Open Research OnlineThe Open University’s repository of research publicationsand other research outputs

Intellectual Property Topics in Open UniversityDistance-Taught CoursesBook SectionHow to cite:

Lewis, P. R. and Fitzpatrick, M. E. (2006). Intellectual Property Topics in Open University Distance-TaughtCourses. In: Doyle, S. and Mannis, A. eds. Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovation, Good Practiceand Research in Engineering Education 2006. UK: Higher Education Academy, pp. 507–511.

For guidance on citations see FAQs.

c© [not recorded]

Version: [not recorded]

Link(s) to article on publisher’s website:http://www.ee2006.info/programme.html

Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyrightowners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policiespage.

oro.open.ac.uk

EE2006496

INTRODUCTION

There is increasing recognition, within the UKHealth and Safety Executive (HSE) andprofessional bodies, of the need to educateengineering undergraduates in aspects of riskrelevant to their degree(1). However, acrossdegree courses in the UK, the extent andcontent of risk education varies, and there ispotential for it to not always be proportional tothe level of risk that undergraduates could beresponsible for managing in their professionalworking life, Lee(2). To address this, the Healthand Safety Laboratory (HSL) in collaborationwith the University of Liverpool have set up aproject to incorporate risk education into thecurriculum of an undergraduate engineeringdegree course. This approach can then bepromoted to other educational institutions onthe basis of its successful implementation.Integrating risk education into the curriculumhas involved defining risk education as a set oflearning outcomes, and designing a tool toascertain students’ awareness of risk issuesand key concepts. Teaching materials arebeing developed that use real accident casestudies, student interaction and role-playexercises to enhance students’ understandingof the concepts of hazard and risk, Schleyer etal(3).

The EU strategy on health and safety alsoidentifies education and training as key factorsto prevent accidents among young peoplewhen they first enter the workplace. An EUproject to mainstream occupational health andsafety into education(4) was started in 2002.The philosophy of the project is that thesooner children and young people getacquainted with the concepts of health andsafety then the sooner they can develop riskawareness, and the better equipped todevelop their own framework of learning intheir future education. The EU projectunderpins the goals of the current highereducation project on risk awareness.

RISK AWARENESS EVALUATION

A questionnaire was developed to ascertainstudents’ level of understanding of the riskeducation learning outcomes prior to receivingformal tuition at undergraduate level.Therefore, the questions were designed toassess understanding of concepts as opposedto knowledge of facts relating to a taughtcourse. The key concepts for each learningoutcome were first agreed by the project team.A total of fifty multiple-choice questions weredeveloped to provide some indication ofstudents’ knowledge and understanding of thekey concepts of the learning outcomes in thefollowing risk topic areas:

i. Concepts of hazard, safety and risk as partof everyday life (12 questions),

ii. Engineer’s professional responsibilities(12 questions),

iii. Principles of hazard identification and riskassessment (8 questions),

iv. Techniques for reducing and controllingrisk (6 questions),

v. Potential exposure to hazards and risk inthe workplace (6 questions), and

vi. Underlying causes of accidents andfailures (6 questions).

Due to the time constraints there was noformal testing of the validity of thequestionnaire, though there was a limitedpiloting, resulting in non-substantial changes.The face validity of the questionnaire wasjudged to be appropriate according to theexperience and knowledge of the projectteam.

A multiple-choice style of question format wasadopted to reduce the subjective element ofmarking a large number of open-endedanswers, and to better facilitate comparisonsbetween levels of understanding across thevarious risk topic areas. Each question had apossible five answers from which the studenthad to mark one choice that was in their

EDUCATING ENGINEERS IN RISK CONCEPTS

Graham Schleyer1, Rui Fang Duan1, Nicola Stacey2 and Julian Williamson2

1University of Liverpool, United Kingdom2Health & Safety Laboratory, United Kingdom

EE2006

opinion the best or correct answer. A fewquestions had a number of potentially validanswers, though the ‘correct’ answers werebased on the preferred set of responsesdefined by the project team.

A cohort of new entrants completed thisquestionnaire at the start, and the end of the2004/05 academic year. There was a smalloverall improvement in these scores at the endof the year that was statistically significant.When these end-of-year scores werecompared with students overall end-of-yearexamination scores, there was found to be norelationship. This suggests that the studentswere receiving little formal tuition in ‘riskeducation’ (as identified within the learningoutcomes). It also suggests that anyimprovement in scores between the riskquestionnaire at the start, and end of the year,was due to practice effects, and a generallearning effect.

The questionnaire was delivered to the new2005/06 students via the on-line virtualinteractive teaching and learning system atLiverpool. The format of the questions wasunaltered. A larger number of candidates (211)took part due the enlarged class, whichincluded civil engineering students as well asmechanical, aerospace and integrated. Theoverall average score was virtually unchangedcompared to the 2004/05 results.

Results

A comparison between the 2004/5 and 2005/6average scores in each section is given infigure 1 and shows consistency from year toyear across the range of topics. The data fromthese tests will enable specific areas to betargeted in which the students performed lesswell than expected or showed a lack ofappreciation in a particular topic as highlightedby a poorly scoring question. It was reassuringto know that students appreciated the mostsafety in the workplace. On the other hand,accident causation was the least understood.

A T-test was conducted to compare last year’sscores with this year’s scores at the beginningof the academic year. This gave a very highcorrelation of the scores (0.98), at a 95%confidence level. Thus it is 95% certain that

there is no significant difference between thegroups’ scores. This gives a strong basis forproceeding with using the class test toevaluate the success of the new syllabus inachieving the desired learning outcomesrelating to risk concepts.

Key question

In addition to the 50 multiple-choice questionsin the 2005/06 evaluation, an essay typequestion was set at the end. The studentswere asked to convey why engineering isregarded as a safety critical profession. Mostrecognised that faulty products put the publicat risk of injury or death and that as engineersthey therefore had a responsibility to ensuresafety was properly considered during design.Many recognised that engineering decisionshave a wide impact on everyone. Only a fewmentioned their responsibility for their ownsafety and that of their colleagues. The mostsuccinct answer was: ‘People count onengineers to deliver’.

