181

© 2006 UICEEGlobal J. of Engng. Educ., Vol.10, No.2Published in Australia

INTRODUCTION

The impetus to technological development during andimmediately after WWII increased engineeringpotential exponentially, but also increased the difficul-ties of conceptualisation and systemic understanding.One reaction to this was to increase the emphasis on,and content of, engineering science and theory inundergraduate engineering programmes.

In programmes of finite length and affordability,that meant something had to go – and that somethingwas practice in implementation and design. Changedpriorities brought changes in staffing – theoreticiansreplaced practitioners – and this, in turn, changed thedirection of expenditure on teaching facilities and labo-ratory equipment (Figure 1). Unfortunately, manygraduates were left bereft of practical skills and

Enhancing Final Year Project Work in EngineeringProgrammes*

Kevin J. McDermottJan Machotka

School of Electrical and Information Engineering, University of South AustraliaMawson Lakes Blvd, Mawson Lakes, Adelaide, SA 5095, Australia

The explosive growth of engineering complexity and potential that followed WWII exposedweaknesses in theoretical understanding. Universities reacted by replacing practice with theory andpractitioners with theoreticians. Pressures from employers and the profession have turned attentionto final year projects as the major vehicle to re-incorporate generic skills into the curriculum. Thefinal year project has been construed as a capstone that is placed atop the student’s preceding studyand is unique in its contribution. The authors argue that this view is intrinsically limited and that, ifstudents are to be sufficiently prepared to reach their full potential, there should be a gradation fromanalysis to synthesis throughout their educational programme. The authors also comment on theimplications of cultural change, student-centred learning, the place of practical skills, requirementsof the profession, usefulness to employers and benefits to academics. Examples of practices withinthe authors’ own School at the University of South Australia (UniSA), Adelaide, Australia, are givenin order to illustrate the key issues.

deprived of initiative – the classic example is theengineer who is unable to change the photocopiercartridge. Protests from industry about the unprepar-edness of graduates and a spreading malaise ofparalysis by analysis (not the authors’ phrase, itbelongs to a contributor to IEE News many years ago)prompted a reversal of this trend in the late 1990s.

Engineering undergraduate programmes have a longlead time and there is a considerable hysteresis effect

*A revised and expanded version of a paper presented atthe 9th UICEE Annual Conference on Engineering Educa-tion, held in Muscat, Oman, from 11 to 15 February 2006.This paper was awarded the UICEE gold award (joint thirdgrade with one other paper) by popular vote of Conferenceparticipants for the most significant contribution to thefield of engineering education.

Figure 1: The movement from practitioners (left) totheoreticians (right).

K.J. McDermott & J. Machotka182

because of staff tenure and the high investment costof refurbishing and re-equipping laboratories to suitnew requirements – particularly given the cost of equip-ment routinely used for design and manufacture inindustry these days. Consequently, change has beengradual and the directions taken have not been uni-form throughout the higher education sector. One factorthat seems universal is the increasing value beingattached to final year projects. Students, academicstaff and technicians invest vast amounts of time andenergy and expensive resources are monopolised orconsumed. Professional societies and accrediting bodieslook to the final year project to develop key compe-tences. In one unit of the degree, students are expectedto develop skills in problem definition and resolution,design and synthesis, communication skills, commercialawareness, professional attitudes to product andworkplace safety ... the list is endless. In this article,the authors reflect on some of the sometimes comple-mentary, sometimes contradictory, views of what isrequired from project work in design and implementationin undergraduate engineering programmes and howthese have been worked through – so far! – in theSchool of Electrical and Information Engineering (EIE)of the University of South Australia (UniSA), Adelaide,Australia, over the last decade, with particularemphasis on what is happening currently.

THE CAPSTONE APPROACH

Particularly in the USA, the term capstone is oftenused to designate project-oriented courses. Perhapsthe vagueness of this descriptor underlies the variabilityof outcomes from the many courses of this type [1].After all, a capstone is either a mere adornment to astone structure or a coping to make it weatherproof –it is unlikely that either of these meanings is what wasintended (see Figure 2). However, such definitions ofcapstone courses as exist do convey an impression ofsomething disparate – although complementary –

added on after the main structure is in place. Thefollowing is typical:

[Senior-level capstone courses] providean experiential learning activity in whichthe analytical knowledge gained fromprevious courses is joined with thepractice of engineering in a final, hands-on project [2].

