/ [Accessed

6 July 2011].Yavuz, H. and Mistikoglu, S., 2009. Assessment of transition from mechanical engineering to mechatronics engineering

in Turkey. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25 (1), 112–121.

About the authors

C.S. Chin was born in Singapore. He received a PhD in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering from Nanyang Tech-nological University in 2009. He was a Lecturer in mechatronics engineering at Temasek Polytechnic in Singapore. Hisresearch interests are in the teaching and applications aspect of hardware control of mechatronics systems.

K.M.Yue was born in Singapore. He received a MSc in Engineering from National University of Singapore. He is the coursemanager in mechatronics engineering at Temasek Polytechnic in Singapore. His research interests are in computer-aidedproduct design and mechatronics teaching.

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/devicedoc/39631a.pdf

http://ww1.microchip.com/downloads/en/devicedoc/39631a.pdf

http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf

http://www.aaee.com.au/journal/2003/mills_treagust03.pdf

http://www-eng.tp.edu.sg/eng_home/engprotect LY1extunderscore courses/engprotect LY1extunderscore ft_courses/engprotect LY1extunderscore mtn_home.htm

http://www-eng.tp.edu.sg/eng_home/engprotect LY1extunderscore courses/engprotect LY1extunderscore ft_courses/engprotect LY1extunderscore mtn_home.htm

Copyright of European Journal of Engineering Education is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

vertical stream curricula integration of problem-based learning using an autonomous vacuum robot in...

Documents