See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/3678859
Computer systems engineering in large groups
Conference Paper in Proceedings - Frontiers in Education Conference · December 1996
DOI: 10.1109/FIE.1996.568551 · Source: IEEE Xplore
CITATIONS
READS
2
2,947
3 authors, including:
John Leaney
Chris Drane
University of Technology Sydney
Philomaths Pty Limited
80 PUBLICATIONS 756 CITATIONS
17 PUBLICATIONS 913 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
How do Colombian software companies evaluate software product quality? View project
Positioning Systems View project
All content following this page was uploaded by John Leaney on 03 June 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Computer Systems Engineering in Large Groups
John Leaney, Christopher Peterson, Christopher Drane
Computer Systems Engineering
University of Technology, Sydney NSW Australia
Abstract
The subjects Computer Systems Analysis and
Computer Systems Design within the computer systems
engineering degree at UTS concern themselves with the
specification, architecture, design and implementation of a
computer based system of moderate complexity, covering
electrical and mechanical hardware, computer hardware
and software. Students are expected to develop the system
to appropriate standards, using suitable techniques, within
a defined process and operating within a team. The
computer based system is concerned with the problem of
the automatic assembly of (pseudo) chocolates into
(pseudo) chocolate boxes. There are a variety of boxes
and a variety of chocolates, which have to be assembled to
(operator entered) orders.
The class is divided into teams. A team comprises
five groups. Each of four groups is responsible for one of
the major subassemblies, and the fifth group is responsible
for the systems engineering and telecommunications. The
major subassemblies are the assembly robot, the box
conveyor and (Vision) recognition system, the chocolate
recognition system, and the supervisory control system.
The project has been running for five years and
this paper summarises the history, reports on the
development and analyses educational aspects.
Student appreciation of the subjects has been
entirely positive, with the most often made comment that
finally they have understood why they have studied
engineering for the previous four to five years.
notably dealt with, and summarised in, Paul Ramsden’s
book [1].
Firstly, there are the problems observed in university
graduates, which need to be dealt with:
• too many graduates seem to have little, useful
understanding of key and basic concepts, as measured by
the ability to apply them in simple tests. [1], pp32, 33, 71
• problems of relating topics to each another [1],
pp 54,55.
Effective education seems to be encouraged by
• long term engagement with the learning tasks
• opportunities to exercise responsible choice in
the content and method of study [1], p81.
The Computer Systems Engineering Degree
The entire computer systems engineering (CSE)
course is shaped by one underlying aim, namely to ensure
a supply of engineering graduates with integrated skills and
knowledge across the suite of disciplines (including
electronic, computer hardware, computer software and
systems engineering) required to engineer computer
systems for current and future applications, particularly
within the industrial sector. The CSE degree is about the
engineering of computer based systems. (ECBS).
The distinctive relationship between the major
knowledge areas within Computer Systems Engineering is
depicted in the following symbol:
Introduction
Over the past ten years, Universities have had to
reconsider their activities in terms of educational
effectiveness and relevance of courses. This is normal for
most Universities, but only occasionally in the history of
education has this process become so public and
worldwide.
Effective Education
The question of effective (engineering) university
education has received a lot of attention in the last decade,
Figure 1: Computer Systems Engineering Degree logo
The problem of relating topics to one another is a
problem which was always fundamental to address in the
CSE degree. Relating topics together is firstly, the aim of
the degree and secondly, to accommodate the extra
material in a four year we had to minimise repetition and
rely on students being able to abstract ideas and concepts
from one subject and reapply them in another.
In order to understand the context of these
subjects, the CSE degree is represented in Figure 2 as a
‘thread’ diagram [2], where some of the threads which
contribute to the degree are shown. Each node represents a
subject, and the relative positions represent the semester in
which a subject is taken.
CSE degree
Thesis
University of Technology, Sydney [6] discusses and
analyses the subjects and the project in detail.
Computer Systems Analysis
The subject computer systems analysis conducts
exploratory studies and then prepares a formal
specification, management, quality and test plans for the
project.
