2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This paper presents a pilot study building toward a quality-assurance (QA) framework to evaluate the transition from a face-to-face synchronous course to a mostly asynchronous Project-Based Learning (PBL) format in an advanced Mechanical Engineering course. We present preliminary data triangulating two sources of information: a student survey (n=46) and instructor reflections. These sources of data are used to examine whether the redesigned assessment system supported active meaningful learning, and specifically, whether the PBL format supported students in: (1) studying continuously throughout the semester; (2) following the recommended course plan/syllabus; (3) preparing for projects (written submission and oral defense); (4) understand the rationale behind the new design; and (5) achieve meaningful learning, defined here, as the ability to select and justify design components of experimental systems.
Our data revealed three concrete issues a QA process should address early. (1) Transparency and alignment of outputs and course products: students were unsure what exactly to submit and why, This led the lecturer to clarify these issues in the PBL assignments. Some reported losing points for elements that were never requested, this resulted mostly due to the lack of experience of the TAs. This required the instructor to email clarifications later, and oral-defense questions were not always aligned with pre-defined goals, due to some misunderstandings between the lecturers and specific TAs. (2) Workload and pacing: support sessions clustered near deadlines (and were occasionally skipped), which made steady, syllabus-aligned progress difficult and pushed work into the last days. (3) Assessment validity: In several cases, the oral defense probed material outside the scope or depth of a team’s project; under time limits, this can reward quick recall rather than reasoned explanation.
In response, the instructor (second author) defined specific QA controls for the next run: publish a single authoritative project brief and rubric (with exemplars) and allow enough room to show quantitative reasoning. Further, lessons learned included releasing a short “what may be asked” outline for the oral defense and emphasizing for students the option to ask for clarification or to confer briefly as a team. In addition, it is recommended to make the course’s spiral structure explicit so students can connect each task to the general method. Finally, we propose to set expectations for defense preparation (about 3–4 hours when prior study is assumed) and check them mid-course, and train/calibrate TAs using shared samples, joint scoring, and short debriefs to keep grading consistent.
Building on these data, we propose a lightweight QA framework around four key processes of 1) Planning and Design, 2) Implementation, 3) Review, and 4) Revise and Re-plan. These processes were based on three domains with concrete indicators and instruments. The domains are:
(1) Transparency & Alignment
(2) Workload & Pacing
(3) Assessment Validity & Reliability
This blueprint directly addresses the study’s goals: promoting continuous learning, syllabus-aligned work, project preparedness, design-rationale clarity, and discipline-specific meaningful learning, and is intended for adaptation by other advanced PBL engineering courses transitioning work into lower-contact, asynchronous formats.