RISK EDUCATION SYLLABUS

The following topics were proposed as anoutline template for a risk education syllabus inan undergraduate engineering programme.

i. Basic introductionAims and objectives (including expectedstudent input and assessment). Definitionsand terminology. Engineering as a ‘safety-critical’ profession. Hazard and risk as part ofeveryday life. Fundamental concepts of safety,

497

Figure 1: Comparison of average scoresby section

EE2006

hazard, likelihood, probability and risk.Bibliography (including web sites).

ii. Management of personal riskHow to control risks associated with the mainhazards that a student is likely to come acrossduring lab/project work and later in theworkplace. Use of personal protectiveequipment and emergency procedures.

iii. Risk modelling and quantificationHazard identification and preliminary hazardanalysis. Treatment of uncertainties.Qualitative and quantitative risk assessment.Limitations and potential pitfalls of riskassessment. Failure modes and effectsanalysis. Fault and event trees. Human error.Assessing the consequences of a specifiedhazard. Acceptability and tolerability of risk.Cost benefit analysis.

iv. Professional responsibilities includinglegal requirementsLegal framework. The Health and Safety atWork Act etc 1974. UK regulations andEuropean directives. Legislation enforcement.Prescriptive versus goal setting philosophy.Professional engineering codes of conduct.

v. Management of riskSafety culture and climate. Safetymanagement systems.

vi. Safety in the design processHuman and organisational factors includingbasic ergonomics and human error. Inherentlysafe design. Attitude to safer design. Use ofbest practice and standards. Case studies.

vii. Risk reduction and controlPrevention. Mitigation and control strategies.

Risk topics have been successfully embeddedin some year 1 core engineering modules atthe University of Liverpool, through formallectures, a virtual laboratory exercise andkeynote lectures on professional practice. Thelectures and lab are complementary with thelab promoting experiential role-play learning.The keynote lectures on professional practicewill cover leadership, ethics, inherent safety,human factors and the role of standards.

The plan is to introduce the application of riskassessment techniques into design projects,

group design projects and final year projectsin years 2, 3 and 4. Staff will also beencouraged to introduce more forensicanalysis type final year projects in the future toenable some students to study certain risktopics in more depth in their final year.

Case studies

While retaining the engineering sciencetheme, it was possible to link several of the keyrisk concepts to stress analysis through casestudies of engineering disasters in one of theengineering mechanics modules. The casestudies are used to show what can happenwhen engineers get it wrong, make mistakesor even worse ignore the warning signs thatsomething is wrong. Two BBC Disaster Seriesfilms, the Challenger Space Shuttle and PiperAlpha, are being used in the lectures asshowcase examples of how wrong decisionscan lead to disaster. This gets studentsthinking outside the confines of the theory toreal issues that could affect them in their futureprofessional life. Shortly after giving the firstlecture and showing the Challenger film, anarticle appeared in the Daily Telegraphreporting the issues surrounding theaerospace engineer who raised safety fears onthe A380 Airbus. The direct link between thisand the Challenger film was made in thesecond lecture as a follow-up to emphasisethe point that as professional engineers theycould face similar issues in their work. Thisdemonstrated the value of including breakingnews in the lectures. Safety issues areembedded in the lecture material andintegrated with the theory rather than addedon as a separate topic. New PowerPoint slideshave been produced to enhance thepresentation and enable the material to bereviewed on the University’s virtual interactiveteaching and learning (VITAL) system.

Virtual lab

A new virtual laboratory exercise has beendesigned based on the Port Ramsgateaccident investigation. The development ofthis drew upon a similar exercise run by theUniversity of Sheffield. The aim of this lab is tolearn about the accident investigation processand to appreciate what important lessons can

498

EE2006

be learned from engineering failures, thataccidents generally have no single cause. Thelab will serve to emphasise that human errorhas a large part to play in the underlying causeof accidents. In this lab, students take on therole of the accident investigation teamgathering evidence and data eventually to beused in the criminal prosecution of thoseparties responsible for the accident. A re-construction of the scene has been createdwith a 1/100th scale model that was used inthe actual court prosecution and a file of datacomprising photographs, witness statementsand other technical documents mainly takenfrom the accident investigation report (5). Allyear 1 students take the lab exercise in the 1stsemester. The lab is carried out in small tutorgroups of around 6 to 10 students.

The technical investigation is divided into 5stages and will be tackled by a different groupof students each week. Each group draws onfindings from the previous group, as would bedone in real life investigations. The lecturematerial is also timed to synchronise with theparticular stage in the investigation. The lasttwo lectures in the 1st semester cover pointsfrom the whole investigation to allow everystudent to appreciate how all the stages areconnected.

The stages are:

i. Recording the incidentii. Design considerationsiii. Risk managementiv. Materials assessmentv. Stress analysis

A worksheet has been prepared for each stageto guide the students through the tasks andlead them to record the important information.All the information they require is containedwithin a file of data. Students can also refer tothe scale model and search for clues. Theworksheet also serves as their technical note,on which they will be assessed, to becompleted during the lab session (3 hours)and handed to the demonstrator at the end ofthe session before they leave.

Initial indications are that students areengaged and working together as a team.Some groups need a bit more encouragementto interact as a team than others. This is where

the role of the demonstrator is important to thesuccess of the lab. The new lab is generatingconsiderable interest and is accepted as animportant element of the student’s activelearning experience.

When students arrive they are first given atongue-in-cheek icebreaker to get themthinking and talking to one another. If thegroup appears to be rather quiet then the labdemonstrator uses the icebreaker questions togenerate discussion.

The lab proper then commences with a shortintroductory talk either from a member of staffor a competent research student (thedemonstrator). Thereafter the students willfollow the instructions of the demonstrator whois there all the way through to facilitate but notto do the lab with the students. Students areencouraged to search for clues on the modeland follow them up using the file ofinformation, use white boards and mind-mapsfor discussion but fill in the worksheets, whichrepresent the majority of the marks, on theirown.

The plan in year 2 is to enable students toreview the evidence gathered from thetechnical investigation, identify what violationshave been committed and who wasresponsible under the legal framework anddecide whether or not there is sufficientevidence to prosecute those partiesresponsible. They will then have to prepare acase for prosecution and expert witnessstatements using all the data gathered fromthe technical investigation.

Professional practice

A number of experts have been approached togive keynote lectures on the following topics:

i. Professional responsibilitiesii. Human factorsiii. Inherent safetyiv. Codes and standards

These lectures have been packaged togetherand will be delivered to year 1 students takingthe design module in the 2nd semester underthe overall heading of professional practice.With the agreement of the experts, the keynote

499

EE2006

lectures will be recorded together withaudience interaction to enable them to bereplayed in future years. This may then beused to produce a video package that can beused by other universities.

Final year projects

A number of final year projects have been setup at Liverpool to develop the use of real-worldaccident data to reconstruct the events leadingto the accident and determine the causalfactors. One is looking at the effects of flightinto a severe wind shear caused by micro-burst and another following a failure of therudder actuator. Both are based on real-worldaccidents. It is planned to make more use ofthese types of forensic investigation projects inthe future.

Another final year project is being used toexplore the use of a machinery safeguardingdemonstrator unit as part of a lab exercise orlecture demonstration. This project drawsupon the demonstrator used by HSL to trainHSE inspectors to recognise operatorinterference with machinery safeguards.

LIBRARY RESOURCES

A number of key textbooks, reports andreference documents were reviewed as to theirsuitability for support material for the new risksyllabus and the development of educationalmaterial for lectures. Several copies wereacquired for the library at Liverpool. The booksand documents that were identified as beingsuitable were generally classed asrecommended or background reading forstudents. Students were made aware of thisresource in the opening lecture andencouraged to obtain a copy of theEngineering Council’s more comprehensiveguidelines on risk issues(6).