Computer Systems Design
The subject computer systems design starts with a
review of the best requirements specification (produced in
the previous semester’s computer systems analysis
subject), and continues on to design, building, testing and
commissioning.
Computer Systems Design
Signal
Processing
Analogue
Electronics
Network
Theory
Circuits (etc) Threads
Computer Systems Analysis
The ‘Boxes and Chocolates’ Project
Software
Engineering
The project is based on a small manufacturing
plant, similar in concept to the confectionery packaging
plant produced by Adec, Switzerland, [7], but not as
elegant in execution.
Digital
Systems
RT Software
& Interfacing
Software
Development 2
Computer
Hardware
Software
Development 1
Digital
Techniques
Software Thread
Digital Thread
Figure 2: (some) CSE degree threads
Team and Problem Based Learning
Hilborn [3] and Schlimmer [4], amongst others,
deal with teams in University subjects. They demonstrate
the usefulness of teams and consider team size,
organisation, assessment, etc. Cawley [5] reports on the
introduction of a problem-based subject. In this project we
have a problem based assignment, in a team of teams.
These subjects are seen as a key transition, in which
problem based learning can once more (we use it in earlier
stages) be used effectively. The students are being given
an apprenticeship in best practice, with the possibility of
failure, but with the safety net of the University to catch
them. Mentoring forms a large part of the subjects.
Description of Subjects
Please note: this paper is necessarily a summary
of the development and operation of the subjects and the
project over the past five years; an internal report of the
Operation and Item Descriptions
The core of the plant operation is to automate the
assembly of inserts (pseudo chocolates) into a box, four
components to a box. There are five types of inserts and
two types of boxes, the boxes differing in the types of
inserts that they are supposed to take. These physical
objects are manipulated by a system known as an
Assembly Machine Cluster (AMC) comprising conveyors,
gauges, a vision system and a small industrial robot linked
into a CiTec industrial supervisory control and data
acquisition (SCADA) system, as shown in Figure 3. The
boxes arrive on a conveyor and are inspected one by one
by the vision system to determine the position and
orientation of each box, plus the type of inserts required.
This data is sent to the SCADA which informs the robot to
‘pick and place’ the box. The inserts arrive on another
conveyor, and are examined by a series of optical gauging
stations connected to a Texas Instruments PLC to
determine their type and orientation. Again, the SCADA is
informed and the robot handles the inserts. There are
complex decisions as to the intermediate storage strategy
for excess components and decisions about scrap or reject
components. Four groups within the team are each
responsible for one (sub)system, and the fifth group is
responsible for system integration.
incoming chocolates
Systems and
Communications
(Group 1)
chocolate
sorter
SCADA
system
(Group 5)
chocolate buffers
(Group 2)
assembly
area
filled box
buffers
robot
assembler
box buffers
(Group 4)
conveyor &
box recogniser
incoming
boxes
(Group 3)
Figure 3: Layout of the Boxes and Chocolates Problem
Team Operation of the Project
In both the subjects concerning the project,
students are organised into teams and groups, as previously
described. Each team is responsible for a complete
specification and a functioning system. Within each team
there are groups responsible for functions, as described
above. Within groups, roles change in terms of
responsibility for leadership, process and product quality,
etc.
Assessment
Assessment was always intended to be team and
group based, with the success of the system being a key
indicator of a high ranking assessment. However, there
was always the expectation that students will develop the
1
system to appropriate standards and techniques , within a
defined process and operating within a team. The effect of
process is described later in “History of the Project”.
Individual assessment was done by presentations
and an oral interview/examination.
Almost all the
interviews were carried out by two academics. Each
student was asked as set of questions from a standard list,
as well as other more individual questions that depended
on the student's responses. Each academic privately
assessed the student out of 25 marks. If there was a wide
dispersion, say more than 5 marks, then the two academic
discussed the reasons for their disagreement and reach a
compromise. It is interesting to note that in 70% of the
interviews, the two academics independent marks were
within 2 marks of each other.
Educational Analysis of the Project
The project has been examined from a number of
different aspects, always trying to see how well it prepares
students for their future careers.
