Enhancing Engineering Problem Solving Skills in a

Mechatronics Course

Olakunle Harrison, Viveca K. Deanes

Tuskegee University, Tuskegee, Alabama

Abstract

A mechatronics course provides an excellent opportunity for teaching students problem solving
skills in a multifaceted engineering context. This nontraditional mechanical engineering course
involves the integration of mechanics concepts with electronics and software schemes. The
course provides an excellent environment for teaching engineering design skills and exposes
students to multidisciplinary problem solving exercises. Students in the course described get a
healthy dose of the variety and scope of considerations practicing engineers face when designing
contemporary products that involve electromechanical devices. In this paper the authors
describe various approaches used in teaching this multidisciplinary course. Build-and-test
exercises are used to help students gain a better understanding of technical concepts covered in
the course, thus promoting a sense of accomplishment with real world experiences. Students’
ability to retain knowledge of concepts taught is improved when the opportunity exists to
demonstrate what has been learned. The projects and exercises, as well as the way in which they
are executed, are designed to enhance students’ decision-making skills and promote good
engineering judgment. One course project discussed in this paper involves participation in an
industry sponsored robotics contest. Feedback from students consistently indicates that this
mechatronics course engages them and helps sharpen their critical thinking skills.

I. Introduction

Engineering educators are challenged with the task of producing globally competitive engineers.
Currently, the global market is demanding technically-talented engineers for low wages. Several
companies have found a surplus of such engineers in Hungary, China, Russia, and India, where
engineers receive average annual earnings of $25,690, $15,120, $14,420, and $13,580,
respectively, as compared to U.S. engineers’ average annual earnings of $70,000. Initially, the
exodus of jobs was blue-collar jobs, and it was believed these were the only jobs in danger of
transport. However, after companies began to observe the huge savings they were achieving by
transferring the blue-collar jobs, they began transferring many of their white-collar jobs overseas,
too. Forrester Research, a marketing research firm, forecasts 3.3 million high-tech and service
industry jobs will move overseas by 2015, providing $136 billion in wages. To exacerbate the
Page 10.570.1

problem, many foreign nationals are coming to the U.S. to receive their engineering education,

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference &
Exposition Copyright © 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
working in U.S. companies long enough to learn the trade and make business contacts, and
subsequently returning to their home countries with their technical expertise, their business
savvy and their lists of business contacts to compete against U.S. engineers for U.S. engineering
jobs and contracts. What are engineering educators to do to address the impending impact of
outsourcing? Anita K. Jones, a computer science professor at the University of Virginia and
member of the National Science Board says, “The challenge for the educational community is to
educate people for more sophisticated, knowledge-based jobs…We need to educate for the
future, and as always, we need to educate our students better. Competition for jobs overseas
doesn’t change our mission.” 1

More than ever there is a relentless thrust to prepare new engineers to meet the challenges they
will face upon entering the workforce. The forces behind this demand include industry, ABET,
and those within academia. 2, 3 Areas that are demanding attention in engineering education
include decision-making, team work, multidisciplinary activities, manufacturability, and
technology utilization. Many engineering faculty members, having been taught themselves in
rather focused environments in which each course is taught independently of others, are
struggling to incorporate changes into their courses.
Some of the problems that hinder faculty’s ability to meet the demands of industry include the
following:
• Traditional departmental divisions
• Time required to plan a new course structure
• Unknown variables that affect evaluation of student performance
• Faculty’s lack of industrial experience

Most engineering faculty desire that their students quickly mature to the point where, given an
engineering design problem, they know to do the following:
• Define the problem in engineering terms
• Assemble an appropriate multidisciplinary team
• Independently search for relevant information
• Research prior solutions
• Filter out irrelevant information
• Construct a mathematical/engineering/economic model of the design problem
• Develop conceptual designs to solve the problem
• Conduct proof-of-concept exercises as needed
• Use CAD/CAE/CAM tools to capture design intent and analyze various aspects of the
design
• Develop a test regimen
• Iteratively select the best solution based on a structured method
• Research components, parts, suppliers, etc.
Page 10.570.2

• Construct an appropriate prototype and conduct a battery of tests to validate design

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright
© 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
The degree to which the typical engineering program actually exposes students to most of the
tasks listed above is debatable and varies widely, perhaps even within institutions. Faculty
members continue to struggle with just how much of “this stuff” they can include in their
teaching.

