A Review of Literature on Teaching
Engineering Design Through Project-
Oriented Capstone Courses
ALAN J. DUTSON
Motorola Advanced Messaging Group
Fort Worth, Texas
ROBERT H. TODD
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering
Technology
Brigham Young University
SPENCER P. MAGLEBY
Department of Mechanical Engineering
Brigham Young University
CARL D. SORENSEN
Department of Manufacturing Engineering and Engineering
Technology
Brigham Young University
ABSTRACT
Teaching engineering design through senior project or capstone
engineering courses has increased in recent years. The trend to-
ward increasing the design component in engineering curricula is
part of an effort to better prepare graduates for engineering prac-
tice. This paper describes the standard practices and current state
of capstone design education throughout the country as revealed
through a literature search of over 100 papers relating to engineer-
ing design courses. Major topics include the development of cap-
stone design courses, course descriptions, project information, de-
tails of industrial involvement, and special aspects of team-
oriented design projects. An extensive list of references is provided.
I. INTRODUCTION
Recent trends in engineering education have led to an increased
use of class projects for teaching engineering design. Senior-level
capstone design courses have become increasingly popular among
many engineering educators. Capstone courses in nearly every dis-
cipline of engineering have been incorporated into universities
throughout the country.
A survey by Todd,1 conducted by questionnaire, of the cap-
stone-type engineering courses of 360 departments representing
173 schools in North America covered five major areas of interest:
• Profile of responding departments,
• Course description information,
• Faculty involvement in capstone education,
January 1997
• Project information, and
• Industrial involvement in capstone education. Results of the
survey showed what techniques and practices are currently
being used in capstone design courses.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize information found in
the literature on the same topics as the survey in an attempt to begin
to establish a unified body of knowledge on capstone education. It
is hoped that engineering educators can use this body of knowledge
to evaluate and improve on current educational practices. The in-
formation in this paper should help educators in their responsibility
to help meet the needs of American industry by having students be
better prepared for the practice of engineering. The effort to strike a
balance between theory and practice in engineering education fol-
lows what is already being done in other disciplines, including med-
icine and law. The literature review covered papers from many areas
based on key-word searches of common databases, and personal
collections of the authors. The authors apologize for any pertinent
papers that may have been omitted.
Additional topics covered in the paper include the development
of capstone design courses, special aspects of team-oriented pro-
jects, and evaluations of capstone design courses. The research pre-
sented in this article comprises much of the information that could
not be obtained directly from the survey and helps to analyze trends
in capstone education from the literature.
II. DEVELOPMENT OF CAPSTONE DESIGN COURSES
Following World War II engineering educators in the United
States began increasing the emphasis on engineering science and
theory.2 Recommendations to add more science and mathematics
requirements to the engineering curriculum were directed at help-
ing engineering students better understand the complex principles
involved in modern technological developments.3 The courses that
often were eliminated as a consequence were practical courses in
shop, manufacturing methods, and design.4 The shift toward more
theory in the engineering curriculum has produced graduates with
far less experience in the practice of engineering and design than
those of years past.3
In many schools, senior-level capstone courses have been devel-
oped recently in an effort to bring the practical side of engineering
design back into the engineering curriculum. Such courses provide
an experiential learning activity in which the analytical knowledge
gained from previous courses is joined with the practice of engi-
neering in a final, hands-on project.5,6 The development of capstone
design courses has been influenced by many sources, including the
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET),
numerous industrial companies, and engineering educators. Each
of these influences will be discussed below.
Journal of Engineering Education 17
A. Influence of ABET Design Requirements
Perhaps the most significant influence on the development of
senior-level design courses has come from recent revisions of
ABET requirements. An increasing awareness that engineering
curricula often lack a sufficient design component has led to
ABET’s increased emphasis on design. An excerpt from ABET’s
annual report indicates the underlying philosophy of capstone de-
sign courses and suggests certain areas of emphasis for such courses:
“(a) The engineering design component of a curriculum must include at
least some of the following features:7 development of student creativity, use
of open-ended problems, development and use of design methodology, for-
mulation of design problem statements and specifications, consideration of
alternative solutions, feasibility considerations, and detailed system descrip-
tions. Further, it is essential to include a variety of realistic constraints such as
economic factors, safety, reliability, aesthetics, ethics, and social impact.
(b) Courses that contain engineering design normally are taught at the
upper-division level of the engineering program. Some portion of this re-
quirement must be satisfied by at least one course which is primarily design,
preferably at the senior level, and draws upon previous coursework in the rel-
evant discipline.”
A proliferation of capstone design courses has occurred in an at-
tempt to satisfy the ABET requirements.2,7,8 While the format of
capstone design courses varies significantly among different engi-
neering departments, the objectives of such courses generally in-
clude at least some of the aspects described in section (a) of the
ABET requirements noted above. The ABET design require-
ments provide the common thread that links capstone design
courses for all engineering disciplines.
B. Influence of Industry
Another major influence on the development of capstone design
courses has come from the needs of industry. Engineering educa-
tion is sometimes blamed for many of the woes of American indus-
try.8,9 Many of the methods and objectives of academia are often
considered to be different from those of industry. Capstone design
courses have been developed, in many instances, to better prepare
graduates to meet the needs of industry.9
Jerry Junkins, chairman and CEO of Texas Instruments, has
said, “Most engineering jobs involve design and practice, not theory
and research.”10 Robert Stauffer stated, “The typical theoretical sci-
ence and mathematics-based curricula encourage the analytical ap-
proach to problem solving, while system design, integration, and
syntheses are what industry needs.”11 An attempt to satisfy such
needs of American industry is at the heart of many capstone-type
design courses. Black12 stated that “...engineering schools need to
have a clear mission focus that reflects the needs of their industrial
customers and their place among all engineering schools.”
Industry often promotes senior-level project courses by provid-
ing necessary funding, equipment, and expertise. The details of in-
dustrial support will be dealt with later in the paper.
III. STRUCTURE OF A CAPSTONE DESIGN COURSE
The overall structure of a capstone design course depends largely
on the level at which the course is implemented and the objectives
of the course.13 Lovas14 has described several levels at which design
18 Journal of Engineering Education
courses can be implemented: the engineering school level, the engi-
neering program level, or the engineering stem level (see Figure 1).
A design course at the engineering school level can include students
from any engineering discipline within the engineering college; a
course at the engineering program level includes students from just
one discipline in the college; and a course at the engineering stem
level focuses on one area of a particular engineering discipline. For
example, a design course offered at the engineering school level
might involve students from civil engineering, mechanical engi-
neering and electrical engineering. A design course offered at the
engineering program level might involve just civil engineering stu-
dents. A design course offered at the engineering stem level might
involve civil engineering students with specific concentrations in
environmental, geotechnical, transportation, or structural engineer-
ing.7 The majority of capstone design courses appear to fall in the
“engineering program” category.