Thus, the capstone approach could be seen asadding a culminating component to final year studies,which attempts to blend accumulated theoreticalknowledge and engineering practice, usually definedin terms of the Accreditation Board for Engineeringand Technology (ABET) 3 criteria (a)-(k) (seeRequirements of the Profession discussed below).In this definition, there is no stipulation of the extent towhich previous studies are utilised and hence noconcept of attempting to integrate and reinforce thecorpus of previous study.

One can hardly expect to change the terminologyof a decade or more, but keystone is a metaphor witha usefully extended meaning. A keystone is scarcelydistinguishable from the remaining structure apartfrom its physical and chronological location, yet it givesstrength and unity to the whole of the precedingstructure. In fact, it is an object of the designer that itshould blend seamlessly with what preceded it. Thatis a potentially useful way to examine the nature offinal-year project work and of the structure of whichit should form an integral part (Figure 3).

AN EIE RESPONSE

Up to the early 1990s, engineering programmes at theUniSA were similar to those in other Australian uni-versities in having extremely heavy contact hours incomparison with other disciplines, and a final year with

Figure 2: A capstone as an ornament (left) or weather-proof capping (right).

Figure 3: A keystone – not unlike, but integrating, thestructure.

Enhancing Final Year... 183

major project work, but little allocated time andacademic credit. A two-stage process of reform,strongly resisted by many who perceived it as erodingsubject specialisms, saw contact hours progressivelyreduced by 25% and project work extended tobetween 25% and 50% of the final year student load.An extreme case was the innovation at the Whyallaregional campus where project work and independentinvestigations occupied 75% of the final year, some-thing aided by the close cooperation that had beenforged with local industry [3].

A SHIFT FROM ANALYSIS TOSYNTHESIS

Engineers generally, and particularly engineeringacademics, tend to be cautious and undertake a gooddeal of analysing before acting. There are commendablereasons for this where public safety or the economicwell-being of enterprises are at risk. Undergraduateengineering degrees and, to an even greater extent,postgraduate programmes are structured along simi-lar lines. It is commonly assumed that acts of synthe-sis can only follow related theoretical studies. This isnot strictly true. Piaget held that, in the developmentalsequence of a child, an experimental stage precedessymbolic representation, formal logical operations andabstract thought. The same sequence can be observedwith adults confronted with novel situations outsidetheir theoretical framework [4]. This is not to denythat design and implementation is immeasurablyenhanced in efficiency, scope and security by appro-priate theoretical knowledge.

In the majority of undergraduate programmes,the final year project is the students’ first significantengagement with sustained acts of synthesis andpractical realisation. Sometimes this requirementleaves students floundering. Sometimes students over-react by abandoning analysis altogether! Pedagogicaland practical considerations seem to dictate thatexperiential learning ought to be introduced muchearlier in programmes than is usually the case, even ifthe outcomes are limited, to impart precursor skills toaccompany precursor theory [5]. It is the equivalentof offering students a ladder to help them erect thatcrowning achievement on top of the often slipperycolumn of prior learning in earlier years (Figure 4).

THE EIE’S ATTEMPTS TO INTEGRATESYNTHESIS THROUGHOUT THEPROGRAMME

Members of the School realised from the beginningthat any move to increase the proportion of final year

project work would have to be balanced by earlierwork in order to prepare students for the newdemands. At first, this need was addressed by anintroductory course in the first year (EngineeringSystems – ES) introducing generic engineering skills.There were difficulties with this course due to largeclass sizes and, therefore, large teams with unsuitablegroup dynamics, and also because of the large timelapse before the final year project.

The next wave of change saw the abandonmentof a physical implementation component in the firstyear course and the introduction of second yearcourses emphasising the complete design andimplementation cycle through a guided step-by-stepprocess (Microprocessor Systems and Implementation– MSI), or for programmes without the same emphasison digital electronics, a more generic course (Engi-neering Innovation and Practice – EIP). These weregenerally more successful [6]. However, the gradualreplacement of practitioner academics by theoreticiansdistorted the implementation aspects of MSI andconservatism marred the elegance and effectivenessof EIP.

Currently, students in the EIE undertake a seriesof courses that are designed to impart genericengineering skills and a professional approach to thefinal year project. These are the first year courseEngineering Communication and Innovation (ECI),the second year course Systems Engineering Man-agement N (SEM), the third year course SystemsEngineering 1 (SE1), and the concurrent fourthyear course Systems Engineering 2 (SE2). Theeffectiveness of the later courses is still being assessed,with the contribution of SE2 being seriously challengedby students.

