See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/259952873

Delivering Ship Design Education at a Distance

Article · January 2013

DOI: 10.3940/rina.ijmd.2013.c1.16

CITATIONS READS

0 371

4 authors, including:

Ema Muk-Pavic
University College London
26 PUBLICATIONS 89 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ema Muk-Pavic on 16 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2013

DELIVERING SHIP DESIGN EDUCATION AT A DISTANCE

E Muk-Pavic, N Bradbeer and D Fellows, Marine Research Group, UCL
T McDonald, Atkins Oil & Gas, UK

SUMMARY

As part of their contribution to Marine Technology Education Consortium (mtec@work), UCL provides a long-distance
module on Warship Concept Design. The module is design-based which presents a challenge in a long-distance format
given the limited opportunities for staff-student interaction. This paper reviews the challenges inherent in teaching a
design-based subject via long-distance learning and the role of Virtual Learning Environments in enhancing the learning
experience. The module structure is reviewed in the context of other on-campus design exercises undertaken at UCL.
Advantages and drawbacks of the MTEC distance-learning approach are examined in the context of constructive
alignment and outcome-based learning together with other long-distance learning practices. Finally, areas where future
improvements to the existing module could be made are discussed.

1. INTRODUCTION the subject. Finally, the post-course element contains 15

mtec@work is a consortium of four UK universities
recognised for their excellence in marine technology
education and research. The universities involved are
Newcastle, Strathclyde, Southampton and UCL. The
mtec@work programme offers innovative, flexible
postgraduate training, designed specifically for graduates
working in the marine industry. The programmes are
delivered part-time, through ‘MTEC modules’ which
feature a combination of distance learning with week-
long intensive schools.
Programmes leading to MSc, Postgraduate Diploma or
Postgraduate Certificate qualifications in marine
technology are provided through mtec@work.
Alternatively, students can undertake individual modules
as Continued Professional Development.
1.1 MTEC MODULES
More than twenty-five MTEC modules are offered,
covering topics including: naval architecture; marine
engineering; maritime economics; marine design; and
renewable energy. All modules are designed to MSc
level and have no prerequisites. This allows advanced
technical knowledge and business applications to be
taught with minimum disruption to the graduate’s work
responsibilities.
MTEC modules are split into three sequential elements:
1. Pre-school long distance self-learning;
2. A one week intensive school;
3. Post school long distance self-learning.
MTEC modules are normally structured to provide 50
hours of pre-course study (to enable students to revise
and review the module material) over the 8 weeks
preceding the intensive school. The intensive school
features approximate 35 hours of contact time and
typically includes a range of lectures, case studies,
tutorials, presentations, discussions and visits tailored to
hours of study time and also involves the completion of a
post-school assignment to consolidate the module
learning.
A typical MTEC module is assessed through three
elements:
 A pre-school assignment (30% of the module mark)
which will be submitted prior to the intensive
school;
 An examination (40% of the module mark) which is
sat during the intensive teaching week;
 A post-school assignment (30% of the module mark)
which is submitted eight weeks after the intensive
school.
UCL currently offers four MTEC modules. Three of
these modules (A2 - “Marine Engineering”, C7 - “Marine
electrical and electronic systems” and C8 – “Marine
powering, transmission and propulsion”) conform to the
standard MTEC module structure. The fourth module,
C17 “Warship Concept Design” features a radically
different delivery method driven by the subject matter
but within the constraints of the MTEC module structure.
This paper discusses the development and delivery of the
C17 module within this context.
When the MTEC degree structure was initially
formulated it contained exclusively analysis modules and
no ship design element. A need to enhance student
knowledge in ship design has been highlighted by
Industry [1], as well as through recommendations from
Professional Institutions such as RINA and SNAME. To
meet these requirements, UCL proposed the inclusion of
a ship design module. The Marine Research Group at
UCL had an extensive warship design expertise.
Consequently a ship design module focused on the
design of a warship was developed and became part of
the defence stream of MTEC. To our knowledge, there
continues to be no comparable “ship concept design”
module delivered by distance learning.