The structure of capstone design courses varies significantly
among different engineering departments. While nearly all senior-
level design courses have the same basic purpose of providing stu-
dents with experiential learning activities that satisfy ABET re-
quirements, the method of providing the experience is dependent
on the area of study.
It should also be mentioned that many programs are beginning
to work together with business or other schools. While interesting
and useful, the literature addressing these programs will not be cov-
ered in this paper.
A. Classification of Capstone Design Courses
Harrisberger et al.13 has categorized experiential learning activi-
ties into two areas: those that have “simulations” and those that
have “authentic involvement.” “Simulations consist of contrived sit-
uations that are carefully designed to meet selected learning objec-
tives and are under close faculty control. The Authentic involve-
ment activities expose the student to real situations with totally
open-ended projects, although the faculty may influence the selec-
tion of the situations and set performance criteria to assure that pos-
itive learning objectives are met.” Authentic involvements use out-
side clients while simulations use experimental laboratories, guided
design, or case studies.15
Other classifications of capstone design courses are possible.
Kabel16 has grouped design courses into those that include design
for economic evaluation and those that include design for construc-
tion. Such classifications can provide a representation of the overall
objectives of a capstone course.
Figure 1. Levels of implementation of capstone design courses.
(Adapted from reference 14).
January 1997
B. Profile of Capstone Courses by Department
Categorization of senior-level design courses is often difficult
because of the vast differences in course structure that exist. Factors
such as department traditions, goals of individual instructors, de-
gree of faculty participation, and availability of resources affect the
structure of individual capstone courses.17 Some generalizations,
however, can be made concerning the category into which a cap-
stone course often falls based on the supporting department.
Capstone courses offered by civil engineering departments are
generally simulation-type courses. Paper designs or economic eval-
uations are often the desired final product in such courses.7,18 Con-
struction is usually impossible since large structures and systems are
involved. Actual sites can be selected for the projects to add a sense
of realism to the simulated design.19
Chemical engineering design courses generally involve the sim-
ulation or analysis of a process.20,21 Construction of experimental ap-
paratus and other equipment can be incorporated into chemical en-
gineering courses to provide a hardware component to the student
projects.15,22
Capstone design courses in mechanical or manufacturing engi-
neering often involve the construction and testing of a prototype.23
Student projects may also deal with manufacturing processes,
equipment design, or systems integration.9 Shorter courses in me-
chanical or manufacturing engineering may be limited to paper de-
signs or feasibility reports since the necessary time for constructing
a prototype may not be available.24
Many of the capstone courses in electrical and computer engi-
neering include projects that have a significant hardware compo-
nent.25-27 Projects often include the interaction of computer software
with the associated hardware.
It should again be emphasized that the descriptions given above
are simply generalizations of capstone design courses. The excep-
tions and variations from these standard practices are numerous.
IV. COURSE INFORMATION
Important aspects of capstone design courses include course du-
ration, format, content, and the evaluation of student performance.
Variations in each of these facets of senior level design courses as
found in the literature are discussed below.
A. Course Duration
The duration of a capstone course has a great effect on course
structure. As mentioned previously, construction and testing of
prototypes and special equipment is generally not possible in short-
er courses. The amount of detail required in paper designs and fea-
sibility studies is also limited by the duration of the course.
Significant variations exist in the duration of capstone design
courses throughout the country. Responses to the survey by Todd1
show current trends in course duration (see Figure 2).
Some capstone design courses at the graduate level have dura-
tions of up to two years.24 The additional time allows the students to
carry out a project in more detail than is practical at the undergrad-
uate level.
B. Course Format
The format of capstone design courses at many universities has
changed or is in the process of changing. The trend seems to be to-
January 1997
ward a more structured class format that emphasizes students
learning to work in teams and encourages the use of particular de-
sign methodology.28
Many of the capstone courses offered throughout the country
have the format of an imaginary engineering company.9,29-31
Kimbler 29 describes the company structure used in the capstone
course at the University of South Florida where students assume
the roles of chief engineer, senior engineers and staff engineers.
Howerton31 describes a course that includes job-type interviews of
the students before the start of the project. Students in the course
have vacation days, a holiday, and a company picnic during the
course. Such attempts at simulating an actual working environment
may increase the realism of the projects and help educators provide
students with a more real-life engineering experience.
C. Course Content
Capstone design courses usually include the design of a particu-
lar product or process, either by teams or by individual students.
Some courses include both a team component and an individual
component in order to allow students to experience the benefits and
challenges that exist from both approaches.32,33
Many capstone courses include lectures that accompany the
product or process design.9,30,34,35 Subjects covered in lectures corre-
spond to current issues and concerns in the student design projects.
Some typical lecture topics, as suggested by Banios,2 are shown in
Table 1. Other lecture topics that are more tailored to a specific de-
partment or a specific project can also be included.
D. Evaluation of Student Performance
One of the most difficult assignments for instructors of capstone
courses is the evaluation of student performance and the distribu-
tion of grades. The very nature of design courses often leads to sub-
jective evaluations. Many design courses contain no formal quizzes
or examinations, leaving only required reports and completed de-
sign work subject to evaluation.7,36 Other courses do have formal ex-
aminations over specific material covered in the course, thus allow-
ing the instructor to follow a grading procedure similar to that of a
traditional course.
Evaluation of student performance becomes even more difficult
when students work in design teams. The individual effort of a stu-
dent on a project team is often difficult to identify and reward.
Many techniques for evaluating individual students within project
teams have been employed in capstone design courses.
A common way to evaluate individual contributions to team ef-
Figure 2. Responses from 360 departments to a survey of cap-
stone design courses. (Adapted from reference 1).
Journal of Engineering Education 19
forts is through peer reviews and evaluations.2,30,37,38 Fellow team
members are familiar with the work habits and contributions of
each individual member.
A capstone design course described by West32 consists of pro-
jects that are divided into a team portion and an individual portion.
This type of structure allows the instructor to assign an individual
grade for individual performance as well as a team grade for team
performance. In other courses the grade is determined strictly from
team performance with each team member receiving the same
grade.39
Thorpe6 has industrial panel members give input on student
presentations and student projects. The input from the panel mem-
bers is included in the evaluation of the teams.
Dillon40 describes a course in which student projects are divided
into specific tasks. Each student then writes a job description listing
the tasks that he/she will complete during the project. Efforts are
made to divide the tasks evenly among team members. The job de-
scription serves as a tool for team members, the instructors, and the
individual being evaluated to rate individual performance and con-
tributions of team members.
