Continuous Project-Based Learning in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Engineering Subjects for Different Degrees
Abstract
:1. Evolution of Teaching in the University
1.1. New Paradigms in Hydraulic Engineering Teaching
1.2. The Significance of the Learning Habilities
1.3. Hydraulic Engineering Learning Challenges
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Structure of the Hydraulic Engineering for a Student of a Bachelor’s and Master’s Degree in the UPV
2.2. Learning Proposal Based on Learning Projects at Different Levels, Developing the Transversal Competence “Desing and Project”
2.3. Proposal of Rubrics
3. Results
3.1. Students, Subjects, and Proposal of Projects
3.2. Analysis of Results
3.2.1. Results
3.2.2. Surveys
4. Conclusions
- Professors need to establish active methodologies in which the students are involved, improving their learning results.
- The students’ training should be coordinated in order to align the specific competences and outcomes competences as well as the sustainable development goals.
- Communication technologies (ICTs) joined to use software are tools, which must be incorporated in the teaching guides to improve the learning results and, therefore, the students’ curricula.
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Indicators (What Is the Analyzed Point?) | Descriptors | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
D. Not Achieved | C. In Development | B. Good | A. Excellent | |
1. The students bases the context and the need of the project | The student explains the need of the project but he/she does not justify | The student justifies the need of the project, using opinions that are not checked enough | The student justifies the need of the project correctly but it is incomplete | The student justifies the need of the project correctly and completely |
Introduction and justification | There is not a definition of the goals | The student introduces the project to do but he/she doesn’t justify its need or he/she does it incorrectly | The student introduces the projects but he/she does not justify the need | The student introduces the projects and he/she justifies the need |
2. The student formulates the objectives of the project coherently with regard to the needs detected in the context | The student formulates the goals without considering the needs | The student formulates the goals but they are not coherent with the needs | The student formulates the goals and they are coherent with the needs | The student formulates the goals and they are coherent with the needs and these goals are operational |
Goals | There is not a definition of the objectives | The student establishes the goals but these are ambiguous. | The student defines the objectives sufficiently | The defined goals are clear and operational |
3. The student plans the action to be developed effectively | The student does not develop the justification of the action | The students develop the plan partially to reach the goal | The students develop the plan to reach the goal in their major points | The students develop the plan to reach the goal completely |
For each section of the project | There is not a plan | The student does a short description or justification | The student describes and justifies the development only considering an academic point of view | The student describes and justifies the development, considering both the academic and technical point of view |
4. The student plans the actions efficiently | He/she does not plan efficient actions | He/she plans efficient actions, although they are improvable | All actions are not efficient | He/she plans efficient actions completely |
Setpoint curve | It is not calculated | It is calculated incorrectly | The result is correct but there is no discussion about this | The result is correct and there is an analysis of the result |
Reservoir capacity | It is not calculated | It is calculated incorrectly | The result is correct but there is no discussion about this | The volume is correct and there is an analysis of the result |
Pump selection | It is not developed | It is developed incorrectly | The result is correct but there is no discussion about this | The selection is correct and the student proposes alternatives (other types and manufacturers) |
Pump selection when the network is pumped directly. Considering non-variable rotational speed | The new selection is not developed according to the setpoint curve | It is developed but it is incorrect | The developed selection is correct but it is not justified | The selection is correct. Besides, the student develops a justification and comparison, considering other solutions |