Within the EIE, a lot of work is being carried outcurrently to embed achievable and instructive technicalproject work into the early years of the degree in lieu

Figure 4: Trying to attach the capstone (afterMichelangelo).

K.J. McDermott & J. Machotka184

of conventional laboratory experiments. Thus, firstyear students are required to progressively assemblea small dc power supply over the duration of theirintroductory electrical/electronics course. Tests, whichwould previously have been conducted on dedicatedexperimental equipment, are now carried out on partsof the power supply as they are added to the circuitboard.

CREATING CHOICE

The act of design necessitates making choicesbetween approaches and, once the approach has beendetermined, between components. As an example ofhow an elementary laboratory experiment can be trans-formed into an exercise in design, the following shouldbe considered.

Students will normally be required to test a singletransistor amplifier in Class A mode (this mode ofoperation is common in the low power stages of audioamplifiers). One reasonably flexible method ofundertaking this in the laboratory is to use a propri-etary Locktronics plug-in circuit board and associatedcomponents. The components are mounted underneathcompatible proprietary carriers. The standard symbolfor the component is engraved on the top of thecarrier. By mimicking the circuit diagram, students canconstruct the circuit using the particular componentsspecified and supplied (Figure 5).

The first step in the modification is to place thephysical components on top of the carriers, rather thanhave a circuit symbol. This introduces a measure ofreality. Students will have to consult data books todetermine pin-outs on semiconductor devices, anddevise their own pattern of layout and inter-connection.

Providing students with prescribed components –no more and no less – eliminates the need to choose.

So it is necessary to provide ranges of components ofa similar generic type so that students are compelledto calculate the values and select the componentson the basis of published gain, voltage and powerratings, etc.

The next step is to specify the task in an open-ended method that forces students to choose betweenapproaches, eg in the case of the Class A amplifier, tochoose a biasing scheme. The choice of the biasingscheme will affect the components needed and theirvalues. So the modified task may look like Figure 6.

THE CULTURAL SHIFT

In the west, it is common for senior high school stu-dents to be addressed by their given names and forthem to address their teachers by their given namesor by diminutives. In the authors’ experience this prac-tice is less common in the junior years of universities,but becomes more common in senior years. This mightin part be promoted by the notoriously high attritionrates in engineering programmes and the split of theundifferentiated entrant population into disciplinarystreams allowing academics to know their studentsbetter, but it surely also represents a cultural shift frommere students towards professional colleagues. Thiseffect is strongest in the close contact formed duringproject work. Even in undergraduate projects, particu-larly where they involve the solution of industrial prob-lems, it is common for the students involved to tran-scend the knowledge of their supervisor, so the emerg-ing relationship is both healthy and appropriate. It alsoenhances the willingness of students to discuss theirwork on an individual basis, and it can be harnessed toinculcate professional behaviours, attitudes and out-comes. However, similar relationships may be deemedinappropriate in other cultures, or among overseas orinternational students.

Figure 5: Circuit built using standard Locktronicscomponents. Figure 6: Design-enhanced experiment.

Enhancing Final Year... 185

STUDENT-CENTRED LEARNING

Project work is often seen as fostering student-centred learning, which, in turn, may be interpretedas catering for alternative learning styles as agesture towards adult learning, or as a cost-effective method of delivering education incomplex areas with otherwise high equipmentdemands.

Catering for Alternative Learning Styles

Kolb postulated a cyclical learning sequence in whichconcrete experience is followed by reflective obser-vation, followed by abstract conceptualisation, followedby active experimentation [7]. Race refutes thecyclical nature of the Kolb sequence, postulatinga ripple effect [8]. The present authors have longmaintained that learning may occur in any stage ofthe Kolb sequence and in any order [4][5]. Honeyand Mumford have effectively relabelled the Kolblearning activities to create the four quadrants oflearning styles [9]. They suggest that, while learnershave preferences, a balanced learner will traverse allstyles (see Figure 7). Plainly project work bothpermits and forces this. Consequently, it is notcatering for learning styles so much as instilling orreinforcing them.

There is a special consideration applicable to theEIE. Considerable reliance is being placed on thePeer Mentoring Programme to attract school leaversinto the School’s programmes [10]. This activity isbiased towards the Pragmatist-Activist learningquadrants, and so the established preferences ofentrants will not match with the Theorist-Reflectororientation of normal academic programmes. Thismismatch will make it essential to introduceproject work into the junior years of the School’sprogrammes.