V. FACULTY INVOLVEMENT
Coordination of capstone design courses is either done by a sin-
gle instructor or by a team of instructors. Having a single instructor
coordinate the course resembles the industrial management process
where one manager of engineering is in charge of a project.6 Having
a team of instructors coordinate the course places a greater empha-
sis on the importance of teamwork. It also allows for a way to meet
the increased faculty demands that are often required to offer such a
course successfully.
The role played by the faculty coordinator(s) of capstone courses
Table 1. Typical lecture topics. (Adapted from reference 2).
20 Journal of Engineering Education
varies significantly from school to school. Some instructors assume
the role of supervisor and interfere with student projects only when
necessary.41 Other instructors take on the role of technical consul-
tant for the student projects.29,42 When several faculty members are
involved with a capstone course, faculty members often act as advi-
sor for one design group and as technical consultant in his/her area
of expertise for the other groups.37 Instructors can even act as the
client for student design groups when industrial clients are not in-
volved with the course.38
Capstone design courses present unique challenges to faculty
coordinators and administrators. Issues that will be considered with
such courses include faculty interest (or motivation), faculty experi-
ence in design, and the responsibilities of faculty members involved
with such a course.
A. Faculty Interest in Capstone Courses
Some engineering educators have a limited interest in capstone
design courses. Ring43 points out that modern university practices
tend to reward educators who are highly specialized. The inclina-
tion for a professor to specialize in a specific area leads to a modu-
larized type of teaching. “The efficient instructor soon develops a
neat 50 minute package of notes for each lesson. Orderly course
notes that change infrequently are used. Problems and tests
arranged with all variables ‘given’ and only one correct answer are
easy to teach, and more importantly, easy to grade.”43 The modular-
ized teaching approach provides an educator with more time for re-
search activities, which are often the major vehicle of faculty ad-
vancement or promotion. Capstone design courses are generally
structured so that such a teaching approach is not possible or practi-
cal. As a result, coordinators of capstone courses may have less time
for research than their colleagues.
Another reason for the disinterest of many faculty members in
capstone design courses is that the amount of work required for such
a course is often not represented by the credit assigned to the course.
Uhl17 summarized it this way: “Some faculty avoid making their con-
tribution because the exhausting labor is offset with correspondingly
little credit, and it bears no connection to their scholarly activities.”
Despite the possible reasons for disinterest, many engineering
educators continue to promote and coordinate senior project cours-
es. Many educators sense that the long-term benefits of such cours-
es to their students far outweigh the required costs.
B. Faculty Experience in Design
Thorpe8 notes that an engineering program may have few senior
students with many faculty who are interested and experienced in
design, or it may have many students with just one or two faculty
members who are interested or capable in design. There are, of
course, many programs that fall between the two extremes.
The first extreme is illustrated at McNeese State University
where the four chemical engineering faculty involved with capstone
design projects each have at least five years’ full-time experience as
engineers in industry and at least 16 years’ experience in teaching at
the university level.20 The latter extreme can be illustrated at the
University of Cincinnati where a single professor had primary re-
sponsibility for the capstone design course in mechanical engineer-
ing.8 Many programs lie somewhere between the two extremes.
John McMasters and Stephen Ford44 from the Boeing Com-
mercial Airplane Group have had extensive experience with design
courses at several universities. Many design faculty members that
January 1997
they talked to at different universities admitted to having very limit-
ed, if any, experience in design. Some faculty members had been
pressed into coordinating the capstone course simply because they
were available or willing to teach the course. “While most have en-
joyed the experience, many were also frustrated by their lack of re-
sources to teach the courses and their unfamiliarity with how actual
design is done.”44
C. Faculty Responsibilities
A general trend the authors noted from the literature is that the
perception among engineering educators appears to be that coordi-
nating a capstone design course involves a significantly greater
amount of time than that required for a regular engineering course.
When new problems are assigned to the students each year, the de-
mands are similar to that for a new course. Fair and Smith have said
that “The manpower commitment to support a really effective, pro-
fessional process-design course.... requires at least twice as much
time to teach as an ordinary lecture course.”17
The number of students that the coordinator of a capstone
course can supervise depends to a great extent on the type of design
project selected.6 Responsibilities of course coordinators often in-
clude such tasks as forming student teams, soliciting projects from
industry, and supervising multiple student projects.
A study of several design courses by Harrisburger et al.13 shows
the demands of experiential learning programs as compared to tra-
ditional programs. The results are shown in Figure 3. The figure
shows that one of the areas that requires a significantly greater time
commitment on the part of the faculty than a traditional course is
informal student contact. All of the areas studied require more fac-
ulty time than in a traditional course. Although the study was con-
ducted several years ago, the current literature on capstone design
courses suggests that similar demands on faculty are still common.
VI. PROJECT INFORMATION
Important aspects of capstone design projects include how pro-
jects are obtained, what is required for project completion, and
what costs are associated with the projects. As is true with other
areas of capstone design courses, project details vary significantly.
Figure 3. Demands of experiential programs compared to tra-
ditional curricula. (Average of all institutions studied. Adapted
from reference 1).
January 1997
A. Project Sources
For many instructors finding suitable design projects is one of
the most difficult tasks associated with a capstone design course.6
Smith20 claims that a design project is valuable only to the extent
that it approaches reality. According to Debelak,30 Jakubowski,45
and Phillips46 a design project should:
• be challenging,
• have good chances for successful completion.
• be common enough so that there is literature available,
• emphasize the application of theory,
• involve engineering design work,
• meet specified standards and safety criteria, and
• not involve proprietary information if industry is involved.
The time required to complete the project must also fit into the
time allotted for the design course.
In some design courses the instructor chooses a hypothetical
project for the students to complete.7 This method of project selec-
tion allows the instructor to incorporate those aspects of design into
the project that he/she feels are most important. The instructor can
also limit the scope of the project to a level that is appropriate for
the duration of the particular course.
Other courses include projects that are provided by industry. In-
dustrial sponsors are either solicited by the instructor or by the stu-
dents themselves. Students are often highly motivated and have a
great sense of responsibility when design projects are provided by
real engineering companies.9
Still other courses allow the students to find their own design
project.2,25,35,38 This takes a great load of responsibility off of the
course coordinator, although he/she must still verify the validity of
the student projects. This method of project selection may give the
students a sense of ownership and commitment to the project.
Another source of student projects is the university itself.15 Han-
ton47 has found one of the best sources of projects to be other de-
partments within the university.