PROFILE

The profile of the project has been raisedthrough liaison with the Engineering Inter-Institutional Group (IIG), British StandardsInstitution (BSI), Institution of MechanicalEngineers (IMechE) Safety and Reliability

Group (SRG), Safety and Reliability Society(SARS). A seminar on ‘Risk Education forEngineers’ to be held in London at IMechE HQis being planned for 2007 through the IMechESRG.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

A class test in the form of a questionnairegiven to new students at Liverpool at the startof year has been shown to be a reliableindicator of students’ awareness of riskconcepts. Comparisons over two years showsimilar averages. It has been used to set theappropriate level of tuition in year 1 and will beused to evaluate the success of the newsyllabus in achieving the desired learningoutcomes.

Risk topics have been successfully embeddedin some year 1 core engineering modules atLiverpool through formal lectures, a virtuallaboratory exercise and keynote lectures onprofessional practice. The lectures and lab arecomplementary, with the lab promotingexperiential role-play learning.

There is already good anecdotal evidencefrom the project leader’s attendance at aselection of the virtual lab exercises thatstudents are beginning to seriously considerrisk issues. Their answers to the key questionset in the risk awareness questionnaire ‘why isengineering regarded as a safety criticalprofession?’ show that engineering students atthe University of Liverpool understand to asignificant extent their professionalresponsibilities for the safety of the public asrecommended by Lord Cullen in his report onthe Hatfield rail accident(7).

Further details of the project can be foundin(3).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the HSE and theUniversity of Liverpool (Studentship Awards)for funding this work. Information and advicereceived from Steve Joel, Graham Norton andDave Gregory of the HSL, Martin Keay ofEnSure, Liz Williams of the BSI, and RichardTaylor of the IIG is gratefully acknowledged.

500

EE2006

REFERENCES

1. HSE and DETR, 2000, ‘Revitalizing Healthand Safety - Strategy Statement’, HMSOOSCSG0390.

2. Lee, J. F., 1999, ‘Education ofundergraduate engineers in risk concepts– Scoping study’, HSE Books C2.5 10/99.

3. Schleyer, G. K., Duan, R. F., Stacey, N.and Williamson, J., 2006, ‘Risk educationin engineering - development of year onematerials’, HSL internal report, http://www.hse.gov.uk/research.

4. European Agency for Safety and Health atWork, 2004, ‘Mainstreaming occupationalsafety and health into education’, ISBN 92-9191-016-3.

5. HSE, 2000, ‘Walkway collapse at PortRamsgate’, ISBN 0 7176 1747 5, HSEbooks.

6. Engineering Council, 1993, ‘Guidelineson Risk Issues’, ISBN 0-9516611-7-5.

7. Hatfield derailment investigation, 2002,‘Interim recommendations of theInvestigation Board’, http://www.hse.gov.uk/railways/ hatfield.htm.

501

EE2006

SUMMARY

This paper describes an approach adopted foreducating students in the safe design ofmachinery. The background to safe designand the changes in legislation are introduced.The impact of this change of legislation interms of complexity, the number of referencepoints for a designer e.g. Directives andstandards, are also described. Based on thischange, the paper then introduces how thePackaging, Processing and MachineryAssociation and the University of Bathapproached the teaching and training ofdesign engineers to be able to understand andfollow guidelines on the safe design ofMachinery. The steps taken and the learningprocess through the course development aredescribed with the final outcome being ageneric course written in conjunction with BSIBritish Standards on how to assist students toacquire the ability to risk assess machineryand learn about machinery design to help theirdesign capabilities and their applicability totheir industrial future.

BACKGROUND

Changes in Legislation

This section describes the engineeringenvironment and the changes that haveoccurred leading to the need to train futureengineers in understanding legislation andapplying standards.

From 1974 to 1993 British engineers had theluxury of a single piece of legislation that dealtwith the safety of machinery, called the Healthand Safety at Work Act (HSWA) and onestandard on the subject, BS 5304. However in1993 all this changed, because of theintroduction of the European Single Market.

The principle of the European Single Market isthat if every country in Europe has the same

law on machinery safety; it is possible for amanufacturer to read the law in their ownlanguage and build the machine accordinglyknowing that the machine will be acceptable inevery other country in Europe.

When every country has the same law on aparticular subject, it does not matter that thecountries have different legal systems,different methods of enforcing those laws anddifferent languages. However this does meanthat every country has to give up its ownexisting laws and accept the new ‘common’legislation in its place. The legal mechanism,which allows all the countries of Europe toshare the same law, is called a Directive.

The European Commission drafts Directivesand when they have been finally agreed theDirectives compel each of the Governments ofthe European Union to introduce Regulationsin their own country, which will have the effectintended by the Directive.

However in place of the single HSWA in theUK, engineers now have to deal with up toeight different pieces of legislation whendesigning machinery. For example:

l Cable Cars Directive.l Classical Passenger Lifts Directivel Electromagnetic Compatibility Directive

(EMC)l Equipment for Use in Potentially Explosive

Atmospheres Directive (ATEX) l Low Voltage Directive (LVD)l Machinery Directivel Pressure Equipment Directivel Simple Pressure Vessels Directive

So most machines now have to comply with atleast three Directives, the Machinery, LowVoltage and EMC Directives. They may alsohave to comply with the Pressure EquipmentDirective if they contain pressure vessels overa certain volume and the ATEX Directive if themachine is to be used in an area where a dusty

502

MACHINERY SAFETY EDUCATION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BATH

Martin Keay1 and Linda Newnes2

1Processing and Packaging Machinery Association, United Kingdom2University of Bath, United Kingdom

EE2006

product e.g. sugar is being handled or in azone where a potentially explosive gas cloudcould form e.g. a paint factory.

Standards required to comply withlegislation

Moreover this new legislation is much morecomplex than the relatively simple HSWA withdetailed ‘essential requirements’. However itgets worse because this new legislation doesnot stand alone. The essential requirementsare all written in a goal setting way and tounderstand exactly how to comply with theseDirectives it is necessary to consult one, or anumber of the European or Internationalstandards that have been written specially tosupport these Directives.

Here again there has been a huge increase incomplexity with the single though fairly bulkyBS 5304, being replaced by over 600 differentEuropean and International standards.

Risk Assessment

This explosion in the amount and complexityof legislation and standards affectingmachines has been compounded with anothernew ingredient for engineers, the need to carryout machinery risk assessment.

The new European Directives like theMachinery Directive are all risk based. Whatyou have to do depends on the risk and it isthe machine manufacturer who has to assessthat risk and decide what must be done.

For instance in the Machinery Directive there isa requirement that ‘moving parts of machinerymust be designed built and laid out to avoidhazards or where hazards persist, fixed withguards or protective devices in such a way asto prevent all risk of contact which could leadto accident.’1 But this leaves it up to themachine designer to decide which parts willcause a hazard and which will not.

