A co-operative venture in electricalengineering education: designing a course

B. Bolton, M.Sc, Ph.D., C.Eng., M.I.E.E., J.T. France, B.Sc.(Eng), A.C.G.I.,C.Eng., M.I.E.E. and A.J. Prescott, Dip.Tech.(Eng), A.C.T.(Birm)

Indexing term: Education and training

Abstract: In a previous paper the authors described a new philosophy of engineering education which hademerged from a joint study. This paper describes how a new course was designed so that this philosophy couldbe realised. It describes the planning of the new course and shows how a complex learning structure wasassembled to support the achievement of complex educational objectives.

1 Introduction

In 1976 the School of Electrical Engineering, University ofBath and the GEC-Marconi Electronics Company began ajoint study of electrical and electronic engineering educa-tion with a view to designing a new course which couldbetter prepare undergraduates for professional careersthan did the traditional 3-year course. The initial propo-sals came from the company, which felt that young engi-neers should be educated to make a positive contributionto industry as soon as possible in their first postgraduateappointment, thereby giving themselves maximum initialjob choice together with the best chance of a successfulcareer and giving the company maximum flexibility in taskallocation as circumstances changed. As the study devel-oped, it became clear that the perceived diffidences inyoung graduates were not in their main discipline but inthe supporting disciplines which would enable them tooperate within the complex of a large commercial andsocial enterprise: what, in fact, Finniston later defined asthe engineering dimension. It was argued that the tradi-tional engineering curricula tended to ignore the mostchallenging, exciting, and in many ways the most reward-ing aspects of the engineer's world. A discipline which, byits very nature, crosses subject boundaries, which requiresimagination, entrepreneurial skills and management skillsof a very high order, and which could, and should, providethe very best educational foundation for a useful andrewarding life was too often presented as a sterile science.

An earlier paper by the authors [1] based on this initialstudy developed a rationale for a course intended to makegood some of the shortcomings of the traditional 3-yearcourse, and the following statement was made as a guidingphilosophy for the course developers:An industrial society requires

(i) professional engineers who are able to define andachieve technical objectives within the technical, com-mercial, organisational and social environment of anygiven enterprise

(ii) engineers who are capable of maintaining a contin-uous programme of professional development, and whoare able to make the most appropriate use of the informa-tion sources available to them

(iii) engineers who are creative and who can take a criti-cal, questioning attitude to innovation, whatever its source,and

Paper 3442A (S5), first received 19th April and in revised form 27th July 1984Dr. Bolton and Mr. Prescott are with the School of Electrical Engineering, Uni-versity of Bath, Claverton Down, Bath, Avon BA2 7AY, England, and Mr. Franceis with Marconi Avionics Ltd., Rochester, Kent, England

(iv) engineers who can co-operate with, and win the co-operation of, others in the functions and activities of anengineering enterprise.

The paper went on to identify four elements of a degreecourse, product technology, support technology, role tech-nology and personal skills, and proposed that these ele-ments should be the major strands in a continuouslywoven tapestry of engineering education. The elementswere defined as follows:

Product technology: covering the main discipline of thedegree course

Support technology: covering areas relating to andbearing on the mainstream activity of the electrical andelectronic engineer in industry

Role technology: covering specific skills and abilitieswhich are concerned with particular roles, e.g. those ofdesign engineer

Personal skills: covering specific skills of communica-tion, group working, personal job planning and use ofsimple tools and measuring instruments.

The tapestry was to be woven by a learning processinvolving analysis and synthesis, the questioning of atti-tudes and values and the practice of communication. Arti-ficial separation of education and training was to beavoided, and group learning was to replace 'chalk and talk'wherever it was more appropriate.

The present paper describes the way in which the newcurriculum was designed.

2 Planning the curriculum

The course rationale and the target capabilities had beenagreed [1], and the problem was to achieve these throughan efficient and effective curriculum. An examination of thetarget capabilities will show that the student's ability totransfer knowledge is of paramount importance. Althoughthe original paper shows support technology subdivided soas to group together target capabilities which share acommon theme, professional performance cannot bejudged in this way. It is a synergy of the component parts.It requires transfer of learning from one situation toanother, and the more complex the nature of the problemto be solved, the more extensive the transfer must be.