A mechatronics course provides an excellent opportunity to expose students to some of the

design related tasks mentioned above, and thus, help with developing their problem solving
skills. Because mechatronics is itself a multidisciplinary course comprising of mechanical
systems, electronics, and software routines, it lends itself rather well to bringing students
together in a way that actually demands that they reorient their thinking towards a
multidisciplinary environment. At Tuskegee University, mechatronics resides under the
mechanical engineering department but is also taken by electrical and aerospace science
engineering students. Consequently the opportunity exists for each project team to be comprised
of at least two disciplines. Thus, the ABET requirement that engineering graduates must be able
to demonstrate an ability to function on multidisciplinary teams is satisfied to some degree.
The goals for student learning in this three-hour credit course are as follows 4:
• Apply knowledge of passive and active electronic components
• Understand basic concepts of digital electronics
• Integrate mechanical systems, sensors, and software
• Become more proficient in programming for mechanical system control
• Understand fundamentals of data acquisition

Having taught mechatronics over a five-year period, a need for improving students’ problem
solving skills was recognized and a strategy to address this need was gradually developed. The
balance of this paper discusses components of a strategy used to enhance students’ problem
solving skills as well as observed improvements resulting from using this strategy.

II. A Strategy for Enhancing Students’ Problem Solving Skills

A strategy for improving students’ ability to solve technical problems has been devised over the
course of five years in teaching our mechatronics course. The primary components of the
strategy include the following:
• Hands-on exercises
• Mini projects
• Team formation
• Collaboration across disciplines
• Hardware research
• Failure mode and effects analysis
• Hardware testing
Page 10.570.3

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright
© 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
Hands-on Exercises

For most of the students enrolled in this course, the mechatronics course is like no other because
of the requirement that they engage in a series of hands-on exercises. These exercises are
focused and are assigned as a way of increasing the students’ understanding of the theory of
operation of a variety of mechanical and electronic devices. The exercises range from simple
voltage divider circuit behavior to DC motor control using an H-Bridge transistor arrangement
with computer software control. The hands-on exercises are designed to be short and specific
and increase in complexity as the semester progresses. Because students learn most when they
participate in an active learning task 5, the hands-on exercises are designed to be completed
before the next major topic is covered in class. Student teams are given take-home mechatronics
lab kits to facilitate timely completion of the exercises and make up for the lack of in-class time
to work on exercises. Added benefits of the take-home assignments include the fostering of team
interdependence and of learning independent of the instructor (sometimes through exploration).
Often, the students are given directions on how to get started. Providing this type of assistance
can go a long way in allaying the fears that students might experience when confronted with task
of applying theory to practice. Students can also get further assistance and clarification from the
GTA outside of class.

Mini projects

In addition to the hands-on exercises, students are assigned a mini project during the semester.
This project typically involves synthesis of most of the material in the various hands-on
exercises. Students are given about one month for the project. The project is assigned early
enough so that students can begin to relate lecture material and hands-on exercises to the project.
This strategy breaks the “elephant” into small bites and helps in diffusing some of the mystery
involved in applying theory to practice. The robots are constructed using off-the-shelf
components to reduce time and effort (and frustration) spent on the project. Thus, unlike a
capstone design project, the students concentrate more on design synthesis.