The answer to this question is riskassessment. Risk assessment is now requiredin almost every walk of life from taking a group

of school children on an outing to evaluatingwhether a murderer can be let out of prison onlicense and of course to evaluate a machinedesign.

Risk assessment sounds quite a scientificsubject and there are detailed standards onrisk assessment, but in most cases itdescribes the rather subjective and impreciseprocess of trying to work out what might gowrong when operating a machine, taking aparty of children to the swimming pool orreleasing a prisoner into the community andthen trying to minimise the risk of those thingsgoing wrong.

TRAINING IN INDUSTRY

So engineers have been faced with a mass ofnew legislation, a raft of complex standardsand have been asked to acquire the new skillof machinery risk assessment.

Needless to say engineers in UK industry havebeen struggling to cope, particularly at a timewhen design and engineering departmentshave been slimmed down and trainingbudgets have been slashed.

However the Processing and PackagingMachinery Association (PPMA) and otherindustry training providers have been trying tohelp by running a series of seminars andtraining courses for engineers in industryfocusing particularly on:

l The detail of the new legislationl The detail of the European and

International standards that support thelegislation

l The principles of machinery risk assess-ment:

The PPMA courses have been running since1992, but the number of engineers to train andthe volume of new legislation and standardsinvolved is so great that the courses are stillbeing run in 2006.

TRAINING IN UK UNIVERSITIES

However by 1998 it became apparent topeople in the UK processing and packaging

503

1Machinery Directive 98/37/EC Essential Requirement 13.7

EE2006

industries that newly graduated mechanicalengineers also needed instruction about theMachinery Directive and its standards andmachinery risk assessment, prompting peoplein industry to ask whether these subjects couldor should be taught at University.

This stimulated the PPMA in 1998 to offer to helpthe University of Bath’s mechanical engineeringdepartment to develop a course suitable formechanical engineering undergraduates.

COURSES AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BATH

Machines and Products in Society

The University of Bath immediately appreciatedthe importance of teaching this subject andworked with the PPMA to develop a coursebased on materials developed by the PPMA foruse in industry. The course, which is called‘Machines and Products in Society,’ was atwelve week optional course for 3rd and 4thyear MEng students. The course wasdeveloped with the help of a grant from the UKDepartment of Trade and Industry under the‘Sector Challenge’ initiative.

The aim of the course was to introducestudents to the wide range of legislation thataffects machinery in the European Union,including the Machinery Directive, but also thelegislation on manual handling, provision anduse of work equipment, control of hazardoussubstances and machinery risk assessment.

The course was first offered in 1999 and hasattracted 15-20 students each year ever since.However the feedback from students has beenmixed. On the plus side two students havetaken the trouble to write saying how usefulthe course had been in their jobs in industry,one stating that it was the only thing she hadlearnt in her four years at University that wasimmediately useful in her first job in industryand another was stimulated to pursue a careerin health and safety. However the majority hadproblems with the course.

The course was based on material that is usedregularly to good effect in industry, but verybright undergraduates struggled. On the onehand they felt that some issues were so easy

and obvious that they hardly needed to bementioned, but on the other they struggled touse a European standard to size a machineguard. Students also struggled badly withmachinery risk assessment swinging betweenfinding it too easy and too imprecise but failingto appreciate the wide range of hazards likelyto be presented by even quite a simplemachine during its lifetime.

So why does the same lecture given toengineers in industry work but not work withundergraduates? The conclusion we came towas industrial experience. Engineers with evena short amount of industrial experience canrelate much more easily to health and safetylegislation and risk assessment, because theyare much more aware of the issues and knowhow machines are used and abused inindustry. This conclusion was borne out by thefact that students who took the course afterspending a year in industry could also relateeasily to the material.

Knowledge required to do machinery riskassessment

We concluded that the areas of knowledgeneeded to carry out machinery risk assessmentinclude the following:

General Knowledge

1. The range of hazards posed by domesticmachinery

2. The range of hazards posed by industrialmachinery

3. How machines can fail and how they canbe misused in industry

Subject Specific Knowledge

4. The requirements of machinery legislation5. How hazards on machines can be

eliminated6. The process of machinery risk assessment7. How to use standards

Machine Specific Knowledge

8. How the machine works9. How the machine is moved, used, cleaned

and maintained10. How the machine can fail or be misused

504

EE2006

The PPMA courses which formed the basis ofthe material used in the first Bath courseconcentrated on delivering the subject specificknowledge (items 4, 5, 6 and 7). With groupsof experienced engineers this worked becausethey had a general knowledge of hazards andfailure modes of industrial equipment (items 2and 3) whereas students had little knowledgeof industrial machinery.

BSI ‘Designing Safe Machinery’ Course

In 2004 BSI British Standards (BSI) embarkedon a new initiative to introduce engineeringundergraduates to standards. This BSI initiativewas prompted by research which indicates thatBritish industry makes little use of standards bycomparison to equivalent industries in Germany,France and the USA, which is strange given thatthe whole idea of writing standards and workingto standards in engineering started in Britain.

BSI’s objective was to develop a course thatwould introduce undergraduate engineers tothe ‘safety of machinery’ series of Europeanstandards, which have been written specificallyto support the Machinery Directive.

Coincidentally this happened at the same timeas an initiative by the Health and SafetyLaboratory to develop health and safety andrisk assessment education for engineeringundergraduates in conjunction with theUniversity of Liverpool.

The BSI course, which is called ‘DesigningSafe Machinery’ covers the same area oflegislation and standards as the original Bathcourse, but takes a quite different approach.Whereas the original course covered severalpieces of legislation regulating both themanufacture and use of machinery, but in ageneral way, the BSI course considers onlyone piece of legislation the MachineryDirective and the ‘safety of machinery’ seriesof standards.

This course aims to provide students with:

1. A working knowledge of the MachineryDirective 98/37/EC (The Supply ofMachinery (Safety) Regulations 1992):

2. An understanding of the process ofmachinery risk assessment;

3. Familiarity with the key standards in theSafety of Machinery series;

4. A thorough understanding of the range ofhazards posed by machines;

5. The ability to design a set of guards for amachine;

6. The ability to design a set of access stepsfor a machine;

7. The ability to complete a comprehensiverisk assessment for a machine;

8. The ability to compile a technical file for amachine as required by the MachineryDirective:

9. The ability to design safe machinery.

The BSI course is essentially an extendedmachinery risk assessment exercise. Studentsare initially asked to select a machine to riskassess and then the lectures provide themwith the information that they need tocomplete each stage of the risk assessment.

The lectures attempt to fill the knowledge gapof undergraduates who have little or noexperience of industry by explaining in somedetail about the wide range of ways in whichmachinery can potentially injure people. Forinstance if someone has never heard about thecondition called vibration white finger they willnot realise that a vibrating mechanism cancause a disabling injury.