Gagne [2] argues that the most important conditionsfor transfer appear to be internal to the individual. Trans-fer cannot be taught as a structured science or skill, it hasto be learned through a process involving the practice of awide variety of problems. The challenge for the educator isto provide a stimulus for the student that will promote

684 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 131, Pt. A, No. 9, DECEMBER 1984

transfer, but this stimulus has to operate at an internallevel to trigger, or establish, an appropriate set of attitudesand values.

To quote Cornwall [3]'Subject matter learned in a conventional science coursemainly as a result of the external motivation of a formalexamination, is less likely to be properly 'internalised' or'made one's own'; subject matter and technical skillslearned by students within a project-orientated curric-ulum is necessarily more relevant to current needs andconcerns in a subject area, as the content of learning hasbeen determined only in terms of the demands of a real,contemporary problem. It is therefore much more likelyto generate internal motivation for the learner.'

There are, therefore, three criteria to be met by any curric-ulum which attempts to encourage transfer of learning.These are:

An understanding of the principles, because without thisno transfer is possible

Practice of the principles in a variety of situations, andThe posing of problems which appear to be real, con-

temporary and complex.

There is, however, an underlying assumption here that thelearner will respond to the challenge. If there is any doubtabout this, then the curriculum must attempt to encourageand promote such a response. This may be the wheel uponwhich many innovations in engineering education havebeen broken in the past, because the values implicitlyencouraged by the academic system relate to research andpublication. Design-orientated studies may be encouraged,but students are wise enough to recognise the real criteriafor honours.

It was decided, for the reasons given above, that the newcurriculum had to be activity based and that the activityshould be seen to be an important, and assessed, part ofthe whole course. The problem was tackled at two levels: asubstantial part of the curriculum (300 hours) was set asidefor a clearly defined project activity, and the remainder ofthe support-technology curriculum was planned to incor-porate learning styles which would promote transfer oflearning, and generate the internal motivation for learning.The product-technology section of the course was to be thewhole of the existing B.Sc. course in electrical and elec-tronic engineering, and the teaching of this was to remainunchanged.

The project activity, called 'the product enterprise' isdescribed in a companion paper [4]. The design of thesupport technology curriculum is described in the follow-ing Sections.

3 Structuring the curriculum

When the planning for the new course began, the schoolwas running two courses in parallel: a traditional 3-yearhonours degree and a thin-sandwich honours degree. Thisinvolved some duplication of teaching in the middle years.With no prospects of a significant increase in staffnumbers, it was clear that the new course could only beintroduced if some rationalisation of teaching could takeplace. Several options were considered, but, unfortunately,the only one that made any sense was the closing down ofthe thin-sandwich course. This solution was forced on theschool by the need to maintain a quota of overseas stu-dents, and this could only be supported on a full-timecourse.

The final structure for the M.Eng course was thereforedecided on pragmatic grounds to meet political and not

educational needs. The structure finally adopted was onewhich required no duplication of teaching for the coreB.Sc. curriculum and additional teaching only for thesupport technology courses. The pattern is shown in Fig. 1.

40

25

20

support support supporttechnology technology technology

20 40 60 80 100 120 14,0 160 180 200 220 240weeks

a.in

a.in in in

Q.

in

Fig. 1 Proposed course structure

Second-year B.Sc. courses were arranged so that somecould be taken in the second academic year of the newcourse and some in the third academic year. The final-yearB.Sc. subject on logic theory and design was timetabled sothat students on the extended course could take it as acompulsory subject in their third academic year. Thisstructure allowed the support technology course to bespread thickly across the middle two calendar years withsome continuation in the final year in the slot vacated bylogic theory and design. This was not an ideal solutionbecause students would only start the new part of thecourse in their second year, and it was felt essential thatthey should be introduced to professional studies as soonas possible after leaving school. For this reason an intro-ductory course of three weeks was planned for the Septem-ber immediately prior to the first-year registration, and anadditional one hour per week was added to the first-yeartimetable.

Industrial periods were to be in the summer vacationsbetween each academic year. This was a slight reductionon the industrial periods of the sandwich course, but withthe addition of the support-technology courses, and bycareful planning of the content and structure of the indus-trial periods, it was anticipated that a better overall indus-trial education could be achieved.