Adult Learning

By the time they engage in final year project work,students are physically and mentally young adults.Therefore, it seems appropriate that they should takeresponsibility for their own learning and determine theirown pathways through it. This would seem to argueagainst a single design morphology, but if there is aconscious attempt to instil a systems engineeringapproach, then there is merit in imposing structure atreporting points of the design and implementationcycle. The presence within the EIE of a researchcentre for Systems Engineering (SE) has stronglyinfluenced the curriculum offered to all the School’sstudents and all students are expected to conform toSE principles in their final year project work. This isa genuine instance of drawing on earlier theoreticalstudies in the final year project.

Cost Effective Education

Making students responsible for their own learning andforcing them to conduct their own literature survey,manage their own prototyping and testing schedule,etc, should notionally free academics from theconstraints of classroom preparation. If students haveto book the use of scarce equipment and access it atall hours, theoretically this should reduce the need formultiple sets, thereby saving on capital costs. The factsare that student demands on academic time are muchgreater, and with the possible exception of well-supported industry-based projects, equipment demandsare likely to be heavy. This seems to be true whetherthe project experience is heavily mediated or relativelyopen-ended.

WHERE DO PRACTICAL SKILLS FIT IN?

Technical staff of the School, motivated by a perfectlyreasonable conviction that students should enter theirfinal year projects with a modicum of hand skills, theability to relate circuit symbols and diagrams to actualhardware, the ability to choose appropriate measuringinstruments and interpret their readings, to be familiarwith a variety of commonplace implementationtechniques and understandings, to possess a sense oftime management particularly as it relates to partsprocurement and labour requests, and also sufficientsensitivity not to alienate those whose help they need,recently initiated a stimulating debate within the School.There was acceptance that these skills, attitudes andknowledge should be inculcated prior to studentsattempting their final year project, but differenceswhether they could be taught in isolation or should be

Figure 7: Honey and Mumford’s learning stylessuperimposed on Kolb’s Learning Cycle.

K.J. McDermott & J. Machotka186

incorporated within experiments designed primarily toreinforce other ideas. That hardy old warhorse,Bloom’s Taxonomy, was raked over to determine justwhat domains (cognitive, affective or psychomotor)were really being addressed in teaching implementa-tion – or should be [11]. At the time of writing, no onehas suggested dropping esoteric content to make timefor this activity.

REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROFESSION

As intimated, the move towards increased experien-tial content has been a response to demands by theprofession that graduates should acquire and demon-strate generic skills required to bring engineering ideasto fruition. For convenience, the ABET 2000 Criteria3 are listed below in Table 1 [12]. Other professionalbodies responsible for accreditation, such as the Insti-tution of Engineers Australia (IEAust), have similarrequirements [13].

Most university engineering departments wouldbelieve that students’ final year projects provide areal-life experience of the practice of engineering and,by choice of pedagogy, enable students to acquire anddemonstrate a selection of the generic skills mandatedby the profession. However, this cannot be left tochance: each criterion must be specifically addressedand assessed appropriately.

The ABET specifies assessment criteria inSection 4 of its policy document. The dominant para-digm is assessment of outcomes, viz this reflects a

product model of accreditation rather than a processone. The same is true for the IEAust, although themovement is towards accrediting on the basis of QAdocumentation rather than actual demonstrations ofachievement.

COURSE OBJECTIVES WITHIN THE EIE

Learning objectives for final year design and imple-mentation courses within the EIE have fluctuateddepending on the amount and nature of preparatorywork in earlier years. For example, current studentswill have been taught the tenets of SE and the form ofthe associated documentation and are expected toconform to them within their final year projects.Particularly because of the high numbers of industrysponsored projects, there is considerable emphasison the Requirements Definition phase, a targetedcommunication activity demanding relevant technicalexpertise. Other links with the ABET/IEAust criteriaare easy to demonstrate. Sometimes, additionalexercises in the final year are necessary to furtherprepare students for all dimensions of the task, egmodules on literature searching and the preparationof research papers.