The BSI course also recognises that youcannot carry out a meaningful risk assessmentof anything if you don’t fully understand it. Inthe case of machinery the prerequisites are thegeneral knowledge and subject specificknowledge highlighted in clause 3 and a goodknowledge of how the machine works, how itis used, how it is maintained, how it is cleaned,how it is moved and how it is likely to fail.

This is why the choice of machines to riskassess is very important. If an obscureindustrial machine is chosen, which studentsdo not understand, their chances of producinga reasonably competent risk assessment arelimited, because while they will be able to workout how the machine works they may not fullyunderstand how it is used and maintained andthey will certainly not know how it fails.

For the Bath course students chose to do theirrisk assessments on machine tools in themechanical engineering workshop. This had

505

EE2006

the advantage that the students knew howthey worked and what they were used forbecause they had used them during their firstyear. However this still meant they had to findout how the machines failed, how they weremaintained and the typical accidents thatoccur on these machines in industry.

Conversations with the lab technicians helpedprovide a great deal of this information, butstudents were encouraged to use the internetto find out accident statistics to add to theirinformation about their chosen machine.

BSI’s initial purpose when developing thecourse was to introduce students to theconcept of using standards when designingmachines and so all of the students were givena set of the twelve key standards in the safetyof machinery series. Students were required touse these standards in a succession of designexercises that included designing guards for amachine, selecting interlocking devices for thismachine and designing access steps.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

So how well was the Designing Safe Machinerycourse received by the Bath students? Well atthe time this paper was being written thestudents were sitting their exam on this courseso it remains to be seen how much of thematerial delivered on the course was retained.

However what we can report is how the studentsreacted in the lectures, assignments andtutorials and this was encouraging. Students didbecome familiar with the process of riskassessment, learnt about a far wider range ofhazards than they would have done with theprevious course and were able to producesensible designs using European standards.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the DTI, BSIStandards, the Processing and PackagingMachinery Association and the University ofBath for funding this work. They also wish tothank Nicola Stacey from HSL, Richard Wilsonfrom HSE, Liz Williams from BSI Standardsand Ernie Jeffrey from EN-Sure Consultants fortheir advice and support.

REFERENCE

Machinery Directive 98/37/EC published inthe UK as The Supply of Machinery (Safety)Regulations 1992, by The Stationery Office

506

EE2006

ABSTRACT

Patents lie at the heart of engineering as apermanent and ongoing record of invention. Wehave taught the subject for about 5 years in bothUG and PG courses, written from scratch owingto the absence of textbooks aimed specifically atengineers. Most practising engineers developpatent skills on the job rather than throughconventional courses. But there is a need topresent such courses as early as possible in theengineering curriculum, so that graduates havea flying start in their first employment.

INTRODUCTION

The impetus for developing IP courses in theOU came when students at a weekend schoolin the mid-1990s enquired about the subject.The students in question were a cohort fromEire, working in new industries establishedthere using EU funds. The companiesincluded computer manufacturers as well asmedical device makers. Some of the groupwere themselves patentees, and a smallernumber pursuing alleged infringers.

At that time, one of us (PRL) was involved in anumber of on-gong court actions, and hadsome experience of providing expert evidencein Black & Decker-v-Flymo, a case heard in theHigh Court in 1989/90(1). We were thus in theposition to provide some case studies frompersonal experience, as well as others whichhad been essential reading in preparing for trial.Patent actions are very revealing for the natureof invention, and the way it is controlled by legalrequirements. In any patent litigation, thepatents-in-suit will be dissected both by lawyersand engineers in infinite detail, especially fortheir proximity to the prior art and hence thelevel of inventive skill. During the late 1990’s webecame involved with London MetropolitanUniversity in developing an Integrated Graduate

Development Scheme (IGDS) in polymertechnology. It was an ideal route to developinga new Forensic Engineering course, whichwould include a large slice of IP.

Concurrently the Faculty of Technology at theOU was developing a new Level 1 (first-year-equivalent) engineering course, and hencethere was an opportunity to re-use the casestudies, with appropriate wrap-around teachingmaterial, in this course as well. The Level 1course was thus able to engage students withtechnical documentation such as patents andStandards at an early point in their studies.

CASE STUDIES

Several case studies of the actions in whichPRL had been involved were incorporated intothese courses. A very recent case introducedthe subject in the PG course (Schneider-v-Taylor, Patents County Court, 1996), an actioninvolving wheelie bins. The first invention wasa German design patent from 1986, (figure 1).The key inventive step was the design of the lipof the bin(2). The strength of this part is criticalto its function, since the whole bin must belifted by a comb bar on the back of a refuselorry. The lip must be strong to resist the loadof a full bin, and the German patentees hadaddressed the problem by reinforcing the lipwith a steel bar (figure 1). Shortly after,Schneider patented a design where the entirelip was moulded in HDPE plastic. The lip wasreinforced by designing in numerous ribs(figure 2), the key technical effect claimed inthe patent(3). It was clear from the descriptionthat the bin claimed was made in plastic ratherthan metal. The product was introduced intothe UK shortly after, and sold well as localauthorities adopted the system.

In the 1980’s, an entrepreneurial company inthe Midlands (EH Taylor & Sons Ltd) spotted a

507

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TOPICS IN OPEN UNIVERSITYDISTANCE-TAUGHT COURSES

Peter R Lewis and Michael E Fitzpatrick The Open University, United Kingdom

Keywords: forensic, engineering, case studies,

EE2006

gap in the market, especially for the large 1100litre bins. The market preferred incombustiblebins to discourage vandalism, and a lifting lipcould be made which was quite different to thatclaimed by Schneider (figure 3). The case wassettled by the court ruling that Schneider wasvalid, but not infringed. Taylors have gone on tocapture about 40% of the market in large bins.

TEACHING AIMS

The case study teaches several basic skills:

1. how to read a patent

2. how to interpret the claims in the light ofthe description of a specific embodiment

3. ways in which a new product can avoidinfringement

4. how to explore the prior art5. how different materials allow for different

design solutions

The more advanced aims (2, 4) are restrictedto the PG course. At UG level, 1, 3 and 5 aremost important.

Other case studies add extra skills. Thus themore complex case Black & Decker-v-Flymo(lawnmowers) dealt with the background toinfringement actions including the classicGillette case from 1905. If a designer can showthat each and every step he took in producingan allegedly infringing product was obvious,then there is no case to answer(4). The sameBlack & Decker-v-Flymo case also highlightedsome important precedents, such as Catnic(5),Windsurfer and Workmate. The underlyingprinciples involve simple mechanical concepts,such as levers, screws and load distribution viaa monocoque or spaceframe. Materials areusually omitted from patent specifications, butit is often clear that particular materials areoptimal in some designs (such as the wheeliebin). Avoidance can involve switching from onematerial to another, so changing themanufacturing method and often thus avoiding

508

Figure 1: Original design of wheelie bin

Figure 2: Schneider lifting lip section

Figure 3: Taylor lifting lip section

EE2006

specific design elements claimed in the originalpatent. Thus the steel wheelie bin avoidedinfringement because it did not possess anyribs within the lifting lip, an essential elementclaimed by Schneider.