4 Planning for learning

The nature of the learning structure is determined largelyby the nature of the learning objectives. For this coursethese are contained within the target capabilities detailedin Reference 1. A means of classifying these objectives isgiven by Bloom [5] and Krathwohl [6] who provide twocategories, with subsets of each, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: Taxonomy of educational objectives

Cognitive domain Affective domain

KnowledgeComprehensionApplicationAnalysisSynthesisEvaluation

ReceivingRespondingValuingOrganisationCharacterisation

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 131, Pt. A, No. 9, DECEMBER 1984 685

This classification, or taxonomy, of educational objec-tives makes a broad division between those which areessentially knowledge centred (the cognitive domain) andthose which relate to attitudes and values (the affectivedomain). The division is an important one to make if themost appropriate learning method is to be adopted. Ingeneral, objectives in the cognitive domain may beachieved by didactic methods, whereas objectives in theaffective domain require methods which are discursive.

In each of the themes of support technology, objectiveswere set in both the cognitive and affective domains and atall levels. This meant that the learning had to be plannedso that the students' experiences led to achievement inthese various areas. If the 'human component' is taken asan example, then the complexity of the final structure canbe shown.

The human component: In the first week of the preuniver-sity course, students are given lectures and exercises ongeneral systems thinking and are expected to work ingroups on problems which are deliberately chosen to becomplex, multidimensional and controversial. Tutors areinstructed to use the group activities as learning exercises,and the interaction of groups and of individuals withingroups is looked at in a supportive way. Some knowledgeand comprehension objectives are covered in this way andsome through the content of the taught subjects. Studentsare expected to apply what they learn in their group workand to analyse complex systems looking for evidence ofhuman factors which might affect the system. For example,in an analysis of the management and operational systemsof the hotel in which they are resident, they are expected toseek evidence of system controls and structures which havebeen affected, or determined, by the expectations of thecustomer rather than by the needs of the management.

On the affective side, a discussion of people as systemcomponents inevitably causes a clash of values, and theresulting debate is allowed to persist throughout thecourse, refuelled by examples selected by students fromtheir own exercises and problems. The relevance of this totheir immediate situation is formalised by a brief course ongroup dynamics given by an expert from a sponsoringcompany.

In the first academic year a formal course is given ontechnology and society which involves case-study work,discussions and essay work. Objectives at all levels of thecognitive domain are covered, and the discussion workchallenges their acceptance of, and response to, differentvalue structures.

Exercises in systems, design and quality present studentswith opportunities to relate what they have understood tocomplex engineering problems.

The first industrial period requires students to write anessay on factors which they see affecting the motivation ofpeople working in the production department. Their infor-mation is gathered from conversations and interviews, andtheir criteria for judging and classifying the informationhave to be drawn from reference papers, texts, or perhapsthe personnel department. The responsibility for learning isplaced firmly on the shoulders of the student.

Second-year courses again have a formal element, withinputs on ergonomics, motivation and innovation. Theneed to write technical specifications for a product encour-ages transfer of learning, and evidence of achievement ofhigher-level affective objectives can be found in the extentto which the 'human component' is dealt with in these spe-cifications. If it is missing, then the group concerned will beexpected to justify or rectify the omission.

A final course on management and manpower behav-iour completes the formal cognitive input, but the absorp-tion of this into the affective domain continues in the finalindustrial period as part of the study of the management ofdesign.

Specific objectives are not written at all levels becausethese can have a stultifying effect on the learning andbecause the most appropriate learning of a particularobjective by a particular person cannot always be planned.Students are also encouraged to set their own targets andestablish their own criteria for learning. This is itself auseful learning exercise, but it means that each student isfollowing a curriculum that is, in part, personally defined.Any attempt to impose a welter of well defined objectiveswould limit the amount of individual learning.

Detailed specification of objectives also raises a problemof assessment, particularly at the higher levels of the affect-ive domain where values are involved. Taking character-isation as an example, Krathwohl [6] writes:

'Thus the individual acts consistently in accordancewith the values he has internalised at this level.'

This implies an integration of beliefs, ideas, and attitudesinto a total philosophy or world view.

Within the context of 'The human component' then,should one give more or less credit to the student whoconsistently manages group activities by autocratic ratherthan power-sharing means?

The original rationale for the course contained thestatement:

'An industrial society requires engineers who can co-operate with, and win the co-operation of, others in thefunctions and activities of an engineering enterprise.'

The 'methods' by which this co-operation is achieved maybe classed as cognitive learning, but the motivation to co-operate in this way can only come from 'characterisation'and this cannot be taught by didactic methods. Moreimportantly, it cannot be assessed with the precision andcertainty of the assessment of a mathematical technique.

