2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

A product dissection project designed for student motivation and

retention in an introduction to engineering course
Aaron Smith, Alta Knizley, and Rogelio Luck
Mechanical Engineering Department, Mississippi State University

Abstract

Many engineering curriculum include introduction courses at the freshman level to motivate and
retain students. Providing meaningful introductions to engineering at the freshman level,
however, is very challenging because the students lack an engineering background. This paper
presents a product dissection based project within an introduction to mechanical engineering
course. The project allows students to explore engineering design concepts with little
engineering background. In a group project that consisted of 5 total hours of in-class work over
the course of several weeks the students studied a purchased product in terms of performance,
reliability/safety, manufacturing, and cost. Additionally, students were guided through a study on
how the mechanical engineering curriculum would prepare them to create similar design
solutions. Feedback from students was collected and analyzed to determine the qualitative
impact on student motivation and understanding of the mechanical engineering curriculum.

Keywords

First-year, Product-dissection, Hands-on, Retention

Introduction

With the increasing complexity of technology in the world, the need for engineering graduates
continues to grow. However, a study by T. K. Grose1 shows that recent enrollment in
engineering programs in the US has not grown as fast as the population. Because of this, student
retention has become a critical issue in engineering education. In fact, student motivation and
retention has been a challenge for many years. Based on several studies in the literature, D. W.
Knight, et al.2 estimated engineering graduation rate to be 56% of the students entering
engineering programs in the US. Engineering undergraduate curriculums are very challenging,
and without proper motivation, there can be significant student attrition in the first and second
years. Over the past decades, many engineering departments have offered introduction to
engineering courses in an effort to improve student retention. The goal of these courses is to
motivate capable students very early in their education, so that they have the perseverance to
persist through the degree program with success. Providing meaningful introductions to
engineering at the freshman level, however, is very challenging because the students lack an
engineering background. A number of approaches have been used in introductory courses on
engineering including project based learning (See Knight, et al.2) and seminars from engineers in
industry and academia. Knight et al.2 found that hands-on learning of engineering skills and
developing a student learning community were two important factors for student retention. One
interesting approach to project based learning are product dissection based projects. J.
Lamancusa et al.3 discusses a freshman level engineering course that is devoted entirely to

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

prepared dissection modules on a variety of complex engineering products. The course consist of
students disassembling and reassembling each module, reading materials related to the product,
and giving presentations and reports based on learnings.

This paper presents a smaller product-dissection based project within an introduction to

mechanical engineering course. The project allows for some of the benefits of a product
dissection project to be realized while still meeting some of the other course objectives such as
bringing in speakers from industry, discussing ethical issues, and introducing engineering
software. Additionally, by using fairly simple, inexpensive products, this project requires very
little development time or cost. The students are responsible for the only cost which is the cost of
the product to be dissected.

In a group project that consisted of 5 total hours of in-class work over a period of several weeks
the students studied a purchased product in terms of performance, reliability/safety,
manufacturing, and cost. Additionally, students were guided through a study on how the
mechanical engineering curriculum would prepare them to create similar design solutions.
Feedback from students was collected and analyzed to determine the qualitative impact on
student motivation and understanding of the mechanical engineering curriculum. A total of 23
students participated in the project and survey.

Product Dissection Project Overview

The product dissection project discussed in this paper is one component within a required
'Introduction to Mechanical Engineering course at Mississippi State University for first semester
engineering students. Each group of 4-5 students were required to analyze a purchased product
with respect to market, function, performance, reliability/safety, manufacturing, and cost.
Focusing on a consumer product gave the students access to a variety of design related issues
without requiring them to have the engineering skills needed for design. The project was
conducted during three class periods (1.5 hours each).

The students were first tasked with selecting a product at a cost of $30 or less. Example product
ideas were provided to the students including an aquarium pump, a rice cooker, an electric pencil
sharpener, a quadcopter, and a space heater. Ideally, the products should be fairly easy to take
apart yet complex enough to be studied from a mechanical engineering design perspective.
Additionally, each group was required to select a unique product so that a variety of insights
could be gained and shared with the class.

Product Dissection Assignment: Segment 1

For the first segment of the in-class project, students were required to bring in the product as
purchased and study it in terms of market, function, and design constraints. For example, in
terms of market, students were tasked with using their computers to describe the target
customers, competitors, and distinguishing features. In terms of function, the students were
tasked with generating a basic functional block diagram that illustrated the relationship between
the component parts of the product. Figure 1 shows an example of what was expected of the

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

students in terms of the functional block diagram. Students had the opportunity to add detail to
these diagrams during subsequent segments of the project.

Figure 1. Functional Block Diagram for Pencil Sharpener

Next, the students were required to generate a list of critical design constraints for the product.
This was an opportunity to create a set of approximate quantitative metrics that could be used as
a specification for the product design. In an effort to generate a realistic specification, students
were required to generate logical estimates of upper and lower bounds for constraints like
dimensions, weight, material properties, and cost.

Then, the students were required to begin to explore how the skills and concepts learned in the
mechanical engineering curriculum could be used to create a similar or improved product design.
This can be a fairly difficult task for students who have taken little or no engineering courses. As
a starting point the students were provided a handout that summarized the major topic areas in
the ME curriculum as shown in Figure 2. This handout was discussed with several examples
during one of the earlier lectures. Students were then expected to read through some of the
course summaries and try to determine what elements from the courses in the curriculum could
be helpful for designing their product. Initially, many groups were only able to list how the
curriculum courses might be used to understand the physics of the products. During this part of
the project, there is an opportunity for the instructor to provide some helpful coaching and

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

experience to reveal how some of the courses could actually be used to design the geometry and
materials of the product in such a way that it meets the design requirements.