Finally, design competitions sponsored by engineering societies
can be another source of capstone projects.45 Design competitions
allow all of the students or student teams to work on the same pro-
ject, making coordination of the course more manageable. The de-
sign competition atmosphere may provide an added incentive for
students to create good designs. The “reality” of such projects may
be a factor to consider.
B. Requirements for Project Completion
The main factors that determine what is required for project
completion in capstone courses include the department that is of-
fering the course, the duration of the course or course sequence, and
the judgment of the instructor. Nearly all departments require a
final written report and one or more oral presentations. A list of
common course requirements as discussed in the literature is shown
in Table 2.
C. Project Cost
Funding for capstone design courses can range anywhere from
$40 per project48 to upwards of $33,000 per project.49 Projects that
require large amounts of funding generally cover coaching costs and
faculty time as well as the cost for required hardware and equip-
ment.
The survey by Todd1 shows that, for projects requiring hard-
ware, the average hardware costs are below $1000 for 87% of the re-
Journal of Engineering Education 21
sponding departments. Only 2% of the responding departments
had hardware costs in excess of $5000. Projects that do not require
hardware can often be carried out for little or no cost. The amount
of funding required to reimburse faculty for their time, update shop
and laboratory facilities, or provide other materials or services rela-
tive to capstone projects has not been presented in the literature.
Such a study would provide useful insights into the actual require-
ments and costs of capstone education.
Funding for capstone design projects is obtained from many dif-
ferent sources. Projects that require extensive funding are generally
sponsored by industrial clients.9,46 Those projects that require very
little funding are often paid for by the students.2,48 Students have
been required to pay as much as $100 per project for required com-
ponents.25 Such expenditures are generally considered reasonable
when no textbooks are required for the course. Another source of
funding is grants from such organizations as the National Science
Foundation.34,42
VII. INDUSTRIAL INVOLVEMENT
Industrial involvement in capstone design courses includes more
than the financial support described above. Support in the form of
equipment, materials, and technical consulting is common.2, 22, 25
Most industrial sponsors have a liaison engineer who assists the stu-
dents and who follows the progress of the project.9,24 Other forms of
industrial support include providing awards for meritorious designs
and assisting in the evaluation of teams and projects.6
The involvement of a liaison engineer is often one of the most
important factors determining the success of industrial-sponsored
projects. Magleby50 found that projects that were funded by indus-
try and then turned completely over to the students were invariably
less successful than those that had an interested liaison engineer in-
volved with the project. Having students feel responsible and ac-
countable to an industrial “customer” seems to be an important fac-
tor in their learning the practice of engineering. The success of a
Table 2. Possible course requirements.
22 Journal of Engineering Education
project can often be determined by the frequency of interaction be-
tween liaison engineers and students. In some cases, such interac-
tions have been as frequent as weekly.24,51
Opinions vary as to the validity and effectiveness of industrial
sponsored projects. Those who are in favor of industrial projects in-
sist that students cannot really know what real engineering is like if
they don’t work on a real world problem.52 Magleby50 claims that in-
dustrial projects capture greater student commitment than invented
projects. Walter53 argues that interaction with engineers from in-
dustry helps students build self-confidence and interpersonal skills
prior to entering the work force.
Those who are opposed to industrial-sponsored projects argue
that many such projects are not true engineering and often contain
low level analyses that do not “push back the frontiers of knowl-
edge.” Industry may also have very little sympathy for student
schedules, course requirements, and other restrictions that may in-
terfere with project completion.52 Conflicts related to ownership of
inventions and patent rights can arise when working on industrial
projects.1, 24 It may also be more difficult to find industrial projects
that meet the desired project requirements than it is to invent a pro-
ject that is tailor made for a particular course.
Despite the differing of opinions, design projects that are spon-
sored by industry continue to be common in capstone design cours-
es and appear to be increasing in number.
VIII. STUDENT DESIGN TEAMS
Another important aspect of capstone design courses is the way
in which students interact while completing their design projects.
While some design projects are still carried out by individual stu-
dents, the vast majority of projects are conducted by student teams.
Some interdepartmental teams are also used in capstone courses.
Eighty percent of the engineering departments that responded to
the survey by Todd1 include team oriented projects.
Important aspects of team oriented capstone projects include
why teams are used, how teams are formed, and what special con-
cerns exist when projects are done with student design teams.
A. Why Teams are Used
The ability to function as a member of a team is considered by
many to be an essential skill of today’s engineers.51,53 Newell42 states
that “today’s engineering is always done through teamwork.”
Gabriele55 claims that one of the most sought after qualities of a
new engineer is the ability to work effectively as a member of a
team. Many educators provide team oriented capstone projects to
help students learn how to function effectively as a team member
before entering the work force.
Other reasons for using team oriented capstone projects include
better simulation of industrial conditions and an ability to tackle
larger projects.25 Students can also improve interpersonal and lead-
ership skills from team related projects. Ward56 has given an excel-
lent review of the principles involved in design team leadership.
B. How Teams are Formed
Several methods of forming student design teams are currently
practiced. Many instructors of senior-level design courses attempt
to form student teams that are equally weighted with respect to stu-
dent capabilities and interests. Other instructors either select team
January 1997
members randomly or allow the students to select their own team
members. Valid arguments both for and against each method of
team formation can be made.
The instructors who attempt to form “equal” design teams try to
obtain a mix of personalities and a balance of skills on each team.55
A proper balance of skills and interests should give each student
team an equal chance of successfully completing the design project.
Emanuel57 has suggested several factors that may affect the “compa-
rability” of project teams:
• interest in the project,
• academic strength,
• work experience,
• personality,
• access to transportation,
• nationality and gender, and
• past personality conflicts.
Questionnaires are often used to help the instructor learn more
about student interests, academic strengths, and experiences.6,38,57
The Hermann Brain Dominance Instrument and the Myers-Brig-
gs Type Indicator have been used to obtain a mix of personalities
among student design teams.9,38,51,57
Brickell58 carried out a study to determine the effects of forming
student design teams according to ability (as indicated by the stu-
dents’ GPAs) and according to interest (either technical or nontech-
nical majors). Five types of groups were formed as shown in Table 3.
Student grades and attitudes toward criteria, instructor, projects,
and classmates were evaluated. Student attitudes toward the course
were evaluated from responses to a critique given at the end of the
course, as shown in Table 4. The results of the attitude comparisons
are shown in Figure 4. It is interesting to note the significantly
lower rankings on the attitude comparison chart of the groups
formed by methods 3 and 5. Groups formed by method 2 consis-
tently ranked high on the attitude comparison chart. Groups
formed by method 1 were the lowest on the grade comparison
chart. The results from this and similar studies are valuable when
forming student design teams.
