Tag: curriculum design

  • Becoming Comfortable with Black Box Engineering

    In this article, Professor Andrew Garrard from the University of Sheffield and Dr Parakram Pyakurel from New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering discuss whether engineering education’s traditional resistance to “black box” thinking remains fit for purpose. As simulation software, Industry 4.0 methods, and generative AI make it harder for engineers to understand the tools they use, is it time to take a pragmatic approach in education and consider black box engineering not as a threat to be resisted, but as an inevitability to be acknowledged?

    cartoon of modern engineering in a nutshell

    Cartoon images generated by AI using the prompt “Please can you read this article and come up with a simple pencil drawing cartoon that makes light of the general themes of the piece?”. This image was created using Open AI’s ChatGPT 5.4.

    There is a widely held belief amongst engineering educators that students should be discouraged from relying on a “black box” approach to engineering; that is, producing results using methods and tools with little or no understanding of how they work. Moreover, it can be considered dangerous to certify a graduate as competent if they accept, on faith, the validity of results generated by means they do not understand.

    To what extent, however, is this view an anachronism, tightly clung to by academia but no longer reflective of real-world engineering practice?

    Cartoon images generated by AI using the prompt “Please can you read this article and come up with a simple pencil drawing cartoon that makes light of the general themes of the piece?”. This image was created using Anthropic’s Opus 4.6.

    Consider, for example, predicting how a system will behave through engineering simulation, such as by using the finite element method. In previous generations, it was conceivable that engineers could build, from the ground up, the software required to perform finite element calculations. This was possible because the limits of computational power meant that only relatively simple systems could be analysed using comparatively straightforward numerical techniques.

    Fast forward to today, and modern engineering simulation software can consist of hundreds of gigabytes of code and mind-bogglingly complex algorithms designed to optimise every stage of the process. Take the generation of computational meshes. In the past, engineers constructed meshes manually, deciding the position of nodes and connecting them together with lines. Today, powerful automated meshing algorithms generate highly complex meshes as part of a largely turnkey process.

    It is unrealistic to expect engineering students, who are learning multiple topics across a wide range of domains, to understand the detailed inner workings of every piece of software they use. As the ability to understand precisely what engineering simulation software is doing has diminished, it has been replaced by an increased emphasis on heuristics: I chose this turbulence model because experience suggests it performs well for this type of fluid flow.

    Cartoon depicting black box engineering

    Cartoon images generated by AI using the prompt “Please can you read this article and come up with a simple pencil drawing cartoon that makes light of the general themes of the piece?”. This image was created using Google’s Gemini 3.1

    The same “black box” approach underpins many aspects of Industry 4.0, and more recently Industry 5.0. Rather than fully understanding the physical mechanisms governing the dynamics of engineering systems, sufficiently large datasets can be used to predict outcomes accurately through sophisticated statistical methods.

    The world is already full of black-box engineering, and this trend is only likely to accelerate with the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence. While it may be extremely challenging to fully understand all the methods used in modern, complex engineering software, the algorithms involved are at least deterministic. By contrast, the stochastic outputs of Generative AI, like large language models, means that determining how they will respond to any given input is not something anyone can reliably predict, even those who have built the models. As AI becomes increasingly embedded within software products, additional opaque layers will accumulate, making it ever more difficult to truly understand what the computer is doing.

    Whether the adoption of a “black box” approach to engineering is desirable remains open to debate. What seems less debatable, however, is its inevitability in the modern world. We can either acknowledge this reality, or pretend it is not happening.

    Once we admit this – what are the implications?

    The increasing complexity of computational methods, together with the advent of AI systems whose behaviour can be difficult to fully understand, may appear to be a distinctly modern problem. However, making predictions about how systems will behave with limited understanding of the underlying governing principles has long been the standard approach of empiricists.

    Often attributed to Heisenberg is the quote:

    “When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first.”

    As a species, we remain unable to analytically calculate turbulent flow. Yet engineers are able to model aeroplanes, pipelines, and wind turbines with impressively high precision. While imparting conceptual understanding of fundamental engineering principles is important, we may be overlooking opportunities to train students in data analysis, interpretation, and subsequent processing.

    As educators, our task is to equip students with the understanding and tools necessary to have a positive impact on the world. In already crowded engineering curricula, content must compete for inclusion among the many topics considered essential for an undergraduate programme. If complexity, big data, and stochastic computation are becoming commonplace, is there a need to shift some emphasis away from traditional physical sciences toward statistics, empiricism, and validation?