The lawnmower action involved highlighting theprior art as a defence against infringement. Thepatent-in-suit was very close to the prior art, andthe claimant needed to interpret his Claim 1very widely to catch the alleged infringers. By sodoing, it is then possible to show that the sameinterpretation can also catch the prior art. If thishappens the patent must be invalid forobviousness, and just this happened in theaction (figure 4). The explanatory diagramillustrates the patentees dilemma of how hewishes to draw his boundaries. Draw them wideand you catch the prior art, but if too narrow, thealleged infringer can escape. The case was alsoof interest for setting a precedent on discoveryof evidence(6). This case study has theadditional value of teaching UG students aboutthe design of structures, and the technicalterminology (monocoque, space-frame etc)associated with the rigorous description of adesign.

ELECTROMECHANICAL PATENTS

Another recent case demonstrates the import-

ance of the meaning of technical terms in claims.It concerned residual current devices (RCDs).They protect the user against accidentalelectrocution by detecting small changes in thelive circuit. Although the Edison fuse will cut a livecircuit when overloaded, it takes considerabletime, and certainly not enough time to preventelectrocution. The problem of devising a reliablefuse can be dated to the first circuit breakers, butthey protect equipment rather than lives owing toa long reaction time. The most importantinvention in this area was the Westinghouse RCD,patented in 1976. The preferred embodimentcomprised a system of linked leaf springs held inmetastable equilibrium by a solenoid powered bythe mains supply (figure 5). A simplified versionof the patent diagram is shown in figure 6. Thesolenoid is triggered by a leak from live or neutraland the response time is lower than the thresholdto cause death or serious injury. The device issold in the UK as the Powerbreaker, but Volexintroduced a similar device for plugs in the 1990sknown as the Protector. It had been designed byPDL, a New Zealand company. The device actedin a similar way to the Powerbreaker, but did itinfringe the Westinghouse patent? Claim 1 of thepatent-in-suit talked about ‘linked’ levers andsprings, specifying continuous physical contactof the key components. But the Protector wasbased on a slightly different concept. It used coilsprings and rigid levers, and worked in the sameway, but with one exception. The solenoid wasnot in direct physical contact with the set of levers,and acted by impact when triggered by a drop inthe mains voltage (figure 7). The mechanism

509

Figure 4: Patentee's dilemma

Figure 5: Westinghouse RCD

EE2006

bears comparison with a simple mousetrap(Figure 8).

At trial, the Westinghouse patent was foundvalid but not infringed by the Protector.Competition between the two devices haslowered prices to the benefit of the consumer,an important aspect for safety devices ingeneral. So what lessons can be taught aboutthe action? It re-emphasised the key nature ofthe words of a claim when interpreted in thelight of the specification. Claim 1 of any patent

is always couched in the most general terms,quite deliberately so as to catch potentialinfringers. But if an improvement is made to theworking mechanism, then the device is entitledto further protection by a new patent. In thiscase, there was evidence that the deviceworked very rapidly (30 ms reaction time), andgave good protection against mains leakage.

But above all, it is vital to evaluate the way aparticular device works in practice, so as tohave the clearest possible picture of thetechnical effect, and the boundaries of thepatent when compared with similar devices. Afinal puzzle remains: why did it take so long toinvent such a basic safety device? Edison’s fuseis now about 130 years old but is still usedwidely in consumer products. RCD’s havespread fast since invention, but are still relativelylarge compared with a cartridge fuse. On theother hand they give the user a far higherdegree of protection. They are now mandatoryin consumer supply boards for new dwellings.

Because definition of terms is important, PRLinitiated development of a new MaterialsTechnology dictionary with Chambers after theBlack & Decker-v-Flymo case(7). It wasproduced by a team of OU colleagues, andremains the only specialist technical dictionaryfrom Chambers still in print. Our newdefinitions and explanatory panels have beenused in the parent dictionary(8).

Design Protection

Other forms of intellectual property important forengineers include copyright, design right, and

510

Figure 6: Simplified section of Westinghouse RCD

Figure 7: Protector RCD

Figure 8: Little Nipper

EE2006

registered design as well as trademarks andconfidential information. Interlego-v-Tyco is onecase of abiding interest for the attempt to extendcopyright protection to product design.Interlego, the Danish based manufacturer of toyinterlocking bricks, tried to prevent Tyco makingsimilar bricks by claiming copyrightinfringement. The value of copyright lies in theextended period of protection, 70 years after thedeath of the originator, compared with only 20years for patent protection. The situationseemed to violate the supremacy of patents,and Interlego’s case was rejected by the PrivyCouncil(9). A similar case involved BritishLeyland, who claimed copyright in theirengineering drawings of exhaust pipe systems,preventing small manufacturers from supplyingcheaper copies to the market. This case too wasrejected(10), and the new Act of 1988 replacedcopyright in engineering drawings by ‘designright’, an unregistered right over design featuresin a product. But most important, all ‘must-fit’ ormust-match’ parts are excluded from protection,so allowing competition in spare parts.

We teach our students to make full use of themany public databases of IP, as a necessaryway of keeping in touch with the state-of-the-art.

UG COURSE

Engineering principles underlying the keypatents are explained in greater detail in ourundergraduate course, and a key part of theassessment requires students to engage withrelatively simple patents to extract keyinformation. Students are aware that they will bediscussing practical and real issues. It alsoallows embedding of IP concepts at an earlystage in the curriculum. The Level 1 course T173has registered over 5000 students since 2001;the postgraduate course T839 has registeredover 400.

CONCLUSIONS

Feedback on both courses is good, and theremay be enough interest and demand to createa new course devoted solely to IP. For example,engineering and science research studentsreceive very little training in this subject. Mostgrant funding bodies now ask for IP awarenesswhen making awards. It is also written into the

new Engineering Council guidelines for trainingprofessional engineers (UK-SPEC). Such aventure would have to widen the scope bydiscussing chemical and biological IP, as well assoftware and business systems patents. Owingto the rapidly changing state of technology,there are problems of interpretation of the law.Students should be aware of possible futurelitigation, and be prepared for any newlegislation. Such a course should aim to providebasic skills in reading and assessing patents inmany different fields. Some of our case studieshave been presented to a wider audience in arecent book(13).

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Open University for permission toreproduce some of the diagrams taken fromT839, Forensic Engineering, and EPSRC forfunding original and further development ofthe post-graduate courses. We acknowledgethe contributions of our colleagues at LondonMetropolitan University.