Perhaps the most common method of forming student design
teams is to let the students form the teams themselves. This
method of team formation allows students to work with people
they know and with whom they will likely get along. Gabriele55 has
found, however, that students who form teams with people they al-
ready know are often reluctant to be too critical of their friends’
work.
Still other capstone instructors choose to form student design
teams randomly. A random selection may better simulate a real life
Table 3. Methods of group formations. (Adapted from
reference 58).
January 1997
situation than an organized team selection process.37 Some instruc-
tors don’t feel comfortable with the varying experiences that often
result from random team formations.55
C. Special Aspects of Team Size
Team size for student design projects can range anywhere from
one student to the entire class.2 Opinions vary as to what is the opti-
mal team size. Small teams run the risk of losing a large portion of
its task force if one student drops the class. Large teams often have
the problem of a “laggard” member who doesn’t contribute to the
team’s efforts.59 Other arguments could be made either in favor of
or against a particular team size.
Forty eight percent of the departments that responded to the
survey by Todd1 assign from 4 to 6 students to each team. Only six
percent of the responding departments assign over seven students
to a team (see Figure 5).
D. Special Concerns With Student Teams
For many students working on a team project is a new experi-
ence.60 Often students enter a capstone design course with little or
no experience in either team membership or leadership. As a result
students often encounter significant interpersonal conflicts when
participating in a capstone design course.57
Pournaghshband41 surveyed students at the end of a team ori-
ented design course to determine what difficulties students en-
counter in a team environment. The nine most common problems
reported by the students are listed in Table 5. Such problems
should be considered when organizing and coordinating a team ori-
ented capstone design course.
Table 4. Course critique. (Adapted from reference 58).
Journal of Engineering Education 23
 Figure 4. Attitude comparisons. (Adapted from reference 58).
Table 5. Difficulties among team members. (Adapted from ref-
erence 41).
IX. EVALUATION OF CAPSTONE DESIGN COURSES
The literature is filled with positive comments from students,
instructors, and industrial sponsors who have participated in cap-
stone design courses. The vast majority of participants feel that the
course benefited all involved.
The nature of capstone design courses, however, often leads to a
purely subjective evaluation with little or no “hard evidence” of ac-
tual benefits. Born,25 for example, does not attempt to prove the
value of senior level design courses. He simply states that he is con-
vinced from his experiences that such courses are valuable. Other
educators have similar “feelings” as to the relative costs and benefits
of capstone design courses.
On limited occasions a more objective approach has been used
to weigh the benefits of capstone courses against the costs. A grad-
uate thesis evaluated students who had been involved in an engi-
neering practices course and predicted their success in industry.61
The students who were evaluated at the midway point in the course
were predicted to be much more successful in industry than stu-
dents evaluated at the beginning of the course.
Worthington62 describes a project in which engineering econo-
my students analyzed the economic changes that occurred in com-
panies that implemented ideas from a senior project course. The
only company that had implemented ideas from the project course
that could be evaluated was found to have experienced a 42% re-
duction in excess inventory. The study demonstrated one of the
benefits available to industrial sponsors and provided useful infor-
24 Journal of Engineering Education
Figure 5. Student team structure. (Adapted from reference 1.)
mation for evaluating the success of the course. Similar studies
would certainly be useful for capstone course coordinators, admin-
istrators and students.
A. Evaluation by Project Sponsors
A good indication of the success of a capstone design course is
the continued support (or lack thereof) of industrial sponsors. Re-
peat sponsorship of student design projects seems to indicate satis-
faction with the initial results. Phillips46 indicated that about two-
thirds of the current sponsors would continue to be sponsors the
following year.
Another indication of the success of a capstone course is the in-
terest that industry has in graduates who have been through the cap-
stone course. Many students have received job offers from the same
companies with whom they worked in the senior capstone course.20
Phillips46 describes a survey of the sponsors of capstone projects.
Results of selected questions from the survey are shown in Table 6.
The questionnaire shows that, in general, project sponsors surveyed
were pleased with the results of the capstone projects. Similar spon-
sor surveys were not found in the literature.
B. Evaluation by Students and Alumni
Students’ feelings toward capstone design courses are often de-
termined by questionnaires at the end of the course. Student re-
January 1997
sponse is generally favorable. The results of questionnaires often in-
dicate how well a capstone design course introduces various design
activities to the students.7
Phillips46 presents a survey of alumni of a capstone-type design
course. The survey indicates that participants in the course value
their experiences more with time (see Table 7 ).
C. Evaluation by Educators
Most of the engineering educators that have described the cap-
stone courses in which they have been involved have indicated that
the courses were successful and worthwhile. As mentioned previ-
ously, such evaluations are often quite subjective in nature.
Capstone courses also provide educators a means of detecting
deficiencies in the curriculum. Areas in which students have diffi-
culties may indicate opportunities for improvement in specific pre-
capstone courses. The capstone course helps educators evaluate the
students’ overall undergraduate education.
Not all educators, however, feel that capstone-type design
courses are appropriate in an undergraduate engineering curricu-
lum. Hoole63 explains that the education of an engineer occurs in
two places: the university and industry. Hoole argues that universi-
ties should teach the theories and principles of engineering and
leave the hands-on, practical aspects of engineering to industry.
Other educators have given certain cautions concerning cap-
stone design courses. Culver64 explains that capstone courses should
be preceded by courses that help to prepare engineering students for
design. Evans65 suggests that capstone courses occur much too late
in an engineering student’s education. Koen66 suggests that several
simple design problems should precede the large project in a cap-
stone design course.
X. CONCLUSIONS
The proliferation of senior-level capstone design courses is evi-
dence of a nationwide effort to improve the design skills of engi-
Table 6. Sponsor survey. (Adapted from reference 46).
Table 7. Alumni survey. (Adapted from reference 46).
January 1997
neering graduates. Educators from all engineering disciplines have
developed courses built around open-ended design projects similar
to those found in industry.
Although the individual structures of capstone design courses
are extremely diverse, the objective of nearly all such courses is to
provide students with a real-life engineering design experience.
Other objectives often include the development of interpersonal
and communication skills, enhancement of student confidence, and
improved university relationships with industry.
We have attempted here to provide a reasonably comprehensive
survey of current trends in capstone engineering design education
as found in the literature, and we regret any oversight or omission of
relevant articles.
REFERENCES
1. Todd, R. H., S. P. Magleby, C. D. Sorensen, B. R. Swan and D. K
Anthony, “A Survey of Capstone Engineering Courses in North Ameri-
ca,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 84, no. 2, 1995, pp. 165-174.
2. Banios, E. W., “Teaching Engineering Practices,” Proceedings, 1992
Frontiers in Education Conference, IEEE, 1992, pp. 161-168.