C-33
 Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Jun 2013
2. UCL SHIP DESIGN COURSES
UCL has historically delivered various taught courses on
the design of marine systems. However, the challenge of
developing a course to match the MTEC module
constraints led to a review and analysis of the existing
UCL courses to identify suitable content and structure for
the new module.
At the time the MTEC module was developed UCL
offered two ship design courses: The BEng Ship Design
Course, forming part of the final year of the BEng in
Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering; The MSc
Ship Design Exercise, forming part of the MSc
qualifications in both Naval Architecture and Marine
Engineering. UCL also offers a short postgraduate
course in submarine design that adopts a similar format
the MSc Ship Design Exercise.
2.1 BENG SHIP DESIGN COURSE
The BEng ship design course was undertaken in parallel
with other activities by BEng students in their third and
final year of study. Students completed an individual
staged design project for a warship, yacht or container
ship. Starting from a fixed set of requirements, students
developed a numerical sizing tool using specified
procedures and data. Students then explored limited
variations of payload and vessel characteristics to
develop an appreciation of different design impact. The
design was then developed in more detail across areas
including resistance, powering, stability and structure
using the analysis techniques students had learned during
their time at UCL. Frequent design reviews with staff
members provided milestones to ensure progress through
the project’s stages, while also providing feedback to
students on their developing designs. Finally, the
students produced a report detailing their designs,
including standard deliverables such as general
arrangement drawings and lines plans for formal
assessment.
Figure 1: MSc Ship Design for Trimaran LPH [3]
C-34
2.2 MSC SHIP DESIGN EXERCISE
In contrast, the MSc ship design exercise is a group
project, the majority of which is undertaken full-time
over several months. The exercise is scheduled after the
taught part of the MSc program and exams (when
students have acquired the necessary analysis skills) but
before the individual research element of the program. At
the outset of the design exercise the students are given a
short design brief (typically one page), which they
develop into a set of outline requirements. A design is
then developed to meet these requirements, after which a
comprehensive technical analysis is undertaken to
examine the design and validate the student’s decisions.
The MSc design exercise is structured to challenge the
students to develop innovative but realistic solutions.
Students frequently decide to explore unconventional
alternatives, as illustrated by the Trimaran Landing
Platform Helicopter (LPH) shown in Figure 1. Further
details of the UCL MSc course are presented in [2].
2.3 COURSE COMPARISON AND MTEC C17
Reviewing both the BEng and MSc design exercises at
the outset of the development process for the MTEC C17
module it became apparent the structure, process and
tools employed within either course could not be directly
adapted to the new module. For example, the timescales
and structures of the courses differed significantly from
that required by the MTEC module as shown in Figure 2.
UCL decided to undertake a significant development
effort to produce a new material for the MTEC C17
module, leveraging the department’s existing design
education knowledge and experience. Several factors
inherent in the MTEC format were identified as drivers:
• The unsupervised learning process – particularly
challenging for a design related module, where
experience and guidance play a key role;
• The short duration of the intensive week – leading to
limited face-to-face learning and reduced
opportunities for re-work;
Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2013
(a) UCL BEng Ship Design Course
(b) UCL MSc Ship Design Course
(c) MTEC C17 Module
Figure 2: Comparison of design course timescales and structures
 The potential for broad variations in the students’
existing design analysis skills – increasing the
required depth of guidance needed, while delivering
the module at a distance increases the difficulty of
providing this guidance.
A new course structure was defined for the C17 module,
for which supporting documents and tools were
produced, using source material from both existing UCL
courses. A range of key ship design areas were identified
for inclusion in the new module:
 Cost-capability analysis;
 Ship sizing;
 Ship layout;
 Stability analysis;
 Structural design;
 Hydrodynamics.
Before presenting details on the structure, documentation
and tools developed for the MTEC C17 module, we will
introduce the broader context of adult educational theory.
3. REVIEW OF EDUCATIONAL THEORY
AND CONSTRUCTIVISM
Since the 1970s, a significant number of new different
learning models have been developed to meet the
distinctive characteristics of adult learning [4-5]:
 A need to know why they are learning, resulting in
internal rather than external motivation;
 A self-directed learning approach, linked to
accumulated life experience and tasks in personal
context (social and situational);
 A preference to problem-centered rather than
subject-centered learning.
Adult education theories and strategies have been
developed to reflect this type of learning and capture the
key differences between andragogy and pedagogy. While
some rely fully on andragogy, others have moved further,
investigating various approaches. They are still based on
distinctive characteristics of adult learning as defined in
[4] but take in account individual circumstances (e.g.
self-direct, reflective and experimental, transformative,
etc.).
Constructivists see learning as an active process that
builds new knowledge on existing knowledge and
personal experience [6]. For successful retention new
knowledge must be incorporated by a student ‘doing’
(i.e. by reflective thinking, applying knowledge and
problem solving) [7], which traditional lecturing
approaches do not accommodate.
The concept of constructive alignment was developed by
Biggs [7] and has since become the most commonly
applied concept in higher education, despite some
criticism. Constructivists consider learning as synthesis
of biological, humanist and behaviorist activities. They
frame cognitive learning as a process of acquiring skills
by observing, reading, experiencing and then by
(mentally) manipulating and remembering the
information. These processes require both acquiring
information and then relating this to the student’s prior
personal experience. Hence, new knowledge is built upon
existing platforms and generates a “mental referencing
system” that will be used to remember and recall the
knowledge in future, enhancing the student’s capabilities
and future decision making skills.
In order to ensure successful cognitive learning teaching
structure must be aligned with the intended learning
outcomes. Constructive alignment recognizes that
students learn in different ways using combination of
different techniques, from surface learning (e.g.
memorising) to deep learning (e.g. theorizing). The
C-35
 Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Jun 2013