One project is a Ford Motor Company sponsored robotics competition. This competition has
become an annual event at Tuskegee University and involves 5 to 6 teams building a robot that
autonomously performs tasks ranging from line tracking to obstacle avoidance and payload
delivery. While the competition is meant to be a motivational tool for the students in the
mechatronics class, in the spirit of competition, participation is extended to the general student
body. Thus, teams are formed in the mechatronics class and members of the general student
body may join these teams or form their own. The competition provides students with
opportunities to engage in design functions such as synthesis, development of product design
specifications, build-and-test, construction of parameter diagrams, and failure modes and effects
analysis. These activities take place within a clearly defined context with milestones and
measurable progress. As part of the judging criteria, students are required to give an oral
presentation to a design review panel consisting of industry engineers and engineering faculty.
Page 10.570.4

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright
© 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
Team formation

In keeping with the multidisciplinary nature of mechatronics, student teams are formed based on
discipline as well as other factors. Because the course is taken mostly by ME students, team
assignments are made with at least one EE on each team. Thus students are exposed to a truly
multidisciplinary environment in which they have to consider cross disciplinary requirements
and seek input from another discipline. Depending on the class enrollment, team assignments
also take gender into consideration. When there is a female on a team, it is better to have more
than one on each team. Research shows that when women represent a small fraction of a team
they can become isolated or marginalized or placed in stereotypical roles that do not permit them
to flourish academically. 6

Most team sizes are limited to three students to encourage accountability. Team members are
given an opportunity to grade their team mates’ performance on the project at the end of the
semester.

Collaboration across disciplines

The multidisciplinary nature of mechatronics and engineering in general is modeled through an

informal collaboration between an ME and an EE faculty member. The EE faculty member
comes on board as an advisor for the robotics competition and comments on student solutions
and suggests improvements. In this course students get to observe the collaboration and
discourse between faculty members from different disciplines and are more likely to recognize
the importance of having the ability to function in a multidisciplinary environment.

Hardware research

One way to help students better understand the various theories presented in the classroom is to
expose them to engineering practice experiences that are similar to those they are likely to
encounter in the real world. The hardware selection process provides an opportunity for students
to engage in the critical engineering function of gathering information and making informed
decisions. In this mechatronics course students visit manufacturers’ websites and review
technical data pertaining to components that will be used to complete their assignments.
Subsequent class meetings would then involve discussions of the suitability of the hardware
components to be used in hands-on exercises and/or projects. For most of the students, this is a
new, and initially daunting, experience. However, with practice they learn how to filter
manufacturers’ specifications and ferret out the critical few specifications needed to make their
designs function.

Failure mode and effects analysis

The robotics competition requires that students perform a failure mode and effects analysis
Page 10.570.5

(FMEA) of their robot as a means of improving the design of the robot. Although virtually none

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright
© 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
of the students have prior exposure to this type of analysis, they quickly gain an appreciation for
its importance in design and manufacturing. It is in FMEA that the multidisciplinary nature of
mechatronics is emphasized. Students get to see the various levels of system integration and
component and software interaction.

III. Observations

After three semesters of using the approach outlined above, we have observed an improvement
in students’ problem solving skills over previous semesters. Some of the improvements are
difficult to quantify using traditional assessment instruments. However, based on day-to-day
interactions with students in the mechatronics class, we have made the following observations,
which suggest improved engineering problem solving skills:
• Increased knowledge and familiarity with hardware components, synthesis, and system
integration issues
• Increased self confidence in technical ability arising from incremental achievement
• Increased motivation to reach project goals (simply seeing other teams’ robots
performing the required tasks seemed to motivate others to get the job done)
• Increased exposure to elements of the engineering design process
• More experience managing a mini project of reasonable complexity
• Increased appreciation for timeliness in completing nontrivial assignments
• Better sense of the need for individual responsibility for knowing the theory and its
application
• Increased familiarity with engineering terminology and language
• Better awareness of need to explore various failure scenarios
• Improved troubleshooting skills
• More initiative in independent thinking and research
• Increased awareness of the need for a multidisciplinary mindset
• Increased awareness of the need for self-assessment of skills and knowledge required to
complete assignments
• Improved teaming skills and recognition of individual deficiencies and the need to
capitalize on collective skills sets.