Within this one theme, therefore, there is a variety oflearning activities, some of which are planned to facilitatethe achievement of cognitive objectives, some planned tofacilitate achievement of affective objectives and someloosely structured to give students the opportunity todirect their own learning and even challenge the rationaleon which the programme is built.

Other themes are treated in the same complex manner,and it was clear at the planning stage that inflexibility inany part of the curriculum would lead to a rigid and brittlestructure. However, given flexibility in learning methodsand in assessment, the coherence of the curriculum com-ponents provides great strength and toughness. The wholecan then be used in a dynamic way, bending to meet theneeds of different groups and the needs of individualswithin groups, and stretching to accommodate random butrelevant events: such as an invitation for one year group tomeet the directors and senior managers of Satchwell Con-trols, or a chance meeting between an undergraduate and aBath graduate of some years standing, who is now manag-ing his own company in Dorset, and who was able to con-tribute in a wholly unexpected way to the development ofone group.

5 Industrial curriculum

The curricula for the industrial and academic parts of thecourse were planned to be supportive, so that transfer oflearning would take place between one and the other.

686 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 131, Pt. A, No. 9, DECEMBER 1984

5.1 Preuniversity courseIt was decided that the encouragement of professional atti-tudes and values needed to be done as soon as possible,and for this reason a preuniversity course of three weekswas planned. This was to be organised and operated by thesupporting companies off campus. The reasoning behind

Table 2: Pre-university course

Knowledge base (lectures)The role of the professional

engineerThe life-cycle conceptIntroduction to systemsthinkingBrainstorming methodsFeedback and controlVisits

The company as a systemCompany financeSpeculative marketingInvitation to tenderTechnical design considerationsElements of estimatingFactors affecting deliveryTenders examinedIntroduction to design processDrawing officeTest specification

Production planning

Publicity and sales

Process (activities)Attitudes and values,communication, grouptasks and presentationsGroup tasks involvingsynthesis and communicationSynthesis, attitudes and valuesGroup tasks, communication,System analysis, model synthesis,group reportsExercise; analysis

Group response;prepare questionnaire for biddersconference; prepare for tenderMake bid presentationDesign phase: synthesis

Write test specification;communicationApply for production approval;communicationPlanning game; synthesisConstruction of product;exercise of team workPreparation of presentationto customer, communicationPresentation

Table 3: Repeated themes during 1st three years of course

this was that students leaving sixth forms needed to iden-tify themselves with the engineering profession and thinkof themselves as engineers from the day they entered theuniversity. The title of the course was 'An introduction toengineering in industry' and the theme was 'product devel-opment'. An abbreviated course programme is given inTable 2. The first four days are devoted to a systemsapproach to complex problem identification and solutionand the examination of various industrial, commercial andsocial systems. A small project task is then set and studentswork in groups to develop a product. Students spend themajority of their time working in small groups, are givenhelp in understanding and running group activities and areexpected to make a number of individual and group pres-entations during the course. The technical content of thetask is low, so that the processes emphasised are synthesis,the examination of professional attitudes and values, andcommunication. Tutors are drawn from industry and aca-demics attend only briefly as invited specialist lecturersand tutors.

5.2 IntegrationFour courses in support technology are given in the 1stacademic year. These are:

Production engineering (20 h)Introduction to design (20 h)Introduction to quality (20 h)Technology and society (15 h)

The first is knowledge based, the second continues workon synthesis, and the third and fourth encourage theexamination of attitudes and values and require practice ofgroup work and communications. Each one relates tosome aspect of the work done in the preuniversity courseso that transfer is encouraged. The first, third and fourth

Preuniversitycourse

1st academicyear

1st industrialperiod

2nd academicyear

2nd industrialperiod

3rd academicyear

3rd industrialperiod

theprofession

the lifecycle

theprofession

the productlife cycle

the productlife cycle

life cycle

systems

finance

marketing

design

testing

quality

productionestimating

communication

systems

design

the humancomponent

systems

motivation

inspection

quality

production

communication

testing

quality

productionestimating

communication

systems | systems

accounting andfinance

marketing

design

motivation

ergonomics

innovation

reliability

quality

manufacturingmanagement

communication

commerce

marketing

innovation

quality

systems

managementaccountingand control

managementeconomics

design

management and manpowerbehaviour

reliability

quality

systems

design

management ofdesign

reliability

quality

communication communication communication

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 131, Pt. A, No. 9, DECEMBER 1984 687

provide a background for the first industrial period whichtakes place at the end of the first academic year. This ten-week period is planned in detail by each sponsoringcompany following set objectives laid down by a com-mittee made up of industrialists and academics. Thisperiod in turn provides a background for product-development work in the second academic year. Thispattern is repeated throughout the course to provide over-lapping sections which build on previous work and extendto form a base for the next overlapping section. This repe-tition of themes is illustrated in Table 3.