diversity of student backgrounds results in different
approaches to learning for each student as illustrated on
Figure 3. A well-designed course should not depend on
the students learning preferences and ensure all students
achieving the intended learning outcomes.
Figure 3: Student orientation, teaching method
and level of engagement design model [7]
The Humanist approach advocates a subtler, student-
centered process where learning is the student’s
responsibility. The role of a lecturer is to initiate the
internal process of learning by creating the ‘stage’ where
students themselves will learn and build-up on existing
knowledge by reflective processes and understanding.
The role of the lecturer is to facilitate learning, ensure
students feel belonging to a group and are able to learn
from each other [6, 8]. They should ensure access to
information, while seeking to enhance the student self-
esteem, enthusiasm and motivation.
Other authors state that the role of teaching needs to be
changed to focus more on interaction (via both student-
teacher and student-student communication) rather than
self-learning or simply transmitting the knowledge.
Laurillard [9] highlights a need to take full advantage of
the digital technologies available to enhance teaching
practice. Any lecturer needs to put knowledge (readily
available through other means) in the proper context and
ensure problem-based learning.
It should be noted that none of the educational theories
and methods presents a “one-size-fits-all” approach and
good practice implies combining multiple methods in
order to maximize learning quality for all students.
4. CHALLENGES OF EDUCATION VIA
LONG-DISTANCE FORMATS
Delivering education via a long-distance format brings
additional challenges. Teaching strategies need to be
appropriately selected to cater for long distance as well
as face-to-face learning. As such it is wise to apply a mix
of techniques that will suit both the subject and student
cohort while facilitating E-learning.
C-36
Key benefits of long-distance learning are:
 Part-time studying: minimal disruption to the
student’s professional career and/or private life;
 Flexibility: learning in own pace and time.
However, long distance learning can give rise to a range
of difficulties:
 Self-motivation and time management: students
must manage learning time in parallel with other
obligations (jobs, family, etc.). Students typically
require self-discipline and significant self-motivation
to complete a distance learning program.
 Limited communication: As stated earlier,
communication is an important element of learning.
However, distance and time can make it hard to
facilitate effective two-way communication.
 Self-directed learning: During the long-distance
learning students are left to find their way through
the taught material with some help from the staff.
 Campus life: It is an advantage for students to feel
part of a group of peers. Learning can be a lonely
journey and sharing with colleagues can help to
relieve some of the burden. Furthermore, belonging
to a group facilitate self-assessment, a key
mechanism that adult learners use to progress.
The paper now details how the new module provided
guidance and structure to a ship design process in the
challenging context of long distance learning.
5. MTEC C17 WARSHIP CONCEPT DESIGN
MODULE
The MTEC C17 Warship Design module was designed
applying constructivism as described above. The learning
outcomes are clearly stated and aligned with the
assessment method. The structure of existing on-campus
courses (described in Section 2.1 and 2.2) was modified
to suit the long-distance format and the limited time
available for face-to-face learning during the intensive
school. This process was driven by a defined set of
intended learning outcomes.
5.1 MODULE AIMS
The module aims to introduce students to the concepts of
design integration and synthesis, raising awareness of the
process by which requirements are generated and also
exposing some of the constraints present in design.
5.2 INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES
On completion of this module the student should:
 Understand the nature of the ship design process and
methodology;
 Generate ship design requirement statements based
on budget and intended role;
Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2013
 Originate their own warship concept design,
applying learnt skills and present it through a ship
layout and specification;
 Perform an economic analysis of their ship design;
 Understand constraints present within the process
and likely interdisciplinary interactions or conflicts
that can arise;
 Hypothesize ways to improve ship design further.
5.3 MODULE STRUCTURE
To fulfil this aim, the module is structured to combine
lectures (explaining the theory and experience) with a
design exercise (where students have the opportunity to
undertake a design and learn from practice).
The pre-school work involves the students independently
undertaking the initial element of the design process,
supported by the design guidance documents, road-maps
and tools produced by UCL. Students are given
individual design briefs together with a set of calculation
tools and extensive documentation. Using this they:
 Determine weapons & sensor fit based upon an
outline requirement;
 Undertake an initial sizing process (otherwise known
as concept design);
 Perform a cost/capability trade-off.
During the intensive week, the MTEC C17 students visit
UCL and attend lectures on a range of ship design issues,
while also pursuing design development work. This
provides an opportunity to interact with UCL teaching
and research staff but also other students from a broad
range of industry backgrounds. Table A provides an
overview of the typical intensive week, illustrating the
three different types of activities the MTEC student
Table A: MTEC C17 Intensive Week Schedule 2012
undertakes: lectures; tutorial style design reviews; and
guided design synthesis.
The intensive week’s lecture material covers ship
procurement, the design process, structures and stability
within design, propulsion systems, marine engineering
elements and electrical generation and distribution.
The design review and synthesis elements allow the
students to further develop their own designs using UCL
resources.
The post-school work provides time for the students to
complete their design and produce a formal report. The
report forms the assessment mechanism for the module
and is returned to UCL where it is marked by staff.
5.4 MODULE DOCUMENTATION
With no pre-existing material suited to the specific
demands of the module, UCL undertook an exercise to
produce a broad range of guidance documents:
 Main Design Procedure - Outlines and introduces
the module and the main phases in the design;
 Annex 1: Ship design and acquisition - Describes
processes involved in design generally and ship
design in particular. This annex is provided for
background and does not provide direct guidance to
help with the design exercise;
 Annex 2: Concept Design Procedure - Describes the
procedure to be adopted to complete the early phases
of the design exercise.
 Annex 3: Parametric Survey - This describes the
procedure to be adopted to complete the fourth phase
of the exercise, the parametric survey.
C-37
 Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Jun 2013