    When citing this work, please use the following citation:
    Garrard, A & Pyakurel, P. (2026). “Becoming comfortable with black box engineering”. Centre for Engineering Education Blog, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. March 2026. https://ceesheffield.co.uk/2026/10/27/blackboxengineering/

  • Group-led didactic teaching – is this novel?

    people in a large lecture theatre

    Have you ever heard of Group-led didactic teaching? What is it? These are questions Professor Andrew Garrard has been considering as he develops the pedagogy behind the Engineering Sheffield ‘Project Weeks’. Called GEC and EYH, they are both core to undergraduate engineering education here at the University of Sheffield, well supported by our industry partners, and provide students the opportunity to develop important engineering skills. If you think you know the answer the questions, check first to see what Andrew thinks.

    The curricula for all our Engineering programmes at the University of Sheffield include “project weeks,” during which approximately 1,500 undergraduate engineering students simultaneously engage with an open-ended design problem.  As we do not have a space large enough for the entire cohort, the students are allocated to multiple teaching areas across the campus. These areas are each staffed for a substantial proportion of the period during which the students are engaged in their work.

    Part of the teaching delivery involves students receiving didactic instruction from staff on defined design methods, such as problem definition and design selection. It is this mode of distributed didactic learning that I am updating. The traditional lecture format, in which academic staff present using pre-prepared slides, is being replaced with a digitally enabled sequence of bite-sized content, steps, and milestones that allows learners to engage with the didactic material independently. This structure is similar to that of a MOOC. However, whereas a MOOC is typically designed for learners working individually and separated physically and temporally from others on the course, this material will be designed for groups working collaboratively. For example, embedded instructions will prompt groups to discuss a topic or to ensure that all members understand a concept before progressing to the next step.

    When exploring the introduction of a new method of learning and teaching, it is standard practice to review previously published literature to understand what has already been attempted and to ensure that any new approach aligns with established best practice. This was my intention when considering an update to the didactic content within the project weeks. However, I have been unable to identify discussion of anything closely aligned with this idea. My search has not been exhaustive, but there comes a point at which the potential value of locating comparable work is outweighed by the time required to uncover it. I suspect part of the problem is not knowing the search terms necessary to uncover appropriate sources.

    This blog post therefore has two aims. First, if any readers are aware of similar published work, I would be grateful to be pointed in the right direction, as collaboration with others exploring related themes is always welcome. Second, if no such work exists, this serves as a way of sharing the concept more broadly.

    If this approach has not been explored before, I will  make the bold claim that I can coin a term for it. After some careful consideration, review of various options, and frustration with ChatGPT “just not getting it,” I’ve settled on:

    Group-Led Didactic Teaching (GLDT)

    The acronym seems to appear primarily in the context of cryptocurrency trading, so with luck there will be minimal overlap—unless, perhaps, one happens to be teaching in a business school. With that noted, let me outline what the term is intended to capture.

    How is GLDT different from other modes of teaching?

    There are well-established methods for delivering didactic teaching. These include synchronous lectures delivered by academic staff and asynchronous lectures, which are usually provided remotely. A range of digital learning approaches also exists, such as massive open online courses (MOOCs), which present taught material in small, self-contained units.

    A synchronous, in-person lecture offers the social benefit of a shared learning experience, but it restricts all students to a single pace of delivery. In contrast, an asynchronous lecture allows learners to engage with the material at a time and speed that suits them, though it lacks opportunities for social interaction. Asynchronous lectures can also be produced quickly as an alternative when in-person teaching is not possible, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, or to support learners who have missed a session.

    MOOCs use a similar delivery format to asynchronous remote lectures, but they are designed specifically for fully remote learners. They typically provide short, focused segments of content along with multiple in-course milestones or formative assessments.

    My approach to Group-Led Didactic Teaching applies a MOOC-style structure to the design and delivery of content for learners who attend scheduled sessions and work in assigned groups to complete learning tasks. This model combines the social interaction of an in-person, communal lecture with the flexibility for each group to set its own pace. It is also scalable across multiple rooms on campus.

    GLDT differs from a typical tutorial. Tutorials usually do not include tasks designed specifically for groups, and they often focus on problem sets that test the application of knowledge rather than the learning of new didactic content. In addition, learners in tutorials commonly work on different parts of the curriculum and seek help on varying topics, depending on which aspects of the material they are experiencing difficulty. In GLDT sessions, all learners engage with the same material and are expected to achieve the.