Economic analysis when the rotational speed is fixed | The student does not develop the daily analysis | The student does the analysis but it is incorrect | The student develops an analysis correctly but the analysis is not justified | The student does a detailed analysis, developing indicators and comparing with others facilities |
Pump selection considering variable rotational speed | The pump selection is not developed according to the new setpoint curve | It is developed incorrectly | The developed selection is correct but it is not justified | The selection is correct. Besides, the student develops a justification and comparison, considering other solutions |
Economic analysis when the rotational speed is variable | The student does not develop the daily analysis | The student does the analysis but it is incorrect | The student develops an analysis correctly but the analysis is not justified | The student does a detailed analysis, developing indicators and comparing the values when the rotational speed is fixed |
5. The student identifies the risks and inconvenience of the project | The student enumerates some risks but they are not analyzed | The student enumerates some risks but they are not analyzed deeply | The student enumerates some risks but they are analyzed but he/she defines constrains to solve the problems | The student enumerates risks, they are analyzed and solved for improving the project |
Conclusion section | There is no conclusion | There is a conclusion, but the student does not discuss the results | Different results are discussed and compared | Results are compared, establishing the advantages and inconvenience for each solution |
Language, format, and writing of the project | The presentation is poor, the writing and language style are not at a high enough level according to their academic status | The presentation is correct although the language is not at a high enough level since the student uses no technical words | Presentation, language, and writing are correct but the content exceeds the limit | Presentation, language, and writing are correct and the project is adjusted to the requirements established by the professors |
6. Review the results | The student does not review the results | The student reviews the results but the review is not structured | The student plans the result evaluation (i.e., who, when, and how) | The student plans the result evaluation (i.e., who, when, and how), using indicators |
Review the results of the facilities using EPANET | There is no evaluation | All results are not checked | All results are checked without doing comparisons | All results are checked. The student develops comparisons between a classmate or comparing values that are obtained from the bibliography |
References
- Chanson, H. Teaching hydraulic design in an australian undergraduate civil engineering curriculum. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hotchkiss, R.H. Flow over a “Killer” Weir Design Project. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Novak, E.; Valentine, P. Teaching of hydraulic design at university of Newcastle upon Tyne. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2001, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelley, C.A.; Conant, J.S.; Smart, D.T. Master teaching revisited pursuing excellence from the students’ perspective. J. Mark. Educ. 1991, 13, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pierce, R.; Fox, J. Vodcasts and active-learning exercises in a “flipped classroom” model of a renal pharmacotherapy module. Am. J. Pharm. Educ. 2012, 76, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- López Jiménez, P.A.; Andrés Doménech, I.; Pérez-Sánchez, M. Implementando metodologías de evaluación en proyectos de redes de saneamiento en el Máster Universitario en Ingeniería Hidráulica y Medio Ambiente. Caso de estudio. In Proceedings of the IN-RED 2017: III Congreso Nacional de Innovación Educativa y Docencia en Red, Valencia, Spain, 13–14 July 2017; pp. 1243–1255. [Google Scholar]
- Pérez-Sánchez, M.; Galstyan-Sargsyan, R.; López-Jiménez, P.A. The improvement of learning results in fluid mechanics topics through the transversal competence autonomous learning. In 3rd International Joint Conference Icieom-Adingor-Iise-Aim-Asem (IJC2017) Proceedings; Poler Escoto, R., Mula Bru, J., Díaz-Madroñero, B., Francisco, M., Sanchis Gisbert, R., Eds.; Universitat Politècnica de València: Valencia, Spain, 2017; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Savage, R.N.; Chen, K.C.; Vanasupa, L. Integrating project-based learning throughout the undergraduate engineering curriculum. J. STEM Educ. 2007, 8, 15–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- UPV. Universitat Politècnica de València. Institutional Project of the Generic Outcomes. 2015. Available online: https://www.upv.es/entidades/ICE/info/Proyecto_Institucional_CT.pdf (accessed on 5 March 2020).