3. Liebman, J. C., “Designing the Design Engineer,” Journal of Profes-
sional Issues in Engineering, vol. 115, 1989, pp. 261-270.
4. Forman, G. W., and C. D. Reese, “Capstone Design - On Teaching
Non-Engineering Considerations in Engineering Design,” Proceedings,
1984 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1984, pp. 808-810.
5. Pomberger, G., “Software Engineering Education — Adjusting our
Sails,” Education and Computing, vol. 8, no. 4, 1993, pp. 287-294.
6. Thorpe, J. F., “Design of Mechanical Systems: A Capstone Course
in Mechanical Engineering Design,” Proceedings, 1984 ASEE Annual Con-
ference, ASEE, 1984, pp. 803-807.
7. Schoon, J. G., “Transportation Capstone Design Project: Review
and Future Directions,” Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Educa-
tion and Practice, vol. 120, 1994, pp. 70-89.
8. Thorpe, J. F., “On Implementing ABET’s Design Requirements in
Mechanical Engineering,” Proceedings, 1985 ASEE Annual Conference,
ASEE, 1985, pp. 1112-1118.
9. Todd, R. H., C. D. Sorensen, and S. P. Magleby, “Designing a Se-
nior capstone Course to Satisfy Industrial Customers,” Journal of Engineer-
ing Education, vol. 82, no. 2, 1993, pp. 92-100.
10. Junkins, J., CEO of Texas Instruments, Personal Communication
of Author Robert Todd, 435 CTB, Provo, UT, 1995.
11. Stauffer, R. N., “Getting Manufacturing Education up to Speed,”
Manufacturing Engineering, September, 1989, pp. 63-66.
12. Black, M. K., “An Industry View of Engineering Education,” Jour-
nal of Engineering Education, vol. 83, no. 1, 1994, pp. 26-28.
13. Harrisberger, L., R. Heydinger, J. Seeley, and M. Talburtt, Experi-
ential Learning in Engineering Education, American Society for Engineer-
ing Education, 1976.
14. Lovas, C. M., “Capstone Engineering Design: A History,” Proceed-
ings, Advances in Capstone Education Conference, Brigham Young University,
1994, pp. 103-108.
15. Silla, H., “Development of the Design Laboratory,” Chemical Engi-
neering Education, vol. 20, no. 1, 1986, pp. 44-47.
16. Kabel, R. L., “Instruction in Scaleup,” Chemical Engineering Educa-
tion, vol. 22, no. 3, 1988, pp. 128-133.
17. Uhl, V. W., “Development and Critique of the Contemporary Se-
nior Design Course,” Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 16, no. 1, 1982,
Journal of Engineering Education 25
pp. 30-33, 48.
18. Matthys, R. D., and S. Leelanitkul, “Practical Design Experience in
a Civil Engineering Program,” Civil Engineering Education, vol. 11, 1989,
pp. 28-39.
19. Andersen, D. A., “Civil Engineering Capstone Design Course,”
Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 118,
1992, pp. 279-283.
20. Smith, M. J., “Use of a Process Simulation Computer Program in
an Industry Project Capstone Design Course,” Proceedings, 1991 ASEE
Annual Conference, vol. 2, ASEE, 1991, pp. 1176-1186.
21. McCready, M. J., “An Alternative Approach to the Process Design
Course,” Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 23, no. 2, 1989, pp. 82-
85, 99.
22. Rochefort, S., “An Innovative ChE Process Laboratory,” Chemical
Engineering Education, vol. 19, no. 3, 1985, pp. 150-155, 161.
23. Frechleton, J. E., and W. W. Walter, “Constructing Prototypes in a
College-Wide Capstone Design Course,” Proceedings, Advances in Cap-
stone Education Conference, Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 177-180.
24. Durfee, W. K., “Engineering Education Gets Real,” Technology Re-
view, vol. 97, no. 2, 1994, pp. 42-52.
25. Born, R. C., “A Capstone Design Experience for Electrical Engi-
neers,” IEEE Transactions in Education, vol. 35, 1992, pp. 240-242.
26. Weeks, A., S. Khajenoori, C. Bauer, and H. Myler, “Embedded
Microprocessors: A Capstone Course in Undergraduate Computer Engi-
neering Education,” Proceedings, 21st Annual Pittsburgh Conference, Part 3,
1990, pp. 1081-1084.
27. Anakwa, W. D. N., and T. L. Stewart, “A Comprehensive Cap-
stone Design Course in Electrical and Computer Engineering at Bradley
University,” Proceedings, 1987 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1987, pp.
1594-1597.
28. Gander, R. E., J. E. Salt, and G. J. Huff, “Electrical Engineering
Design Course Sequence Using a Top-Down Design Methodology,”
IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 37, no. 1, 1994, pp. 30-35.
29. Kimbler, D. L, and G. K. Bennett, “Capstone Course at the Uni-
versity of South Florida,” Proceedings, 1983 ASEE Annual Conference,
ASEE, 1983, pp. 362-363.
30. Debelak, K. A., and J. A. Roth, “Chemical Process Design: An In-
tegrated Teaching Approach,” Chemical Engineering Education, vol. 16, no.
2, 1982, pp. 72-75.
31. Howerton, C. P., “Cactus Systems. A Computer Science
Practicum that is More than a Capstone,” SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 20, no. 1,
1988, pp. 176-180.
32. West, H., “A Criticism of an Undergraduate Design Curriculum,”
Design Theory and Methodology, vol. 31, 1991, pp. 7-12.
33. Oman, P. W. Jr., “Software Engineering Practicums: A Case Study
of a Senior Capstone Sequence,” SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 18, no. 2, 1986, pp.
53-57.
34. Conant, R. J., and M. K. Wells, “Adaptive Equipment Design as
an Option for Undergraduate Engineering Students,” Winter Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1990, pp. 107-108.
35. Morton, T. “Microcomputer-Based Capstone Projects,” Proceed-
ings, 1991 ASEE Annual Conference, vol. 1, ASEE, 1991, pp. 121-123.
36. Newberry, C. F., and P. A. Lord, “Aerospace Vehicle Design at
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona,” AIAA/AHS/ASEE Air-
craft Systems, Design & Technology Meeting, 1986.
37. Dorsey, J., Z. Qu, J. Magill, and D. M. Dawson, “Integrating the
Classroom and Laboratory: An Approach to Capstone Design,” IEEE
Transactions on Education, vol 35, 1992, pp. 235-239.
38. Etlinger, H. A, “Retrospective on an Early Software Projects
26 Journal of Engineering Education
Course,” Twenty First SIGCSE Technical symposium on Computer Science
Education, 1990, pp. 72-77.
