Strengthening Knowledge Structures Using Psychomotor Learning in a Manufacturing Processes Course

Strengthening Knowledge Structures Using Psychomotor Learning in a Manufacturing Processes Course

A. Sandwell, S. Park, R. Scorey, J. McNeely, R. Hugo (2015).  Strengthening Knowledge Structures Using Psychomotor Learning in a Manufacturing Processes Course. 14.

The development of psychomotor skills of engineering students is important in order to augment the traditional classroom learning experience. A manufacturing processes laboratory can assist students in developing a deeper understanding for the traditional topics covered as part of a manufacturing processes course. These include topics such as chip deformation, material or tool speed, and feed rates. By carefully designing the student implement-operate project, multi-impact learning experiences can also be realized. These multi-impact learning experiences can help build knowledge structures that extend beyond manufacturing processes to include topics such as material selection, design for manufacturing, communication through engineering drawings, and other engineering topics.

In addition to the development of the cognitive domain, other learning opportunities exist by exploring the psychomotor domain. An immediate extension of the psychomotor involves the application of forces and moments to either the tool or workpiece during a manufacturing process. These psychomotor experiences can help enlighten students to processes such as chatter, mechanical backlash, or bending. Furthermore, by carefully selecting implement-operate projects that involve the psychomotor domain during testing, it is possible to expand learning into other subject areas. By combining both the cognitive and psychomotor, student knowledge structures can be strengthened.

The paper describes the 5-year evolution of the manufacturing processes laboratory, including the development of a cost-effective implement-operate project. Feedback obtained suggests that student knowledge structures have been strengthened. This has consisted of observations stemming from a post-requisite course, Capstone Design, where students have demonstrated an improved understanding of the coupling between manufacturing and design. Positive comments have also been received from industry, mainly in relation to graduates having an improved understanding for both manufacturing and design.

Proceedings of the 11th International CDIO Conference, Chengdu, China, June 8-11 2015

Authors (New): 
Allen Sandwell
Simon Park
Rob Scorey
Jim McNeely
Ronald J Hugo
University of Calgary, Canada
Manufacturing Processes
Dual-Impact Learning Experience
Design-Build Exercises
CDIO Standard 5
CDIO Standard 6
CDIO Standard 7
Felder, R.M., and Spurlin, J. (2005). “Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of Learning Styles,” International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 103-112. : 
Goldberg, D.E. and Sommerville, M. (2014). A Whole New Engineer: The Coming Revolution in Engineering Education, ThreeJoy Associates, Inc., 2014. : 
Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.: 
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An Overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), Autumn 2002, 212-218. : 
Krathwohl, D., Bloom, B., & Masia, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay. : 
Simpson E. (1972). The classification of educational objectives in the psychomotor domain. Washington, DC: Gryphon House. : 
Parry, R. (2014). "Episteme and Techne", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), <>.: 
Reeve, C.D.C. (2013) – translated by. Aristotle on Practical Wisdom: Nicomachean Ethics VI, Harvard University Press, 2013.: 
Delors, J. (1996). Learning, the treasure within: Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century, UNESCO Pub, 1996.: 
Alberta Education (2015). Alberta Education Website, Accessed 25 January 2015, <>: 
Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking Engineering Education – The CDIO Approach, Springer, 2007.: 
Kirkpatrick, A. T. and Danielson, S. (2012). “ASME Vision 2030’s Recommendations for Mechanical Engineering Education,” American Society of Engineering Education AC 2012-4805.: 
Ambrose, S.A., Bridges, M.W. (2010). DiPietro, M., Lovett, M.C., Norman, M.K., How Learning Works, Seven Research-Based Principles for Smart Teaching, Jossey-Bass. : 
Boud, D. and Falchikov, N. (2006). Aligning assessment with long-term learning. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 41(4), Autumn 2002, 212-218. : 
Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) (2003). Learning from subject review 1993-2001: sharing good practice (Gloucester, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education). : 
Hsi, S., & Agogino, A. M. (1995). Scaffolding knowledge integration through designing multimedia case studies of engineering design. Frontiers in Education Conderence (pp. 4d1.1-4d1.4). Altanta: IEEE. : 
Go to top