Experiential Machines to Enhance Learning Through Productive Failure
S.M. Persaud (TU Delft - Design for Sustainability)
Bas Flipsen (TU Delft - Design for Sustainability)
R.S. Taen (TU Delft - Industrial Design Engineering)
More Info
expand_more
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.
Abstract
The traditional approach of teaching engineering at the faculty of Industrial Design Engineering using direct instructions and problem-based learning was ineffective, as students failed to apply the engineering knowledge in their capstone design projects. Therefore, in the first-year engineering course Understanding Product Engineering (UPE), the Productive Failure (PF) method is used to teach mechanics of materials. Amongst other subjects, UPE includes modules on manufacturing techniques for plastics and metals, typically taught by theory alone. To address the challenge of practicing this knowledge and enhance their learning even more, a simple, safe, and cost-effective machine was introduced simulating thermoforming, injection moulding, and metal bending. This machine encourages experiential learning, which positively impacts knowledge retention and decision-making regarding material-manufacturing techniques.
To validate the student’s enhancement in learning, an A/B test is executed which compares the PF approach using the experiential machine with traditional direct instruction (DI). Group A (nine students) used the machine and struggled before receiving instructional materials, while Group B (nine students) received direct instruction first. The students were interviewed on their experiences after the workshop and tested online on the content.
Results showed significant differences in student perceptions and experiences. Group A, using the experiential machines, felt more confident, enthusiastic, intrigued, and engaged compared to Group B. However, test scores of the exam a week later showed little differences between the two approaches.