5.3 Industrial periodsThree industrial periods, each of ten weeks duration, arefitted into the three summer vacations. The first concen-trates on production, the second on commerce and thethird on design. Objectives are laid down by a jointworking party and approved by a policy committee. Eachsponsoring company then prepares its own programme tomeet these objectives. The aim of each period is to give thestudent an appreciation of the industrial system; its objec-tives, organisation, environment and motivations. Specificprojects and job experiences form an essential part of eachperiod, but only as vehicles for understanding the widerissues. At all times students are expected to take a pro-fessional approach to their work by managing and control-ling as much of their own effort as possible and by alwayslooking through and beyond the immediate situation toexamine cause and effect.

The production period is centred on a hardware projectwhich requires students to produce a works cost estimateand production plan for a piece of hardware as ordered instated quantities and against an offered delivery to a cus-tomer. The hardware selected typically has about 100 com-ponents with a good variety of types; it should be incurrent production, although an alternative for which pro-duction data are available would be acceptable; and itshould be an item which was designed by the sponsoringcompany. The information required by the student has tobe gathered by the student using the same processes usedby production staff and it should be factual. This willinvolve contact with the following departments: buying,estimating, planning, scheduling, production control, tooland test equipment, subcontracting, quality assurance andproduction engineering. At the end of the project, studentsshould be able to relate each function to the overall pro-duction system.

In addition to the main task, students have three one-week job-experience assignments, preferably of a shop-floor, clerical and test nature. A written report on the jobexperience is required to show how work is organised inthe department and examine the resources available andthe capabilities, limitations, motivations and expectationsof the work force.

The commercial period centres on the preparation of acontract for sale, taking into account design and develop-ment costs, overheads, warranty, reliability guarantees,product support, method and terms of payment, packingand delivery, terms and conditions, profit required, licens-ing company production and tender vetting. The aim isthat students will become aware of the contributionrequired from engineers in the commercial aspects of thebusiness, the way in which commercial restraints mayinfluence their work and the importance of the interfacebetween engineering and commerce.

Job assignments are also required in purchasing, mar-keting and cost and budget accounting.

In the design period, students study the design function

and how it relates to the production and commercial func-tions within their own organisation. Emphasis is placed ondesign planning and control, and the study should coverall the requirements, from the statement of the customer'sneed through target and design specifications, prototypedesign and proving, to the preparation of all the data anddedicated equipment needed for future production. Anassignment of a technical nature is also required whichmay be a hardware or software design.

The final industrial period is a continuous six-monthassignment immediately after the completion of the four-year taught course. Here the student is expected to demon-strate an ability to work effectively on a project in thesponsoring company which involves a significant support-technology content as well as the necessary, related engin-eering science. The emphasis is on achievement of a goodbalance of all related factors rather than engineering-science innovation alone. It may involve hardware or soft-ware design or a feasibility study, but the outcome must bepracticable and acceptable from an industrial viewpoint.Reports are required from students on completion of eachindustrial period, and these are assessed by the industrialtutor and the academic tutor. Continuation on the M.Eng.programme is dependent on satisfactory performance onthe industrial curriculum.

The success of this integration of academic and indus-trial curricula is reflected in the acceptance by the IEE ofthe M.Eng. degree as meeting entirely the education andtraining requirements for membership.