39. Merlino, D. H., and J. Hadjilogiou, “Introducing R&M and Testa-
bility into the Undergraduate System-Design Course,” Proceedings, Annual
Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1992, pp. 140-143.
40. Dillon, T. W., and R. A. Henson, “Evaluating the Individual from
within the Systems Development Project Team,” ISECON ‘88. Proceed-
ings, Seventh Annual Information Systems Education Conference, 1988, pp.
97-100.
41. Pournaghshband, H., “The Students’ Problems in Courses with
Team Projects,” SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 22, no. 1, 1990, pp. 44-47.
42. Newell, S, “Collaborative Learning in Engineering Design,” Jour-
nal of College Science Teaching, vol. 19, no. 6, 1990, pp. 359-362.
43. Ring, S., “A Highway Design ‘Capstone’ Course for Senior engi-
neering Students,” Proceedings, 1987 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE,
1987, pp. 1598-1600.
44. McMasters, J. H., and S. D. Ford, “An Industry View of Enhanc-
ing Design Education,” Engineering Education, July/August 1990, pp. 536-
529.
45. Jakubowski, G. S., and R. Sechler, “SAE Student Design competi-
tions as Capstone Courses,” Proceedings, Advances in Capstone Education
Conference, Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 97-101.
46. Phillips, J. R., and M. M. Gilkeson, “Reflections on a Clinical Ap-
proach to Engineering Design,” Design Theory and Methodology, vol. 31,
1991, pp. 1-5.
47. Hanton, J. P., “Capstone Design course in EE,” Proceedings, Fron-
tiers in Education Conference, 1988, pp. 215-220.
48. Durham, M. O., “Microprocessors in System Design: A Course
Perspective,” Proceedings, Twenty First Annual Pittsburgh Conference, Part 3,
1990, pp. 1075-1079.
49. Woodson, T. T., “A Fortunate Convergence,” Proceedings, Engi-
neering Clinic Issues Symposium, Harvey Mudd College, 1994, pp. 23-27.
50. Magleby, S. P., C. D. Sorensen, and R. H. Todd, “Integrated
Product and Process Design: A Capstone Course in Mechanical and
Manufacturing Engineering,” Proceedings, 1992 Frontiers in Education
Conference, ASEE, 1992, pp. 469-474.
51. Sloan, D. E., “An Experiential Design Course in Groups,” Chemi-
cal Engineering Education, vol. 16, no. 1, 1982, pp. 38-41.
52. Hamelink, J. H., “Industrial Oriented Senior Design Projects. A
Key for Industrial Experience,” Proceedings, Advances in Capstone Education
Conference, Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 87-89.
53. Walter, W. W., “Using a Large-Displacement General Purpose
Dynamics Code in a Capstone Design Course,” Twenty Third Internation-
al SAMPE Conference, 1991, pp. 288-296.
54. Sullam, B., P. Chinn, B. Lovering, and Y. Kim, “Development of a
16-bit Microprogrammable Computer as a Senior Course Project: A
Teamwork Approach to Engineering Education,” IEEE Transactions on
Education, vol. 31, 1988, pp. 276-278.
55. Gabriele, G. A., L. T. McCloskey, and J. A. Watson, “Guidelines
for Forming and Building Student Design Teams,” Proceedings, Advances
in Capstone Education Conference, Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 121-
125.
56. Ward, A. C., “Design Team Leadership: Principles and Experi-
ences,” Proceedings, Advances in Capstone Education Conference, Brigham
Young University, 1994, pp. 127-136.
57. Emanuel, J. T., and K. Worthington, “Team-Oriented Capstone
Design Course Management: A New Approach to Team Formulation
and Evaluation,” Proceedings, 1989 Frontiers in Education Conference,
IEEE, 1989, pp. 229-234.
January 1997
 58. Brickell, J. L., D. B. Porter, M. F. Reynolds, and R. D. Cosgrove,
“Assigning Students to Groups for Engineering Design Projects: A Com-
parison of Five Methods,” Engineering Education, vol. 83, no. 3, 1994, pp.
259-262.
59. Wimberly, C. A., “Senior Project: Then and Three Years Later,”
Proceedings, 1985 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1985, pp. 996-997.
60. Lindholm, J. C., and D. A. Gilliland, “Senior Projects in Engineer-
ing Technology,” Proceedings, 1985 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE,
1985, pp. 998-1002.
61. Banios, E. W., “An Engineering Practices Course,” IEEE Transac-
tions on Education, vol. 35, 1992, pp. 286-293.
62. Worthington, K., “The Evaluation of Past Industrial Engineering
Projects by Undergraduate Engineering Economy Students,” Proceedings,
1979 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1979, pp. 130-132.
63. Hoole, S., and H. Ratnajeevan, “Engineering Education, Design,
and Senior Projects,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 34, no. 2, 1991,
pp. 193-198.
64. Culver, R. S., D. Woods, and P. Fitch, “Gaining Professional Ex-
pertise Through Design Activities,” Engineering Education, July/August
1990, pp. 533-536.
65. Evans, D. L., B. W. McNeill, and G. C. Beakley, “Design in Engi-
neering Education: Past Views of Future Directions,” Engineering Educa-
tion, July/August, 1990, pp. 517-522.
66. Koen, B. V., “Toward a Strategy for Teaching Engineering De-
sign,” Engineering Education, vol. 83, no. 3, 1994, pp. 193-201.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
The following references are not cited in the paper, but may be of value
to particular readers.
67. Acharya, K., R. Born, S. Reyer, and R. Teodoro, “A Senior Electri-
cal Engineering Capstone Design Program,” Proceedings, Advances in Cap-
stone Education Conference, Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 75-80.
68. Adams, E. E., “MIT’s Undergraduate Environmental Engineering
Clinic,” Proceedings, Advances in Capstone Education Conference, Brigham
Young University, 1994, pp. 67-69,
69. Aldrich, D. W., “An Approach for Conducting a Capstone Engi-
neering Design Course,” Proceedings, 1987 ASEE Annual Conference,
ASEE, 1987, pp. 1584-1588.
70. Archer, C. B., “A Realistic Approach to Teaching Systems Analysis
at the Small or Medium-Sized College,” SIGCSE Bulletin, vol. 17, no. 1,
1985, pp. 105-108.
71. Baltrush, M. A., “Senior Project Course in a Computer and Infor-
mation Science Department,” Papers of the 12th SIGCSE Technical Sympo-
sium on Computer Science Education, 1981, pp. 224-224.
72. Benson, R. E. J., “Allowing Students to Experience Engineering
Through a Capstone Design Course,” Proceedings, 1987 Frontiers in Edu-
cation Conference, IEEE, 1987, pp. 217-220.