REFERENCES

1. Intellectual Property Decisions, 14(5), 2,(1991).

2. Ger 7611603 (1975)3. GB 1 588 932, (1976)4. Gillete Safety Razor Co–v–Anglo American

Trading Co Ltd, Reports of PatentCases(RPC), 30, 465 (1913).

5. Catnic Components–v–Hill & Smith, RPC,183 (1982).

6. All England Law Reports, 3, 158 (1991).7. Walker, P. (Ed), Chambers Dictionary of

Materials Science and Technology (1994).8. Walker, P. (Ed), Chambers Dictionary of

Science and Technology.9. Interlego–v–Tyco, RPC 343 (1988).10. BL Components–v–Armstrong, RPC 279

(1986).11. Lewis, P. R. (Chair), T839 Forensic

Engineering, OU (2000).12. Fitzpatrick, M. E. (Chair), T173

Engineering the Future, OU (2000).13. Lewis, P. R., Reynolds, K. and Gagg, C.,

Forensic Materials Engineering, CRCPress (2003).

511

EE2006

ABSTRACT

The Department of Mechanical Engineering at theUniversity of Sheffield has developed aMotorsports Engineering Management pro-gramme that incorporates a variety of teachingand learning techniques. This approach fosterscreativity and successfully enables technical andacademic skill development.

The degree programme provides students withthe unique opportunity of actively gettinginvolved in motorsports at a practical level, aswell as developing and managing a motorsportscompany by the end of the programme. At thesame time they learn and apply the expectedengineering principles of MEng level mechanicalengineering programmes. Experiential andreflective learning are at the heart of thecurriculum.

INTRODUCTION

Providing students with the right skills to becomesuccessful in an increasingly competitive world,whilst delivering an exciting and worthwhilelearning experience are challenges facing allhigher education institutions. It is well acceptedthat engineering students not only require soundtechnical training but also a good understandingof management issues, and an outstanding levelof transferable skills.

In 1992 Mendus(1) argued that studentsshould be presented with different andcompeting traditions in order to facilitatecritical creation as well as critical discovery.Kolb in 1993(2) explained the need forexperiential learning. He suggested that withinexperiential learning the student moves fromactor to observer and from specificinvolvement to general analytic detachment. Inother words, experiential learning goes handin hand with reflective learning.

Kolb further defines experiential learning as acontinuous process grounded in experience,

where learning is developed throughadaptation and problem solving activity.Hence, this type of learning is a process ofknowledge creation rather than an activity ofmemorizing information. Experiential learningaccording to Kolb is ‘the process wherebyknowledge is created by transformation ofexperience’.

However, experiential learning could arguablybe meaningless without a process ofreflection. Barnett(3) suggests that studentsshould be reflective practitioners, wheresufficient self reflection and critical self-evaluation enable students to develop validknowledge that goes beyond excitement andvain interest in the subject.

This case study provides an insight into adegree programme developed at theDepartment of Mechanical Engineering at theUniversity of Sheffield where experientiallearning is at the heart of the programme.

This paper presents the methodologiesapplied, the effects of experiential learning andresults obtained after two years of running theprogramme. Student’s understanding ofexperiential learning are explored as well asthe benefits and relevance. Finally, the futurechallenges are discussed.

PROGRAMME BACKGROUND

The Motorsports Engineering Managementprogramme was conceived in 2002, andrecruited its first intake in 2004. At the start ofthe programme, the rational for thedevelopment of a non-typical engineeringdegree was that the number of studentsspecialising in Motorsports Engineering andManagement in the UK had substantiallygrown over the last few years. Surveys carriedout in the department showed that otherColleges and Universities in the UK werealready addressing the need to producemotorsports courses. The demand for these

512

EMBEDDING EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING IN ENGINEERING EDUCATION

E. M. Rodriguez-Falcon, M. J. Carré and J. R. YatesThe University of Sheffield, United Kingdom

EE2006

courses is growing such that by 2006 over 11HEIs will offer courses linked to motorsports.

Further, another important factor was thatmany students who undertook MechanicalEngineering degrees saw their future careersin management roles, often within themotorsports industry, rather than inspecialised technical engineering roles.

This course aimed to respond to this currenttrend. Students are provided with mechanicalengineering skills which are applicable to themotorsports industry and with the necessaryentrepreneurial skills in order to run their ownmotor sports company.

Since 1992 undergraduate curricula in the UKhas become modular, with more than 50% ofuniversities expanding or introducing acommon curriculum over the last thirteenyears. Jackson(4) explains that although therehas been a high resistance to modularitywithin the academic community there is noquestion that modularity is here to stay.

The programme under study is no exception;however, 16% of the programme is experientialrather than didactic. During the first two years,students are trained in motorsports skills atapproved motorsports schools and asso-ciations (see programme outline in figure 1).

The reasoning behind this is that in order tomotivate students and excite them, the courseshould provide practical experience that wouldbenefit the students’ learning process.

During the course of their degree, studentsform a motorsports company that has been setup in the department to run alongside theprogramme as a way to provide a practicalunderstanding of motorsports while developingentrepreneurial skills in students.

In the first two years, students get the opportunityto obtain a motorsports driving licence, and gainexperience in motorsports related activities. Inthe third year, as part of a group project thestudents are able to design racing carcomponents and develop racing cars. In the finalyear, students contribute to motorsports events,helping in the development, organisation andrunning of the event, or alternatively being part ofa consultancy team, which will provide advice toother motorsports teams.

Students completing the programme will havefurther developed their mechanical engineeringknowledge but also gained knowledge of theessential aspects of motorsports engineeringmanagement. The MEng degree has beendesigned to fully satisfy the academic andpractical requirements for achieving CharteredEngineer status. In addition, accreditation by

513

Figure 1: Motorsports degree outline

EE2006

the Institute of Mechanical Engineers has beensuccessfully received.

INVESTIGATION INTO EXPERIENTIALLEARNING EFFECTIVENESS

In order to evaluate the effectiveness ofexperiential learning as an integral part of thecourse structure a small scale investigationwas conducted. All motorsports students (5second year and 9 first years) were surveyedand a single interview was conducted toexplore in more depth students’ perceptionand understanding of experiential learning.

Students were asked in the survey about theirunderstanding of experiential learning, itseffectiveness compared to other learningtechniques, its value and benefits and also itsrelevance to their decision to do this particulardegree programme.

Students’ definitions of experiential learningincluded the following:

‘It is learning from actually doing the work andseeing how it’s done instead of listening tosomeone talk about it.’

‘Experiential learning is the way to learn byyour own experience and not by theory.’

‘Experiential learning is learning from actualsituations in an activity, or learning through apractical approach.’

Students’ perception clearly suggests that theirunderstanding of experiential learning is not farfrom Kolb’s definition ‘the process wherebyknowledge is created by transformation ofexperience’(2). However, there is the counterargument that no theory at all can lead tomaladaptive learning.