- Blank, W.E.; Harwell, S. Authentic instruction. In Promising Practices for Connecting High School to the Real World; University of South Florida: Tampa, FL, USA, 1997; pp. 15–21. [Google Scholar]
- Hadim, H.A.; Esche, S.K. Enhancing the engineering curriculum through project-based learning. Front. Educ. 2002, 2, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Martínez Martínez, A.; Cegarra Navarro, J.G.; Rubio Sánchez, J.A. Aprendizaje basado en competencias: Una propuesta para la autoevaluación del docente. Profr. Rev. Curric. Y Form. Del Profr. 2012, 16, 374–386. [Google Scholar]
- Miralles Martínez, P.; Guerrero Romera, C. Evaluación de la Competencia Transversal “CT-05 DISEÑO Y PROYECTO”. Caso Estudio en Grado. In Metodologías Docentes Innovadora en la Enseñanza Universitaria; Universidad de Murcia: Murcia, Spain, 2018; pp. 289–300. [Google Scholar]
- Alptekin, S.E.; Deturris, D.; Macy, D.J. Development of a flying eye: A project-based learning experience. J. Manuf. Syst. 2005, 24, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rossman, L.A. EPANET 2 Users Manual; 2000epa/600/r-00/057; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
- Pérez-Sánchez, M.; Fuertes-Miquel, V.S.; Soriano-Olivares, J.; Gomez, E.; Gómez-Selles, P.A. Rubrics as a tool for evaluating hydraulic engineering projects in both bachelor’s and master’s degree. In New Global Perspectives on Industrial Engineering and Management; Springer International Publishing AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 343–350. [Google Scholar]
- Bell, S. Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clear. House 2010, 83, 39–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Indicator | Students’ Actions | Weighted |
---|---|---|
I1.—The student bases the context and the need of the project | Define the need to develop the project | 5% |
I2.—The student formulates the objectives of the project coherently with regard to the needs detected in the context | Localize them and relate them with the taught concepts. Correct interpretation of the goals allows students to interpret the specific indicators of the follow group (iii) correctly | 7.5% |
I3.—The student plans the action to be developed effectively | The student has to propose and apply the solved methodology | 20% |
I4.—The student plans the actions efficiently | Design the proposed system. This group contains seven specific indicators | 50% |
I5.—The student identifies the risks and inconvenient of the project | Consider the negative and positive aspect of the project related to environmental and social concepts. This indicator is measured using two specific criteria. | 7.5% |
I6.—Review the results | Review, analyze, and critique with the obtained results, searching incoherent results. | 10% |
Code | Subject | Bachelor’s Degree | Master’s Degree |
---|---|---|---|
12298 | Hydraulic machines | Chemical Engineering | - |
12621 | Fluid Facilities in Building | Mechanical Engineering | - |
12621 | Fluid Mechanics | Chemical Engineering | - |
12077 | Fluid Mechanics | Electrical Engineering | - |
12647 | Fluid Mechanics | Mechanical Engineering | - |
12349 | Fluid Mechanics | Chemistry Engineering | - |
12659 | Hydraulic machines | Mechanical Engineering | - |
33810 | Fluid Facilities | - | Industrial Engineering |
33752 | Waste water treatment | - | Industrial Engineering |
33465 | Fluid Facilities in the chemical industry | - | Chemical Engineering |
32478 | Waste water networks | - | Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering |
33683 | Extension of Fluid Facilities | - | Industrial Engineering |
32480 | Analysis and modeling of water networks | - | Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering |
ID | Question |
---|---|
Q1 | Does the proposed activity allow you to apply the knowledge developed in theory classroom and practice lessons? |
Q2 | Does the temporary planning to develop the project design throughout the course allow you to start the activity well enough in advance to developing it properly? |
Q3 | Is the index developed by the teacher explaining the methodology and phases of the work, sufficiently clear and concise, to develop the proposed activity? |
Q4 | Did the project help you to acquire the knowledge, and to prepare other evaluations (e.g., tests and problems) of the subject? |
Q5 | Would you find it interesting that the development of the project proposed in this subject involved other subjects of your grade? |
ID | Question |
---|---|
Q6 | Does the development of a project that is related with studied subjects help you to improve the knowledge acquisition and competences in the ‘design and project’? |
Q7 | Does the development of the project in fluid mechanics help you to understand and develop better the practical applications in hydraulic machines? |
Q8 | Does the study and understanding of common hydraulic concepts in different subjects help you to do the project? |
Q9 | Does the use of a similar methodology, which was used in fluid mechanics to do the project, give you autonomy to do the project in hydraulic machines? |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Pérez-Sánchez, M.; López-Jiménez, P.A. Continuous Project-Based Learning in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Engineering Subjects for Different Degrees. Fluids 2020, 5, 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5020095
Pérez-Sánchez M, López-Jiménez PA. Continuous Project-Based Learning in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Engineering Subjects for Different Degrees. Fluids. 2020; 5(2):95. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5020095
Chicago/Turabian StylePérez-Sánchez, Modesto, and P. Amparo López-Jiménez. 2020. "Continuous Project-Based Learning in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Engineering Subjects for Different Degrees" Fluids 5, no. 2: 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5020095
APA StylePérez-Sánchez, M., & López-Jiménez, P. A. (2020). Continuous Project-Based Learning in Fluid Mechanics and Hydraulic Engineering Subjects for Different Degrees. Fluids, 5(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids5020095