 Annex 4: Design Development - This describes the A data book with selected information on key payload
procedures to be adopted to complete the final phase and ship systems was also provided to support the
the exercise, design development. exercise.

These documents are structured to guide the students
independently through the design exercise. However, the
detailed descriptions and guidance of the design steps
risked obscuring the overall design process. Therefore,
Road Map documents detailing the broad process and
key expected deliverables were developed, examples are
shown in Figure 4.
As module attendees may not be familiar with naval ship
standards and conventions, three short guidance
documents were produced to provide deeper guidance in
particular areas where the existing expertise/knowledge
may be limited. These documents were:
 Stability guidance;
 Structural design guidance;
 Layout guidance.
5.5 MODULE TOOLS
Both the UCL BEng and MSc courses make use of
commercial naval architecture analysis software together
with other UCL and student developed tools. The
constrained timescale of contact time combined with the
challenges of distance learning led to an early
recognition that the normal UCL practice would be
unfeasible.
For example, UCL expects MSc students to develop their
own tool for assessing and managing weight and space
demands within their design. Their tools are typically
developed over several weeks with extensive interaction

Defining the Staff Target Conduct a major

Outline
parametric survey
requirements

Annex 2 Section 2.1, 2.2

Staff Apply constraints

Target Initial Sizing
Baseline & Options

Concept
Sizing
Spreadsheet Conduct a minor
Annex 2 Section 3.2 parametric survey

Apply constraints
Cost Capability
Baseline + Options Baseline + Options
Annex 2 Section 3 Annex 2 Section 5

Select preferred
solution
Cost Capability Study
Cost / Capability
Study
Annex 2 Section 5 Rebalance Ship

Statement of Indicative Design

capability Annex 2 Section 1.5 Yes
Did rebalancing
Annex 2 Section 1.5
change ship?