The study also showed the value ofexperiential learning according to students’view points. A series of learning methods werepresented to students who then attached apercentage value to each one of them. Figure2 shows that students find experientiallearning as a top teaching method, giving thislearning technique 90% efficiency comparedwith 30% for reflective learning. The latter ofcourse is a disturbing figure as reflectivelearning must go hand in hand withexperiential learning according to Kolb. A highpercentage of the respondents said that theydid not understand reflective learning enoughto comment on it. This suggests that this endof the learning process has not been closelytightened and therefore, learning outcomescould arguably not have been met.

514

Figure 2: Teaching style efficiency: A students’ viewpoint

EE2006

However, it is undeniable that students viewexperiential learning as a real and valuableway of learning. Students said in thequestionnaire that experiential learning givesmeaning and excitement to the learningexperience (see figure 3). In their appreciationof experiential learning they seemed to linkeffective problem solving, good understandingof subject matter and good career prospectsto this type of learning.

Relevant quotes included:

‘Experiential learning is very important as itenhances the learning experience andhopefully makes it more interesting.’

‘It takes you into a real life situation where youcan learn by actually carrying tasks out’.

‘It makes a huge difference in providingstudents with a realistic view of what they learnin lectures is actually applied and how. Withoutthis students lose the will to learn as they don’tknow why they should be learning it.’

‘It is very important because it gives studentsthe capability to acquire skills that can’t beacquired in any other way, and that’s anadvantage upon other students and so betterchances to get a better job in the future.’

‘Because we get a hands on approach, wehave a better understanding of a problem weare facing. We understand its direct influences;therefore, we have a better chance of solvingthe problem efficiently.’

Clearly, practical participation or experientiallearning has added great value to education.This learning technique provides an alternative

to narrative education by making knowledgerelevant and exciting to students(5).

ENTERPRISE IN EDUCATION

Handscombe et al.(6) call the area ofenterprise the fourth dimension of education.The argument develops that enterprise is notjust a business subject, but rather, a differentapproach to learning achieved by puttinggreater emphasis on the integration ofenterprise skills into the curriculum and bypresenting enterprise programmes as anopportunity to enhance skills and knowledge.

This broad focus sees enterprise as anempowering and powerful set of personalattributes and competencies that can beemployed in any number of settings(6). Thesesettings include commercial ones but are notlimited to them specifically.

Hence, students need to be taught about thetopic: to learn relevant knowledge andtheoretical frameworks. They need to betaught for the topic such that they developskills that they can apply in practice and theyneed a learning experience (educationthrough enterprise in this case) that gives theman understanding of the interpersonal andemotional issues. The result, the learning ofthe topic in the context of and from the core ofthe student’s chosen subject, has added afourth dimension, what Handscombe et al.term in their case, ‘enterprise from discipline’.

515

Figure 3: Benefits of experiential learning

Figure 4: White Rose Centre for Enterpriselearning model

EE2006

This indicates that the learning needs to beginwhere the student is and in the context of thestudent’s chosen subject as illustrated infigure 4.

INVOLVEMENT OF INDUSTRY

This approach to curriculum development hasbecome highly important to achieve therequirements of yet another big stakeholder;employers. In fact, employers are increasinglybecoming more involved in the design anddelivery of curriculum. In this particular case,the local motor club and the motorsportsassociation have been closely involved in thisdegree since its conception. Undoubtedlythere are benefits; potential employers gettinginvolved so early, providing knowledge,resources and opportunities is perhaps anemerging way of teaching.

In addition, the experiential learningopportunity this degree provides gives realmeaning to the interactionist perspective. Theopportunities for the teacher and the studentto interact, to create ad-hoc learning, todevelop new and innovative ways of learningare numerous. Teacher and students spendlong hours in the field; both learning, bothteaching. The syllabus is flexible to someextent and as a consequence the student andthe teacher are able to develop the learningoutcomes together. The outside organisationsprovide the means for the teacher and thestudent to experience the learning in this way.In line with the literature, the ultimate learningexperience is the assessment whereby thestudent is assessed by reflecting on theirexperiences. As mentioned previously to havebeen clearly identified by students.

CURRENT STATUS

The programme has been running for twoyears. The first group of students havebecome licensed motorsports marshals, havemarshalled at sixteen events, on average, andwill very soon be licensed competitors. On theacademic side their results have been morethan satisfactory, and their feedback on thecourse is exceptional. According to the studycarried out 84% of the current motorsportsstudents said that they would have not done

this degree programme if it had not includedexperiential learning.

In terms of attracting students, the secondcohort of students was double the first, andobviously all have joined the motorsportscompany that runs alongside the programme.The company is already showing signs ofeconomic growth thanks to students’commitment and enthusiasm.

CONCLUSIONS AND FINAL NOTE

It is the experiential side of the programme thathas made this degree course original and trulyinnovative. This has involved blending togethersome of the educational approaches that makelearning more effective and fun, such asproblem based learning, experiential learning,and reflective learning. Further, this learninghas been made relevant to students bybringing real case studies into the classroomand by taking students out into the real world.

However, although the programme has provedto be greatly successful and marketable; it hasalso proved to be rather expensive due to theexperiential side of the programme. TheDepartment therefore is faced with thechallenge of making this course profitableenough so that the innovative side of itremains, and the course continues to be asuccess. This challenge has been taken intoaccount, and even students are aware of it.SUMSCO, therefore, has the additional aim ofhelping sustain the course so that our studentscontinue to be educated in an exciting andproactive manner.

The main challenge, however, is makingexperiential learning a true educationalexperience not just a fun way of passing thetime.

Kolb(2) covered all these shortcomingscomprehensively in his observation that:‘When viewed from the perspective ofexperiential learning, the tendency to definelearning in terms of outcomes can become adefinition of non-learning, in the process sensethat the failure to modify ideas and habits as aresult of experience is maladaptive.’

And this is our main challenge.

516

EE2006

REFERENCES

1. Mendus, S., 1992, ‘All the King’s Horsesand all the King’s Men: Justifying HigherEducation’, Journal of Philosophy ofEducation, Vol. 26, 173-182

2. Kolb, D. A., 1993, ‘The Process ofExperiential Learning’, in: M. Thorpe, R.Edwards & A. Hanson (Eds), Culture andProcesses of Adult Learning, 138-156

3. Barnett, R., 1990, The Idea of HigherEducation, Buckingham Open UniversityPress

4. Jackson, N., 1995, HEQC Update, No.8, i-iv

5. Freire, P., 1972, Pedagogy of theOppressed, Penguin, London, 45-59

6. Handscombe, R. D., Rodriguez-Falcon,E. M. and Patterson, E. A., 2005,‘Embedded Enterprise Learning: About,Through, For and From’, Proceedings ofthe ASME International MechanicalEngineering Congress, USA

7. Kearney, P., 1996, The Relationshipbetween Developing of the Key Compet-encies in Students and Developing of theEnterprising Student, Paper commissionedby Department of Employment, Education,Training and Youth Affairs, Canberra,Australia

517