73. Bradley, F. X. Jr., “The NASA Glove: A Hands-On Design Expe-
rience for Engineering Students,” Engineering Education, vol. 76, no. 2,
1985, pp. 80-84.
74. Bright, A., “Teaching and Learning in the Engineering Clinic Pro-
gram at Harvey Mudd College,” Proceedings, Advances in Capstone Educa-
tion Conference, Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 113-116.
75. Clark, J. P., “The Chemical Engineering Process Design Sequence
at Virginia Tech... and a New Perspective,” Chemical Engineering Educa-
tion, vol. 16, no. 1, 1982, pp. 34-37.
76. Devgan, S. S., M. Bodruzzaman, and M. S. Zein-Sabatto, “Evalu-
January 1997
ating Design Projects in E. E. Curriculum,” Proceedings, IEEE Southestcon,
1993.
77. Dixon, J. R., “The State of Education,” Mechanical Engineering,
Feb., 1991, pp. 64-67.
78. Dixon, J. R., “New Goals for Engineering Education,” Mechanical
Engineering, March, 1991, pp. 56-62.
79. Emanuel, J. T., and K. Worthington, “Senior Design Project:
Twenty Years and Still Learning,” Proceedings, 1987 Frontiers in Education
Conference, IEEE, 1987, pp. 227-231.
80. Etter, D. M., “A Course Model for Teaching Engineers to Design
and Implement Large Software Projects,” Engineering Education, vol. 76,
no. 5, 1986, pp. 272-275.
81. Faghri, A., “An Approach to Developing the Laboratory Through
Senior Design Projects, Engineering Education, vol. 78, no. 3, 1987, pp.
184-186.
82. Fairclough, D. A., “Organizing and Monitoring the Senior Pro-
ject,” Proceedings, 1981 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1981, pp. 42-52.
83. Foster, G. N., “Team Projects I an Advanced Microprocessor
Course,” Proceedings, 1991 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1991, pp.
124-127.
84. Frasch, L. G., “Senior Projects on a Large Scale,” Proceedings, Ad-
vances in Capstone Education Conference, Brigham Young University, 1994,
pp. 41-53.
85. Genalo, L. J., and T. A. Smay, “Plan for curricular Integration of
Interdisciplinary Design,” Proceedings, 1988 Frontiers in Education Confer-
ence, IEEE, 1988, pp. 204-208.
86. George, J. A., R. M. Andres, and B. H. Ulrich, “Wind Tunnel
Tests in Student Design Projects - A Useful Tool,” AIAA/AHS/ASEE Air-
craft Systems, Design & Technology Meeting, 1986.
87. Gilkeson, M., “Going About: Encounters With Experiential
Learning,” Proceedings, Engineering Clinic Issues Symposium, Harvey Mudd
College, 1994, pp. 11-20.
88. Goodman, S. E., “On Teaching An Undergraduate Projects
Course,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. E-19, 1976, pp. 74-75.
89. Hamelink, J. H., H. Jerry, and M. Groper, “Mainstreaming Stu-
dents for Industry,” Proceedings, 1985 Frontiers in Education Conference,
IEEE, 1985, pp. 399-400.
90. Heiserman, R. L., “Senior Projects,” Proceedings, 1983 Frontiers in
Education Conference, IEEE, 1983, pp. 317-320.
91. Kardos, G., “Mining the Case Library for Design Projects,” Pro-
ceedings, 1987 ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1987, pp. 1579-1581.
92. Karplus, A. K., “Aspects of Design in Mechanical Engineering,”
Proceedings, International Conference on Engineering Design - International
Conference on Planning and Design Theory, 1987, pp. 912-918.
93. Kendall, L. A., J. G. Malinka, and S. Holmes, “Capstone Educa-
tion Within a Small company Using a Student, Faculty and Company
Employee Team,” Proceedings, Advances in Capstone Education Conference,
Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 17-24.
94. Kim, Y., and T. Alexander, “A New Project-Oriented Computer
Engineering Course in Digital Electronics and Computer Design,” IEEE
Transactions on Education, vol. E-29, no. 3, 1986, pp. 157-164.
95. Lathrop, J. W., “Capstone Project Design Course Which Simu-
lates the Industrial Approach to Problem Solving,” Proceedings, 1987 Fron-
tiers in Education Conference, IEEE, 1987, pp. 114-118.
96. Lekhakul, S., and R. A. Higgins, “Senior Design Project: Under-
graduate Thesis,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol 37, no. 2, 1994, pp.
203-206.
97. McNeill, B. W., and D. E. Metzger, “Project Courses: Philosophy
and Format for Simulated Real-World Experience,” American Society of
Journal of Engineering Education 27
Mechanical Engineers, n 79-WA/DE-11, 1979.
98. Mortimer, R. W., and R. M. Koerner, “Integrated Industry/Uni-
versity Design: Fact or Fiction,” American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
1974.
99. Myers, D. D., “Student Projects Supported by the Small Business
Institute,” Engineering Education, vol. 76, no. 3, 1985, pp. 166-168.
100. Niederjohn, R. J., and R. J. Schmitz, “The Case for Project-Ori-
ented Courses With ‘Educationally Useful’ Student Design Projects,”
IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. E-25, no. 2, 1982, pp. 65-70.
101. Roman, H. T., “Industry-Academia Interactions and the PSE&G
Student Project Team Concept,” IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. E-
29, 1986, pp. 154-156.
102. Saito, T. T., and G. L. Shaw, “Frequency Stabilizing a HeNe
Laser: A Joint Senior Design Project,” IEEE Transactions on Education,
vol. E-26, 1983, pp. 65-67.
103. Smith, C. O., “Thought on Capstone Design,” Proceedings, 1987
ASEE Annual Conference, ASEE, 1987, pp. 1575-1578.
104. Tribus, M., “Afterthoughts From a Found(er)ing Father,” Engi-
neering Education, 1990, pp. 523-525.
105. Uddin, M., R. D. Swope, and A. Franckowiak, “Fostering Indus-
trial Partnerships in Undergraduate Capstone Design Courses at Trinity
University,” Proceedings, Advances in Capstone Education Conference,
Brigham Young University, 1994, pp. 25-28.
106. Vadhva, S., “Development of Microprocessor-Based Design
Courses,” Proceedings, Annual Pittsburgh Conference, vol. 21, no. 3, 1990,
pp. 1085-1089.
107. Viterbi, A. J., “The Role of Cooperative and Clinic Programs in
Engineering Education and Career Development,” Proceedings, Engineer-
ing Clinic Issues Symposium, Harvey Mudd College, 1994, pp. 5-7.

28 Journal of Engineering Education January 1997