6 Student viewpoint

An evaluation of the course as a whole has to be deferreduntil two or more outputs of graduates have spent sometime in industry. Interim evaluation rests on feedback fromindustrial tutors and from the students themselves. Theindustrial tutors are, mostly, impressed by the maturityand the breadth of understanding, of the industrial systemdemonstrated by the students, but the impressions are sub-jective. Students, on the other hand, are more objectiveand forceful in their criticism, and praise, for the course. Amajor criticism made by the first group through was thatthe early section of the course was too loosely structuredso that students could not see clearly what they should bedoing or where they were going. The structure was tight-ened and no more complaints have been received, but adoubt remains, because the students involved had foundtheir own structure, set their own goals and gone ahead toachieve them. One might argue, therefore, that the coursewas successful and that the complaints were really aboutthe pain that the lack of structure had caused the students.The pain is now reduced, but whether it is above or belowthe optimum level for learning there is no means ofknowing. What is particularly interesting is that the major-ity of students on the course had had no previous experi-ence of solving ill-defined and complex problems usinginadequate or misleading data within time constraints, andone of the most difficult tasks for the course team has beento encourage students to have confidence in their ownjudgement. The level of frustration among second-year stu-dents is high as they grapple with uncertainty and learnabout risk, but their confidence rises rapidly as they realisethat each group is developing an authority and under-standing within the area of their design activity whichchallenges that of the Design Review Boards to which theyperiodically report [4]. The course planners therefore facea difficult choice: too much structure will remove a vitallearning ingredient, too little will destroy the internal moti-

688 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 131, Pt. A, No. 9, DECEMBER 1984

vation of the students. There is no information available tothe planners on the optimal levels of stress for effectivelearning, and the problem has to be tackled on an individ-ual level by tutors and students working together in a co-operative way. Experience shows that such co-operation ispossible when students are aware of the course objectivesand accept that learning is a co-operative activity.

The following observations are drawn from end-of-yearreports submitted by students.

'It took a significant amount of time before the grouporganised itself properly. The work became much moreenjoyable and easy when the tasks were clearly defined.''Working and achieving things as a team is not as easyas the author imagined that it would be. Prior to thecourse we have not really had any sustained tasks whichrequired decision making and productive work. Now wehave got more used to making and living with deci-sions.''Although a lot of useful techniques can be taught at anacademic level, it is not until an actual practicalinstance occurs and the technique is applied successfullythat anything is gained. It is in this area that I feel theprogramme's major strength lies.'

7 Conclusions

This paper has not attempted to examine in depth thetheoretical basis of curriculum design. Indeed it is arguablethat there is no appropriate theory for the design of curric-ula of this complexity and at this level. Certain principlesof educational psychology are relevant, but there is littleexperimental support for much of this within higher educa-tion. In many ways the design process for this course hasmatched that of the design process in engineering wheresolutions to complex problems are achieved by the imagi-native combination of available and well understood ele-ments, together with the transfer of ideas and techniquesfrom other disciplines. The planning group had the advan-tage that many of the elements of the final package hadbeen tried out and evaluated over several years of curric-

ulum development at Bath. The risk of the synthesised cur-riculum not working was therefore low. In the event, thesynthesis has proved to be successful, although some finetuning has taken place as problems have been identified.

If the planning team were to start now on a new courseit is unlikely that any major changes in the overall struc-ture would be seen, but far more use would be made ofCAE and CAD packages within the course. This reflectsthe changes that have taken place during the eight years ofcourse development and operation and emphasises theneed for regular maintenance of all undergraduate courses.This need is particularly acute for courses such as thiswhere student identification with the profession providespart of the motivation for learning. Changes are planned,but these will be introduced as part of a rolling pro-gramme of development and improvement which willmaintain a relevant and up-to-date education in electricaland electronic engineering.

8 Acknowledgments

The authors wish to record the contributions made to thiswork by Hugh Wassell O.B.E., B.Sc, M.Eng. who died in1983. The vision was his, we simply painted the picture.

9 References

1 BOLTON, B., FRANCE, J.T., PRESCOTT, A.J., and WASSELL,H.J.H.: 'A co-operative venture in electrical engineering education:establishing a rationale', IEE Proc. A, 1981, 128, (5), pp. 377-383

2 GAGNE, R.M.: 'The conditions of learning' (Holt, Rinehart andWilson, 1970)

3 CORNWALL, M., and SCHMITHALS, F.: 'Project-orientation inhigher education' (University Teaching Method Unit, London Uni-versity, 1977)

4 BOLTON, B, and SPANYOL, J.L.: 'The product enterprise: activityprogramme for engineering undergraduates', IEE Proc. A, 1984, 131,(9), pp. 708-713

5 BLOOM, B.S.: 'Taxonomy of educational objectives, handbook I: cog-nitive domain' (Longmans, Green & Co. Ltd., 1956)

6 KRATHWOHL, D.R., BLOOM, B.S., and MASIA, B.B.: 'Taxonomyof educational objectives, handbook II: affective domain' (Longmans,Green & Co. Ltd., 1964)

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 131, Pt. A, No. 9, DECEMBER 1984 689