Figure 2. Mechanical Engineering Curriculum Summary for MSU

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

Product Dissection Assignment: Segment 2

The second segment of the in-class project focused on manufacturing and cost. The students
were asked to describe the methods of connecting components and consider the
advantages/disadvantages of these methods over other methods. The students were asked to do a
similar exercise with regards to the material used for each component. Finally, the students were
asked to think through product improvements.

In order for the students to complete this segment of the project, the students were required to
dissect the product. Each group was required to arrive in class with their product dissected to the
point that a minimum of two internal components could be identified. This limited definition of
dissection was used because, the students were not provided any special tools for dissecting the
products. An example, of a dissected pencil sharpener project is shown in Figure 3. In addition
to understanding the manufacturing methods, students could also get a better understanding of
how the device functions once the product had been dissected.



Figure 3: Dissected electric pencil sharpener.

Product Dissection Assignment: Part 3

The third segment of the in-class project focused on safety and reliability. To study the products
failure mechanisms the students were introduced to two tools from the Design for Six Sigma
(DFSS) methodology which is in common usage in industry.

The first tool used was the parameter diagram which is used to list out the system inputs, desired
outputs, potential error states and the “noise” factors that could lead to error states (i.e. failures to
meet the product functions). An example P-diagram of a flashlight was presented in class. This
exercise really gave the students an opportunity to really explore all of the possible failure types
and failure causes of their product.

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

Next, the students were asked to use a second tool from DFSS: Design Failure Mode Effects
Analysis (DFMEA). Specifically, the students had to select two of the worst error states (i.e.
product failures) and list the three noise factors (e.g. dimensional variation, environmental
factors, customer usage, etc.) that would be most likely to cause each error states. A full DFMEA
would involve a more complete list of these combinations and a systematic rating exercise to
identify the highest risk elements in the design. However, the exercise was simplified greatly
because of the available time.

Again, the students required a lot of instruction and examples to enable them to complete this
part of the assignment. Through this process many of the students were able to understand the
role that an engineer can play in designing products for safety and reliability. This is critical for
gaining an appreciation for the broad education required to effectively generate designs that
benefit society.

Throughout the semester, student groups were asked to give informal presentations of their
product. During this time, the instructor asked several questions and provided some guidance on
other aspects of the assignment. Also, several students in the class were invited to participate in a
discussion about what went into the design of each product and how the mechanical engineering
curriculum could prepare the students to create similar design. This open discussion allowed the
entire class to gain insights from each product and provided a rich environment for a discussion
of the mechanical engineering curriculum.

Student response

Students were asked to fill out a survey to get an idea of their perception of the project. In
general the students were very pleased with the project and felt that it gave them unique insight
into their future engineering education and careers. Across the board, the students strongly
agreed that the project opened their eyes to the complex set of issues that go into an engineering
design. Many of the students were surprised to see the importance of considerations such as
safety, reliability, manufacturability, and cost in the design process. They expressed anticipation
about the challenge of being able to create designs which addressed such a variety of constraints.

Additionally, many of the students mentioned that they appreciated that the project was hands-
on. However, some students actually expressed frustration about the level of depth of the hands-
on aspect. Students gave several recommendations for improving the project such as dissecting
more complex products, providing tools to dissect the products more thoroughly, and adding in
activities where the students can actually design replacement components. Of course, some of
these ideas are challenging from a cost and complexity stand-point, especially for students
without any significant engineering or technical background. Still, there may be an opportunity
to use some of these suggestions. Additionally, many of the students recommended that more
time be dedicated to the project to allow the products to be studied in more depth.

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

References
1 Grose, T. K., “Trouble on the Horizon,” ASEE Prism, 2006, pp. 26-31.
2 Knight, David, Lawrence Carlson, and Jacquelyn Sullivan, “Improving Engineering Retention through
Hands-On, Team Based, First Year Design Projects,” ASEE 31st International Conference on Research in
Engineering Education, Honolulu, 2007.
3 Lamancusa, J., M. Torres, and V. K., Jens Jorgensen, “Learning Engineering by Product Dissection,”
ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings, 1996.

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017

 2017 ASEE Zone II Conference

Aaron Smith

Aaron Smith is an Assistant Clinical Professor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at

Mississippi State University. He obtained his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Mississippi
State University in 2012. Prior to teaching, he spent 3 years working as a senior engineer in
research and development in the aerospace industry. He has research interest is in the areas of
enhancing conceptual understanding in engineering education and integrating design engineering
skills into the engineering curriculum.

Alta Knizley

Alta Knizley is an instructor in the Mechanical Engineering Department at Mississippi State

University. She obtained her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering from Mississippi State
University in 2013. She has an avid interest in undergraduate education and a strong background
in energy-related course curriculum.

Rogelio Luck

Rogelio Luck received the B.S. degree from Texas Tech University in 1984, and the M.S. and
Ph.D. degrees from Penn State Univ., all in Mechanical Engineering. In 1989 he joined the
faculty of the Mechanical Engineering Dept. at Mississippi State University where he is currently
the Associate Department Head and TVA Professor. His recent research interest is in the area of
Cooling, Heating, and Power.

© American Society for Engineering Education, 2017