History of the Project
The project was foreseen in 1984, in the planning
of the CSE degree, and first ran in 1991. Key: O=
Operation / U=use of techniques, guidelines.
Scale is Low, Medium, High
Table 1, below summarises the outcomes
according to success of the project, correlated with the use
of engineering techniques.
Year
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
Team A
Team B
n/a
O=M/U=H
O=M/U=M
O=M/U=M
O=M/U=M
O=H/U=H
O=H/U=H
O=M/U=M
O=M/U=H
O=H/U=H
O=L/U=L
O=M/U=M
over 2 semesters
Key: O= Operation / U=use of techniques, guidelines.
Scale is Low, Medium, High
Table 1: Summary of Project Outcomes
1
These includes rigorous, formal and informal techniques of
specification, design, building and testing; project management;
risk assessment and mitigation and teamwork.
Student Reflections on the Project
After the project was completed, we conducted
interviews with each of the students. These interviews had
two purposes. The first was to gauge the level of
individual contribution to the subject. The second purpose
was to gather student feedback on the subject. Students
also completed a reflective essay on the subject.
The overall impression we gained from the
students was of general enthusiasm for the subject. The
positive aspects of the subject were seen to be:-
•
•
•
•
•
•
Excellent for learning about team work, and the
problems associated with working in large teams.
The students learnt a lot about project management
and interpersonal communication skills.
Students gained considerable technical expertise about
particular components, eg. PLC programming.
Those students who had leading roles learnt a great
deal about leadership.
the subject was better than industrial experience
because they had greater responsibility than in
industry.
Many students thought it was very exciting to have a
system up and running at the end of the semester.
However there were some negative points:
•
•
•
Some students found the work load was very heavy
There was resentment directed towards some students
who were felt not to have pulled their weight.
At certain times in the subject there was too much
contention for the physical system components,
especially the vision system.
Staff Reflections on the Project
How may times during the degree did we
accentuate the importance of defining well the interfaces
between objects? The students were in no doubt of the
importance of interfaces after this project. This is an
example of one of the lessons well learned
As can be seen from Table 1, there is no guarantee
of success, and there is no real opportunity for heroes. (in
the CMM sense)
It is extremely satisfying to see people learn and
they certainly do learn in these subjects.
Deep/Surface Learning and the SOLO Taxonomy
The SOLO taxonomy of Biggs, as reported in
Ramsden, [1], pp54, allows one to evaluate the ability of
students to associate ideas and to draw conclusions which
indicate deep learning. There was a high correlation
between high SOLO scores and students who: most
View publication stats
appreciated the subject; who “finally understand why they
have studied engineering for the previous four to five
years”; and whose groups performed well. The student’s
SOLO scores was evaluated via the oral examination.
Conclusion
Physical grounding in an engineering degree is
fundamental. Physical grounding, which implies realistic
laboratory work, breeds confidence in the practice of ideas
taught in courses. It also allows validation of those ideas,
and their associated tools and techniques.
It severely counters the argument that “this is the
University, and out there is the ‘real’ world” when the
University project is real and the techniques make the
project work. The corollary that without the techniques,
the project does not work, further bolsters the value of
University education.
References
1. Ramsden, P. “Learning to Teach in Higher Education”,
Routledge, London, 1992.
2. Leaney, J. “Fragmentation and Learning Efficacy in the
School of Electrical Engineering”, UTS-EE Internal
Report, 1991.
3. Hilborn, R.B., “Team Learning for Engineering
Students”, IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 37, No.
2, May 1994, pp 207-.
4. Schlimmer, J, et al, “Team Oriented Software
Practicum”, IEEE Transactions on Education, Vol. 37, No.
2, May 1994, pp 212-.
5. Cawley, P., “The introduction of a Problem-based
Option into a Conventional Engineering Degree course,
Studies in Higher education, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1989.
6. Leaney, J., Peterson, C., Drane, C. “The Boxes and
Chocolates Project in CSA/CSD: a Five Year Report, UTSEE Internal Report, 1996.
7. Adec Robot AG, Sclieren, Switzerland.