Indicative Indicative No
Block deck layout Upper deck layout
Annex 2 Section 1.5,4 Annex 2 Section 1.5,4 Complete Form A
and send to UCL
Select most Cost Effective Option
(b) Key C17 Parametric Survey
(a) Key C17 Concept Design Steps
Steps
Figure 4: Example Road Maps

C-38
Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2013
with UCL staff to explore and challenge the logic behind
the student’s design decisions. This approach was judged
to be infeasible given the distance learning format of the
MTEC module; particularly considering the potential risk
should errors be discovered during interactions with staff
in the course of the intensive week.
Other issues that precluded the use of the tools or
approaches used in the UCL BEng or MSc design
courses included the learning curve of standard
‘commercial’ design tools used at UCL, the availability
of software licenses and the challenge of providing
support. Early recognition of these factors led to the
development of custom tools suited to the specific
requirements of the MTEC module. Priorities adopted
during the tool development activities included:
 No specific commercial naval architecture software
programs used for the pre/post course elements of
the module (bespoke Microsoft Excel tools adopted
as a widely available alternative);
 Simple design tools with clearly defined input and
outputs;
 Limited adaptability for alternative design concepts.
These choices were driven by a desire to instil an
understanding of the overall design process – by
highlights key decision and drawing out important issues
– rather than providing detailed guidance on how to do
the work in practice.
Tools were developed by UCL and provided to the
students to assist with developing their designs in the
following areas:
 Ship sizing;
 Cost capability;
 Parametric survey;
 Structural weight;
 Propellers and powering.
The first three tools are employed prior to the intensive
week at UCL. The final two are used during or after the
intensive week.
During the intensive week at UCL the students employ a
commercial naval architecture package (Paramarine) to
develop a hullform, analyse stability and extract deck
plans. These deck plans are first used to develop an
initial general arrangement (typically undertaken by
hand). This process allows the students to determine
bulkheads positions that are inform by stability analysis.
5.6 VIRTUAL LEARNING ENIVRONMENTS
Most universities now employ Virtual Learning
Environments (VLE) to facilitate better communications
with students. However, VLE use is often limited to the
distribution of teaching material. The mtec@work
consortium provides a VLE called ‘Blackboard’ to
facilitate distance learning. The MTEC C17 module has
fully incorporated this VLE in the teaching.
C17 students’ use of the VLE extends beyond accessing
the material described above and returning their
assignments. The VLE is also used to develop a sense of
belonging to the group. Building a student identity is an
important step in facilitating communication and learning
within the peers. Various discussion forums are used,
extending from social topics (such as discussing hotels
for the intensive school) to discussions of design
coursework problems. UCL staff moderate this
discussion, in order to ensure students adopt the correct
conclusions (e.g. allowing for students discussions prior
to posting confirmations).
Staff also worked to enhance use of forum by regularly
publishing articles or news (e.g. new type of the
equipment, announcement of some new warship design
contract). This stimulates student to leave a comment and
instills an importance of knowledge of industry trends.
5.7 STUDENT-LED ACTIVITIES
The students’ focus during the intensive week is on
attending lectures and developing their concept design.
To expose them to various aspects that should be taken
into account several student-led activities were
developed.
At the beginning of the week students present their
existing ship design, completed in the pre-school phase,
to the class. The purpose of this activity is:
 To provide an opportunity for participants to get to
know their peers and develop a sense of belonging to
the wider group;
 To build each student’s motivation and enthusiasm:
For a design based course it is important that
students develop a sense of ownership of the project
and move away from the standard course structure
and attitude towards coursework (i.e. that it is not
only about the mark).
 Students become aware that the ship design exercise
allows them to present themselves to other
participants as professionals, which boosts
motivation and instills a sense of responsibility.
 Provides an opportunity to improve their
presentation skills – normally difficult to accomplish
in a distance learning format.
This initial activity successfully engages the students in
discussions regarding critical ship design issues at the
start of the intensive week, demonstrating the complexity