A typical set of project and supplemental objec-tives from within the School is as follows:

[On completion of these subjects, students should beable to]

• Consult with a client to establish an engineeringspecification for a discrete item of equipment orsmall system;

• Organise resources and time managementschedules for a small project;

• Create prototype designs;• Test and document the prototype;• Assist in the development of a production version

of the design;• Evaluate the phases of the design/development

process;• Use periodical literature, CD-ROMs, computer-

based information services, etc, to research tech-nical topics;

• Prepare balanced and coherent surveys of theliterature studied;

• Prepare, present, and defend reports and paperson the topics studied;

• Competently apply the techniques of the topic inthe solution of practical problems.

The UniSA has a long history of outcome-basedcurricula and assessment, and generally the authors

Table 1: ABET 2000 3 Criteria for Generic SkillsDevelopment.

(a) An ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science and engineering appropriate to the discipline

(b) An ability to design and conduct experiments, analyze and interpret data

(c) An ability to design a system, component or process to meet desired needs

(d) An ability to function on multidisciplinary teams (e) An ability to identify, formulate and solve

engineering problems (f) An understanding of professional and ethical

responsibilities (g) An ability to communicate effectively (h) The broad education necessary to understand the

impact of engineering solutions in the global/ societal context

(i) A recognition of the need for, and an ability to engage in, life-long learning

(j) A knowledge of contemporary issues (k) An ability to use the techniques, skills and

modern engineering tools necessary for engineering practice

Enhancing Final Year... 187

find no problem with it. However, it would be unwiseto ignore the difficulties intrinsic in specifying andassessing outcomes for a learning process in whichstudents are encouraged to think outside the box andassume responsibility for the resulting process. Thereis a danger that, if outcome assessment is rigidlyapplied, merit will be unrecognised and ploddingadherence rewarded.

Let’s be honest and admit that things likeoutcomes-based learning can be auseful approach, but that it [sic] can alsobe a total turn-off. The outcomes achiev-able by all can be so banal that there isa danger that education becomes a testof who can withstand the tedium longestrather than an opportunity for theexercise of the synapses or a conduit forcreativity [14].

In fact, creeping over-specification of the minutiaeof outcomes for final-year design projects within theEIE caused just these problems, requiring rethinkingand reform.

USEFULNESS TO EMPLOYERS

For potential employers, the final year engineeringproject is a litmus test of student interests andaptitudes. At the very least, attendance at symposiaof student projects by industry representativeswho are informed as to their own labour needs willmaterially assist them in identifying likely candidatesfor recruitment. If the industries choose to beproactive, then sponsored student project workmay lead to directly useful outcomes and theformation of possible ongoing employment of theirstudents.

An aggressive campaign of forging industrylinks and improving the credibility of the EIE, as wellas its staff and students, has resulted in 80% offinal year undergraduate projects being industry-sponsored. Figure 8 shows industry and EIEpersonalities mingling at the annual Industrial SeminarDay.

Students have consistently ranked the real lifeexperience of carrying out industry-based projects asthe most valuable part of their programme. Anecdo-tally, the number of students who go on to careerswith their industry sponsor is impressive. The achieve-ments of many students already employed by theirindustry sponsors demonstrate true professionalperformance and the benefits of access to a full rangeof current technology.

BENEFITS TO ACADEMICS

For academics, final year project work may be onemethod to stimulate students’ interest in research.Capable students are enthused by the act of creation,and encouraged by a mature environment and acclaimfor meritorious achievements. Liaison with industryclients and sourcing student projects assists in makingindividual academics known, and the success ofstudents and supervisors enhances the chances ofsecuring industrial research for reward.

Following a rich academic tradition, academicsmight view final year projects and student involve-ment as a way of facilitating their own research, butthe time taken to get students up to speed onany meaningful research task usually renders thisinefficient. In common with other forms of teaching,final year projects may prove a burden and distractionfrom other tasks, such as the steadily increasingadministrative load and personal research which areobviously more valued in the contemporary universityenvironment.

CONCLUSION

There are many perspectives from which one mightview project work within the final year of under-graduate engineering degrees. The intention of theauthors in this article is to bring together some ofthe most influential ones and reflect on theirinfluence on what is generally being asked of this,arguably the most significant part of an engineeringundergraduate programme. In particular, the authorshave detailed some of the responses of the Schoolof Electrical & Electronic Engineering at theUniversity of South Australia.

The authors hope that this exercise in introspection

Figure 8: Industry and EIE personalities mingle at theannual Industrial Seminar Day.

K.J. McDermott & J. Machotka188

will serve as a stimulus for further critical review ofwhat we are doing as engineering educators and why.It has already begun to do this for the School’s ownmembers.