IV. Some Suggestions for Success

Much can be done to increase the likelihood that students will acquire better problem solving
skills in an engineering course. Mechatronics provides an excellent environment to help students
gain important technical and problem solving skills. As outlined above, a few well-thought out
strategies can be constructed in such a way to require students to use problem solving methods
similar to those used by practicing engineers. However, there are significant challenges that can
Page 10.570.6

derail an instructor’s plans. Some suggestions for success include:

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright
© 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
 • When dealing with projects, maintain focus to prevent the course from exploding into a
full fledged design course
• Provide enough information for teams to make good first starts, yet still be involved in
learning independent of the instructor
• Plan to be flexible regarding shifts in product design specifications and deliverables
• Be reasonably familiar with the operation and nuances of primary components used in
hands-on exercises and projects to reduce student frustration
• Be proactive in dealing with team related problems
• Make adequate provisions for hardware failures

V. Summary

For most ME students, the mechatronics course is their first real hardware experience with
electronic and electrical devices in a non-laboratory environment. Most laboratory exercises are
presented in such a way that students seldom have to engage in the kinds of problem solving
skills discussed in this paper. In order to save precious lab time, most instructors prepare the
experimental procedure for students who in turn simply execute the step-by-step instructions and
report the results along with some analysis and sample calculations. In our mechatronics course
students have to do a lot more of the front-end thinking and as a result are encouraged to learn
problem solving skills that will be useful in engineering practice. By the end of the semester we
consistently identify marked improvement in the way students approach problems, communicate
issues to team mates, and seek solutions. Through repeated exposure to the practices outline in
this paper, we believe that students’ problem solving skills will be greatly enhanced.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the Ford Motor Company for its sponsorship
and continued support of the annual robotics competition at Tuskegee University. In addition,
Ford Motor Company engineers have provided input through design reviews and encouragement
to the student body.

References
[1] D. McGraw, "My Job Lies Over the Ocean," in Prism, December 2003, pp. 25-29.
[2] "Profile of an Engineer," Transferable Integrated Design Engineering Education. [Online]. Available:
http://www.tidee.wsu.edu/assets/engineer-profile.html
[3] "2005-2006 Criteria for Accreditating Engineering Programs," Accreditation Board for Engineering &
Technology (ABET). [Online]. Available: http://www.abet.org/images/Criteria/T001%2005-
06%20TAC%20Criteria%2011-29-04.pdf
[4] O. Harrison, "Hands-On = Minds-On: Bringing Mechatronics to Life Without Laboratory Time," presented
at 2002 ASEE Southeast Section Conference, Gainesville, Florida, 2002.
[5] R. M. Felder, "Learning by Doing," Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 282-283, 2003.
[6] "Forming Student Engineering Teams," Foundation Coalition. [Online]. Available:
Page 10.570.7

http://www.foundationcoalition.org/publications/brochures/2002-Mar-01_Forming_Teams.pdf

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright
© 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”
Authors’ Biographies

Olakunle Harrison is an associate professor at Tuskegee University in Alabama and teaches mechatronics,
automotive systems, machine design, capstone design, mechanics, and design for manufacturing. A graduate of the
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, his research interests are in engineering design, automotive systems,
mechatronics, product development, and design for manufacturing. He is a licensed professional engineer.

Viveca K. Deanes is an assistant professor in electrical engineering at Tuskegee University. Her research interests
include factors that impact/improve academic persistence of first year engineering students, factors that
impact/improve academic persistence of female engineering students, gender differences in behavioral relationship
to engineering students' academic persistence, impact of conventional and virtual laboratory on creativity and risk-
taking orientations of engineering students, enhancing creativity through the engineering education experience. She
received her B.S. and M.S. from Tuskegee University in electrical engineering and her Ph.D. from Texas A&M
University in interdisciplinary engineering.

Page 10.570.8

“Proceedings of the 2005 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition Copyright
© 2005, American Society for Engineering Education”