of the design and need for multi-disciplinary approach
(often with minimal staff direction). This opportunity
also allows for informal feedback from peers together
with UCL staff and a chance for self-assessment.
C-39
 Trans RINA, Vol xx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Jun 2013
The same activity is repeated at the end of the intensive
week, where students present their progress and discuss
future work they intend to undertake in the post-school
period.
Midway through the course each student is given a
sample ship taken from a publication or media (journal,
marketing material, etc.) to critique. Based on high-level
specification and layout each student prepares a brief
presentation on specific aspect of that design (e.g. safety
systems, payload, arrangement, firefighting,
accommodation, etc.). This allows the students to gain a
broad appreciation of how other designs address these
issues. As students are typically focused upon specific
challenging aspects of their own design this exercise
allows them to re-examine ship design issues that they
might have overlooked. This activity reinforces the
importance of overall synthesis in ship design to achieve
a successful solution. Importantly, by asking each student
to present on one aspect of design, peer discussion
highlights and reinforces the most important aspects that
are applicable for all designs.
6. REFLECTION ON MODULE DESIGN
One should measure the success of the module against
the learning objectives; this is not easy. However, staff
have the overwhelming impression that the students gain
a great deal from the module in terms of its learning
objectives and this is confirmed by student feedback.
6.1 STUDENT ENJOYMENT AND FEEDBACK
In general student’s feedback, collated from 2006
onwards, was very positive. It can be summarised in the
following quotes:
“All agreed that the school met their expectations
and was relevant to their own working
environment. The breadth and depth of the
material covered related well to the students’
needs and the material was industrially relevant.”
“The assignments represented the material
covered during the intensive school or in the
distance learning material, and the instructions
were clear.”
However, some concerns were raised:
 The access arrangements and time allocated for
completion of the distance learning material were
rated “fair” to “good” which gives room for
improvement.
 Some students felt that there was insufficient time
during the intensive week to get to grips with the
software and complete the assigned task. However,
the students acknowledged that it would be difficult
to find a readily available alternative to integrate into
the project that would be of similar value.
C-40
6.2 FOCUS ON WARSHIP DESIGN
The majority of the students who have undertaken the
module have come from a naval/military environment,
with a smaller number from the commercial sector. There
was a concern over whether these “commercial” students
would find a warship design to their liking. However the
feedback has always been positive in terms of student
satisfaction.
6.3 SHIP DESIGN OUTCOMES
It has never been an objective that the designs should be
“high quality” in themselves, as suggested above it is far
more important that the students learn from the
experience in order to be best placed to produce high
quality designs when working as part of a design team in
the future.
While it is not an objective to produce high quality
designs, it is clearly desirable. This is an area where
almost without exception the results have proved
disappointing. Students are able to undertake the initial
sizing and cost-capability trade-off’s well and generally
conduct the technical analysis of their designs to a good
standard. However, the hull form and general
arrangement of the final designs often did not reflect that
of real ships (despite module documentation which
attempts to guide students towards a sensible
arrangement and an example of a good layout).
6.4 OVERALL MODULE DESIGN
The MTEC C17 module was originally conceived
through applying a constructive alignment approach.
Outcome-based learning and teaching principles were
applied to the module design to allow it to cater for
students’ diversity to maximise opportunities for deep
learning by all students. This is achieved by constructive
alignment of all elements of the module to help students
achieve intended learning outcomes (see Figure 5).
A core of good course design is well-defined intended
learning outcomes (stating the abilities the student should
gain during the module), taking consideration of the tools
required to satisfy them. Furthermore, a suitable
environment needs to be created to facilitate learning.
Finally, appropriate assessment methods should be used
to evaluate the student’s achievements.
For this module, a blended format combining long-
distance and face-to-face learning to a set timescale also
had to be considered. While all material for long-distance