    GLDT is a form of group work, which is a widely used teaching method. However, most forms of group work involve student-led or group-led learning for open-ended design challenges, in which students are given a problem brief and follow a process to produce varied, undefined outcomes. For example, in a design project, each student or group develops its own solution to the problem. This approach differs from the delivery of didactic taught material, where all students are expected to reach the same defined learning outcomes.

     Intended learningStaffingPace settingSocial interactionScale up limits
    Synchronous, in person lectureDidactic content1 lecturer per lectureStaffYesTheater size
    Asynchronous remote lectureDidactic content1 lecturer per recordingLearnerNoUnlimited
    MOOCDidactic contentAcademics to design, then reuse.LearnerNoUnlimited
    TutorialsFormative assessmentTeaching assistantsLearnerYes (optionally)Number of Rooms/TAs
    GroupworkOpen ended problemsTeaching assistantsGroupYes (mandatory)Number of Rooms/TAs
    GLDTDidactic contentOptional Teaching assistantsGroupYes (mandatory)Number of Rooms/TAs

    So what do you think? Is it new? Do you do any teaching of this nature? Let us know via Linkedin, we’d love to hear from you about this.

    When citing this work, please use the following citation:

    Garrard, A. (2025). “Group-led didactic teaching – is this novel?”. Centre for Engineering Education Blog, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. February 2026. https://ceesheffield.co.uk/2026/10/27/group-leddidacticteaching/

  • A Cathedral to Engineering Education: The Diamond Building

    A Cathedral to Engineering Education: The Diamond Building

    Exterior of the diamond building

    Twelve Architects, who worked closely with engineers and University of Sheffield stakeholders to design and deliver The Diamond building, have taken the opportunity to reflect on what The Diamond has become and what it has meant to those who use it.

    More than a decade after its completion, The Diamond at the University of Sheffield continues to stand as a symbol of innovation in engineering education, and a career-defining project for many of those involved in its creation. As part of our ten year celebration, we asked members of the original client team to share their reflections on the building.
    For

    Stephen Beck, Professor of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Sheffield, The Diamond has had a profound and measurable impact on the Faculty and its students.

    “It has allowed us to double the size of the student cohort and helped position us as leaders in engineering education,” he reflects. “I show visitors around and say, ‘This is the best practical education environment in the world’ and I’ve never been contradicted.”

    From the outset, the design of The Diamond encouraged collaboration and cross-disciplinary learning, creating spaces that inspire both staff and students. Stephen Beck describes the experience of being part of the project as deeply rewarding: “It was great to be part of a team where each member used their skills to deliver a world-leading facility for engineering education. It’s certainly been a high point of my career. Truly career defining.”

    “It is a cathedral to engineering education”

    Professor Mike Hounslow, former Pro-Vice-Chancellor for Engineering at the University and often described as the “father of the project”, recalls how the building has shaped the University’s academic landscape: “We’ve seen growth in student numbers, an improvement in the student experience and a rise in educational aspiration,” he explains. “The building encouraged student-led activity and created a culture of openness and innovation. It’s a cathedral to engineering education.”
    Reflecting on the decade since its opening, he adds: “Its impact has only become more positive over time. It’s an iconic, open, and practical space that continues to define what engineering education can be.”

    “The building of choice”

    For Keith Lilley, former Director of Estates at the University, The Diamond has always been “the building of choice”. “The building was full from day one,” he recalls. “It immediately became the go-to place for student study, so popular that the growth plan was realised straight away.”

    Despite challenges during planning and construction, he describes the project as having a “lasting legacy”. “The Diamond was hard won, with planning hurdles and construction challenges, but it proved to be the most popular building with students. It undoubtedly contributed to the success of the Faculty of Engineering as a whole and remains a premium facility in UK higher education.”

    Today, The Diamond continues to feature prominently in the University’s promotional material, celebrated as a defining space for learning and collaboration. “It’s incredible,” he adds. “The building remains a lasting legacy, not only for the University but for everyone who worked on it.”

    A decade after its opening, The Diamond continues to embody the ambition and collaboration that brought it to life. Its success has paved the way for new approaches to education, inspiring similar developments across the UK and beyond.

    When citing this work, please use the following citation:

    Hearne, B. (2025). “A Cathedral to Engineering Education: The Diamond Building 10 Years”. Centre for Engineering Education Blog, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK. December 2025. https://ceesheffield.co.uk/2025/02/16/a-cathedral-to-engineering-education-the-diamond-building/