REFERENCES

1. Davis, D.S., Beyerlein, S., Thompson, P., Gentili,K. and McKenzie, L., How universal arecapstone design course outcomes? Proc. AnnualConf. of American Society for Engng. Educ.,Nashville, USA (2003),http://www.asee.org/acpapers/2003-994_final.pdf

2. Dutson, A.J, Todd, R.H., Magleby, S.P. andSorensen, C.D., A review of literature on teach-ing engineering design through project-orientedcapstone courses. J. of Engng. Educ., 17-28(1997).

3. Ananthakrishnan, K.S. and McDermott, K.J., Aninnovative study on the integration of researchculture into the undergraduate engineeringcurriculum, Proc. 5th UICEE Annual Conf. onEngng. Educ., Chennai, India, 149-153 (2002).

4. McDermott, K.J., Piaget for engineers. Proc.Australasian Engng. Educ. Conf., Brisbane,Australia, 171-174 (1980).

5. McDermott, K.J., Göl, Ö. and Nafalski, A.,Considerations on experience-based learning.Global J. of Engng. Educ., 6, 1, 71-78 (2002).

6. Ananthakrishnan, K.S. and McDermott, K.J.,Students’ successful experiences in innovation inthe second year of their programme: a case study.World Trans. on Engng. and TechnologyEduc., 2, 2, 291-294 (2003).

7. Kolb, D.A., Experiential Learning: Experienceas the Source for Learning and Development.Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall (1984).

8. Race, P., Making Learning Happen. London:Sage (2005).

9. Honey, P. and Mumford, A., The Manual of Learn-ing Styles (1986), http://www.peterhoney.com

10. Göl, Ö., Nafalski, A., Zedic, Z. and McDermott,K.J., Peer tutoring in high schools to increaseengineering awareness. Global J. of Engng.Educ., 8, 2, 139-146 (2004).

11. Anderson, L.W. and Krathwohl, D.R. (Eds),A Taxonomy of Learning, Teaching, andAssessment: a Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomyof Educational Objectives. New York: Longman(2001).

12. Accreditation Board for Engineering andTechnology (ABET), Accreditation Policy andProcedure Manual, 2001-2002 AccreditationCycle. Baltimore: ABET (2000).

13. The Institution of Engineers, Australia (IEAust),Manual for the Accreditation of ProfessionalEngineering Programs. Canberra: IEAust(1999).

14. Endersby, P., The Independent Weekly, 13-19November, 7 (2005).

BIOGRAPHIES

Kevin McDermott is agraduate of Adelaide Uni-versity, Kettering Universityand the University of South-ern Queensland. He is aFellow of the Institution ofElectrical Engineers, theInstitution of ManufacturingEngineers and the Institutionof Engineers, Australia. Heworked in the electronics,

telecommunications and automotive industries beforebeing allured to academic life in 1973. Among otherpositions, he was Chair of the Curriculum Committeeof the South Australian Institute of Technology from1988 to 1990. In 1996, he resigned from his positionas Head of the Engineering Discipline and DeputyCampus Director of the Whyalla Campus of theUniversity of South Australia.

He is currently a company director, an educationand engineering consultant, an arbitrator and medi-ator, and an Adjunct Associate Professor in theSchool of Electrical and Information Engineering atthe University of South Australia in Adelaide,Australia.

His major research interests are in electricalmachines and drives, and the education and formationof professional engineers. Most of his publications arein the area of engineering and university education.Active in professional society affairs, he is an Inter-national Membership Advisor of the Institution ofElectrical Engineers.

Jan Machotka is an electri-cal engineering graduate ofthe Czech Technical Univer-sity in Prague. He spentmore than 10 years workingas a professional consultantin industry in Czechoslovakiaand abroad. He started hisacademic career 20 yearsago at the South AustralianInstitute of Technology. He

is currently a Programme Director for undergraduate,

Enhancing Final Year... 189

postgraduate and transnational students at theUniversity of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.He is also responsible for final year students’projects for four engineering streams in the Schoolof Electrical and Information Engineering. Inrecognition of his academic efforts, he has receivedhighest University’s and national awards. He is alsoa Chartered Professional Engineer of EngineersAustralia.

His major research interests are in computer-aidedmethods in circuits and systems analysis, e-education,innovations in education, and remote laboratories andexperiments. He is a project leader of one of the mostsuccessful innovative and learning projects – theremote laboratory NetLab, which has gained inter-national recognition.

He has published more than 30 publications, mostlyin the field of engineering education.