learning was extensive and carefully prepared, it could be
argued that the effectiveness of self-learning was not
maximized for all students. More advanced use of virtual
learning environments could provide better support for
students and allow teachers to monitor student progress
during long-distance learning phases of the module.
Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2013
Course Aims
Intended Based on pre-defined module structure
learning
outcomes
Content Teaching and
Learning
Environment
Including VLE
Teaching Activities (face-2-face and
E-activities) and Student progress
Assessment
monitoring plan
Module
Evaluation
Module
Modifications
Figure 5: Module Design Methodology
A final necessary step is the development of a course
evaluation strategy, which will assess the courses
effectiveness and allow the mitigation of any identified
faults. Using a virtual learning environment brings
additional benefit to assessing student online activities
and can provide essential information (visit logs,
student’s activities, active reading lists, etc.). All this
information together with a standard assessment
mechanism (staff and student feedback, external
examiner reviews, etc.) can highlight issues that need
further improvement.
6.5 VIRTUAL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
During the MTEC C17 module the VLE was employed
to facilitate communication between all participants
(both student-staff as well as student-student). The
following points were noted:
 VLE helped staff to guide students engaged in the
long-distance learning taught course through key
material (however, it still has limitations compared
to a full-time face-to-face course).
 It provided an effective mechanism of disseminating
information to all students;
 Using the VLE gave some students an opportunity to
improve IT skills.
7. FUTURE MODULE IMPROVEMENTS
Even though the authors are very satisfied with the
achievements of our students and existing module
delivery, we are aware of opportunities for further
improvements. Here we propose some potential
improvement which might maximize the effectiveness of
this long-distance learning format and meet challenges
discussed in previous section.
The module learning strategy can be further revised to
improve long distance self-directed learning. Long
distance modules can benefit immensely from E-learning
that carries the bulk of teaching/learning experience.
With that in mind we should aim to further expand use of
the virtual learning environment by providing higher
levels of communication and interactive student
activities.
The intensive week structure needs to be more flexible
and fluent to maximise learning experience. The current
structure is quite constrained due to the significant
number of lectures. This removes opportunities for late
changes due to the issues that might arise in students
work. In the future, we plan to incorporate “flipping
lectures”: live webinars and pre-recorded lectures might
be available through VLE that will support student in
long distance self-learning. This will result in having
fewer lectures in intensive week and freeing time to
enhance communication on the module (both student-
staff and student-student), extended practical tutorial
sessions and should lead to better ship design outcomes.
Further improvements in the ship design outcome may be
achieved by introducing an additional tool to develop an
initial layout sketch during the pre-school long-distance
learning phase. Such a tool allow student to assess
payload not only in terms of numbers (e.g. weight, price)
but initiate thinking on space requirements and
appropriate arrangements.
Formative assessment is quite limited as feedback is
primarily given as part of a final assessment. To improve
students learning we have introduced formative feedback
on the report draft four weeks prior to final submission
deadline that will allow students to deepen their
knowledge and improve design as well as the quality of
their final report.
7.1 WARSHIP VS. COMMERCIAL SHIP
DESIGN
The learning objectives for any mtec@work students
undertaking the module were seen as:
1. Allowing the students to gain an understanding of the
difficulties of defining the operational requirement
for a ship within a cost constrained budget;
2. Allowing the students to apply the analysis skills
acquired elsewhere in the context of a ship design;
3. Allowing the students to appreciate the difficult
interdisciplinary interactions and compromises that
need to be made in the context of a ship design.
The module uses a warship design example to explore
these objectives, but the knowledge gained by students is
C-41
 Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan -Jun 2013
applicable to other ship types. Learning objectives 2 & 3
above are general and apply to both warships and
commercial ships. However, it is important that the ship
design problem exposes key interdisciplinary conflicts,
consequently it must have:
