Challenge-Based Learning in Aerospace Engineering Education: The ESA Concurrent Engineering Challenge at the Technical University of Madrid

Highlights

• Educational experience combining Challenge-Based Learning & Concurrent Engineering.

• Empirical study based on instruments and surveys presented to students and teachers.

• Positive impact in the students' motivation and teacher-student relationship.

• Overall improvement of the learning processes in Aerospace Engineering Education.

Abstract

This paper analyzes from several perspectives the impact of an educational experience that combines Challenge-Based Learning, as an active learning methodology, and Concurrent Engineering, as a design methodology. This empirical research focuses on motivational aspects, professor-student relationship and the complete teaching-learning process in the scope of tertiary learning, particularly, in Aerospace Engineering Education. The experience consisted in the participation of Master students from the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid in the 2018 ESA Concurrent Engineering Challenge, which proposed the preliminary sizing of a space mission following the Concurrent Engineering approach. The positive results of the experience, obtained from different instruments and surveys presented to both students and professors, have shown enhanced student motivation and improvements in the teacher-student relationship and the overall learning process.

Introduction

In recent years, European universities are changing their educational models toward teaching and learning methods based on active learning [1,2], which are more interactive, experiential and encourage students motivation and creativity.

In classical teacher-centered methods, students assume a passive role. Although lectures are as effective as other educational approaches in transmitting information to students, they barely promote student thinking [3], and often lead to a more negative attitude toward science than student-centered methods [4]. This has a heightened effect in engineering students, as their abilities to think critically and solve problems are continuously challenged during their academic training.

One of the active learning methods that has been most widely implemented in engineering education over the recent years is the Project-Based Learning (PBL). The PBL encourages the development of generic competencies such as communication, teamwork or leadership [[5], [6], [7]], increases the students motivation and satisfaction [[7], [8], [9]] and, contrary to classical methods, favors the development of soft skills that are of notable interest for the business world [[10], [11], [12], [13], [14]].

Another active learning method that has recently seized lot of attention, and has been successfully implemented in engineering education is the Challenge-Based Learning (CBL) [[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]]. CBL has a strong base in earlier methodologies, such as collaborative problem-based learning or PBL. In fact, CBL provides many of the benefits of PBL, but it is different from PBL in that it presents students with real-world challenges of higher complexity than regular classroom projects [18,[21], [22], [23]]. CBL integrates learning phases (providing theoretical and practical knowledge to solve the challenges) and challenges (with defined outcomes) [18,21].

The term CBL is attributed to Apple, when in 2008 it carried out the project “Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow-Today”, where students worked as a team, not only among classmates, but also with teachers and experts in the field of work [24]. CBL also relates to the Challenge-Based Instruction of the Engineering Research Center (VaNTH ERC) [25]. In 2000, this center implemented several innovations in education that were fundamentally based on a reference framework called How People Learn [26], and an instructional design known as Software Technology Action Reflection Legacy Cycle. The integration of both elements was called Challenge-Based Instruction.

Despite the existing differences between Apple and VaNTH ERC approaches, they shared the common driver of solving real-world challenges, teamwork and publication of the solution, three defining aspects of CBL as a learning philosophy. In addition, both proposals included the use of technological tools and other resources that support the resolution process. Experts in the field (professors and/or industry professionals, depending on the type of challenge) actively supported students throughout the process.

In the field of engineering, on the other hand, it is possible to understand Design as a resource for developing solutions. Any problem, regardless its complexity, can be simplified to interdependent statements e.g., a complete space mission, and the selected orbit or power system of the space vehicle, respectively. This (complex) interdependence needs support tools during the design process that help identifying possible inconsistencies. The term Concurrent Engineering (CE) (or Concurrent Design) [27] was first coined in 1988 in the report R-388 of the American Institute for Defense Analyses to refer to the design methodology that integrates processes and takes the different aspects of the solution together into account. This approach naturally highlights the importance of the interrelations between the different sub-designs within the whole design solution. Contrary to the traditional methodology, specialists from each discipline collaborate during the process in joint design sessions that share the same space, where the aforementioned dependencies are identified and communicated instantly, fact that effectively reduce errors and, in turn, the design time.

The present work describes an educational experience aimed to combine CBL as an active learning methodology, and CE as a design methodology, in the scope of the preliminary sizing of a space mission. The framework of this experience was the 2018 ESA Concurrent Engineering Challenge (ESA CEC) [28], a project led by the ESA Academy, the educational division of the European Space Agency (ESA), which every year launches a call for tertiary education centers of the member states, selecting different institutions to participate. The Challenge consisted on the preliminary design of a space mission following the CE philosophy in an integrated environment, where students complement their knowledge, familiarize themselves with the CE approach and its benefits, and further learn how ESA assesses the technical and financial feasibility of real space missions.

The analysis explained throughout this manuscript focuses on the educational outcome of the participation of the Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería Aeronáutica y del Espacio (ETSIAE) at the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) in the 2018 ESA CEC from a motivational, professor-student relationship and knowledge acquisition points of view. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, the 2018 ESA CEC is introduced. In section 3, the case study is described, drawing attention on the objectives, the Research Questions, the description of the sample, and the instruments and methods. Then, results are presented and discussed in sections 4 Results, 5 Discussion, respectively. Finally, conclusions are offered in section 6, while the limitations and future research are outlined in section 7.