 Reasonably high top speed – to make the propulsion
issues demanding;
 Reasonably complex internal arrangement – to make
the spatial issues demanding;
 Have an ocean going requirement – to make the
structural issues etc. demanding;
Learning objective 1 is more specific to the ship type, for
a commercial ship this learning objective might be
expressed as:
To allow the students to gain an understanding of
the difficulties of defining the operational
requirement for a ship within a defined rate of
financial return.
In conclusion we might decide that the question of
“warship” or “commercial” ship should not be the driver
in the module design. Rather, the key issue is to design a
ship of a type that makes demands of all the various
elements (propulsion, structures, seakeeping, layout, etc.)
and hence exposes the student to the conflicts that
emerge as they try to satisfy all the requirements
8. CONCLUSIONS
Throughout history the role of higher education has
shifted from teaching ‘what is known’ to ‘how one
comes to know’. Nowadays in the digital age, with all the
available IT resources providing access to knowledge
and information, lecturing is still the most favored
teaching method by teachers as well as students and need
to be wisely balanced with new techniques.
As far as we are aware this module is unique (not only
within MTEC but more broadly within Naval
Architecture education) in attempting to use “distance
learning” to teach a complete ship design, and as such it
is pushing the boundaries of our understanding of how to
teach a process which is creative and yet constrained by
technical performance boundaries. Normally this skill is
learned through a process of daily contact between
students and lecturers as the developing design is
discussed (e.g. on the full time MSc course students
undertaken the 3 month ship design exercise in a design
office adjacent to the lecturers offices).
The lack of daily contact in the MTEC C17 module is not
a problem where the boundaries constraining the design
can be clearly specified numerically (stability, structures,
etc.). However, problem arises where the boundaries are
descriptive and intuitive (layout, hull shape, etc.).
C-42
Our experience with this module proves that a design
based module can be delivered successfully in long-
distance format. Blending long-distance learning with
face-to-face intensive school, with the help of Virtual
learning Environment can provide high quality results.
In closing, we highlight [10]:
“Balancing the serious content of the curriculum
with the appeal to desires of students for
excitement, motivation and inspiration is a way
forward that can make use of live lecture, group
discussion or virtual environment as well as
deeply engaging combination of these.”
There is much to be learned about how to teach ship
synthesis in a distance-learning environment; our current
approach has proved to be successful but also exposed
some issues.
9. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the MTEC program and UCL
teaching staff devoted to delivering excellence in
education and supporting our effort to continuously
improve student performance.
In particular we would like to thank all our long-distance
students on their commitment, hard work, long hours,
and dedication to over five years of part-time study and
resilience in the face of illness, care of dependents, a day
job and other assorted life pressures.
10. REFERENCES
1. HEYWOOD M., MARSLAND A., ‘Our Stand
and Delivery’, RINA Educational and
Professional development of Engineers in
Marine Industry, Newcastle, UK, Conference
Proceedings, p47-54, December 2011.
2. GREIG, A., RUSLING, S., BUCKNALL, R.,
‘A Future RN fleet with an IFEP nuclear aircraft
carrier’ I.Mar.E.S.T. Proc. Part D. 9th Intl.
Naval Engineering Conf. (INEC), Hamburg
Germany, p63-70, April 2008.
3. BATISTA-PEREIRA, R., OLDFIELD, R.,
YUILLE C., ‘Landing Platform Helicopter’,
UCL MSc Ship Design Exercise, 2007
4. KNOWLES, M. S. ‘The adult learner: A
neglected species’, London; Houston Gulf Pub.
Co, 0872010740, 1973, 4th edition, 1990,
5. TUSTING, K. BARTON, D., ‘Models of adult
learning: a literature review by NIACE’, Co-
published with the NRDC, ISBN 978-1-86201-
280-6, pp51, 2006.
6. DENNICK, R. ‘Twelve tips for incorporating
educational theory into teaching practices’,
Medical Teacher, Vol. 34, No. 8 , pp618-624,
2012.
 Trans RINA, Vol xxx, Part C1, Intl J Marine Design, Jan - Jun 2013

7. BIGGS, J., TANG, C., ‘Teaching for Quality

Learning at University’. Open University Press,
Berkshire, UK. 2011.
8. NICHOLLS, G. ‘Programme and course design’
Developing Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education, Routledge, London, pp51-75. 2002.
9. LAURILLARD, D., ‘Rethinking University
Teaching in the Digital Age’, Routledge, ISBN0-
415-09288-4, 2003.
10. JONES, S.E. ‘Reflection on the Lecture’,
Journal of Further and Higher Education, v31
n4 p397-406, Routledge, Nov 2007.

C-43

V i e w p u b l i c a t i o n s t a t s