Using Real-World Problems and Project-Based Learning for Future Skill Development: An Approach to Connect Higher Education Students and Society Through User-Centered Design

Abstract

Although technologies are increasingly present in people’s pockets through powerful smartphones, the development of solutions centered on the user does not always follow this movement, creating a gap, mainly in hardware solutions. At the same time, the role of the modern engineer is rethought as the demands of the industry and the way the population consumes technology are also changing. Furthermore, Future Skills, such as Design Thinking, Real-World Problems Solving, User-Centered Design, and Digital Literacy, are increasingly necessary to connect higher education students with complex social problems and their contexts. This paper analyses and compiles the results of an engineering program to operationalize real-world problem solutions in higher education by a User-Centered Design that aims to approach Future Skills in a Computer Engineering Course. It promotes discussion on a case study with 49 students from a Microcontroller and Internet of Things class, from a Brazilian university, in the year 2020 and during the pandemic period. It was possible to conclude that the program stimulates the development of modern skills and encourages students to design solutions based on people’s real needs. The results also indicate the enhancement of competencies such as Design Thinking, developing in teams, Digital Literacy, design with and for the user, solving complex problems by interacting with real-world issues, and communication skills.

1 Introduction

When facing complex problems, it is natural to involve people with different approaches and previous knowledge to find solutions that may be suitable for solving as many challenges as possible. Interacting with real users in each project step allows us to design a viable, feasible, and desirable solution (Dennehy et al., 2019). The role of engineers, designers, and scientists has undergone significant changes in the face of social and market demands. According to Goldberg and Somerville (2014) and Santana and Lopes (2020), educational institutions play a crucial role in this transformation. Studies such as Graham (2018) indicate the trend towards defining the user as a central part of a design process. Also, in Graham’s review (2018), the author highlights those best practices in engineering education which include: (i) User-Centered Design, (ii) hands-on experiential learning and (iii) opportunities for entrepreneurial development within and beyond the curriculum.

From the design point of view, Coyne (2005) revisits the concept of Tame and Wicked Problems, describing Tame Problems as well-defined problems with a single goal and a set of well-defined rules. That kind of problem is part of many subjects in engineering courses, from solving mathematical problems to understanding and reproducing a phenomenon with solid restrictions. Students have a clear goal and can measure if they have completed the task or not. An example of that could be a challenge to connect two different devices that need to send a message between a predefined network system by the HTTP request. This challenge represents an excellent opportunity to practice different skills, such as Programming a computer, specifying and understanding a network architecture, physical programming, teamwork and time management, and maybe defining a microcontroller or an embedded system and communicating the solution. However, this approach does not represent real-world problems because the cases have solid frontiers: no user is required, and the problem is free of context. Also, students do not have to discuss with the user or revisit the problem definition because it is well-formulated and has a well-defined answer.

Rittel and Webber (1973), confirmed by Coyne (2005) and Skaburskis (2008), define problems of importance as Wicked Problems. Those problems, in contrast to Tame Problems, do not have a single solution; they usually need to be investigated and reformulated and depend on the viewpoint of those presenting them. Furthermore, those problems have a strong connection with the social context. By not having a well-defined structure or a unique strategy, we cannot specify a definitive solution. Thus, it is essential to choose one candidate solution that must be connected with a hypothesis based on user needs and incorporates the assumptions and restrictions designed by a team.

Following the same example of the Tame Problem, we can set a context: message exchange between an instructor and a student in a public school in the North Region (Brazil). Setting user/persona in an equation will make measuring and producing a more challenging, viable, feasible, and desirable solution than a solution designed for a sandbox classroom.

Consequently, students are faced with some questions: what kind of message will the user send? Do users have connection issues? Do you have stable connectivity? Do you have full-time access to the internet? What is the primary goal of the solution? And if it rains, will the connection remain reliable? That is an excellent opportunity to connect students with Real-World Problems Solving because, at this point, it is mandatory to go beyond the institution walls to answer those questions.

Sarathy (2018) describes that Real-World Problems are different from regular classroom problems because these problems are dynamic, not linear, with many reconnections, refactored scenarios, and subproblems. Fortus et al. (2005) define Real-World Problems as not well-defined state problems that start with identifying a context, followed by background research, and prioritize collecting feedback from the people impacted by the solution.

In this same scenario, it is essential to highlight that we live in the fourth industrial revolution, characterized by communication and information technology, prioritizing the capability to solve complex problems based on social, economic, and political changes. That also involves developing in short periods, prioritizing custom product development, and applying flexibility and a decentralization approach (Lasi et al., 2014).

This chapter presents a case study of a program for Real-World Problems Solving by Project-Based Learning with a User-Centered Design approach. This program was an adaption of approaches of the Startup Garage Innovation Process and Design Thinking, including materials and methods to operationalize the design of solutions for complex problems in engineering higher education in six (6) courses. The main results of a case study in Computer Engineering classrooms in 2020 are presented.

At the end of this chapter, the following questions are answered:

• What material and methods are necessary to introduce Real-World Problems Solving by Project-Based Learning into Higher Education?

• What Future Skills are developed with Real-World Problems Solving?

• How can we assess projects developed using this methodology?

This chapter will be divided into five sections. Section 20.1 is a short introduction to Real-World Problems and methods that could help engineering students work in teams to solve complex problems. Section 20.2 discusses Future Skills and how some of these can be applied by engineers to solve wicked problems in a real-world approach. Section 20.3 then introduces User-Centered Design and Real-World Problem Solving as necessary engineering skills for problem solving. Section 20.4 will then present the case study in which a method to develop Future Global Skills through Real-World Problems Solving is proposed. To finish the chapter, Sects. 20.5 and 20.6 will summarize and discuss the results of the case study, respectively.

2 Defining Future Skills

Santana and Lopes (2020) present a systematic review of the literature about expected skills for engineers in Industry 4.0 and Active Learning Methodologies. They conceptualize three different profiles of classroom engineering projects that involve Real-World Problems Solving:

• 1. Real-World Problems Solving by Project-Based Learning approach and without scope limitation by instructors/researchers. Additionally, the design process could be split into two directions: (i) one that starts by developing a prototype with an evaluation at the end of the process and (ii) one that has a minimum viable product with user evaluation in each step.

• 2. Real-World Problems Solving by Project-Based Learning with limited scope by instructors/researchers in the problem definition step of the design. Usually, the design process starts with a case study or has solid frontiers.

• 3. Project-Based Learning and well-defined problems with a well-defined scope, but with a focus on the main course themes to promote the development of pre-defined skills, tools, technologies, or theories/concepts.

Dos Reis et al. (2019) describe the main results of an innovation course at the University of São Paulo involving an innovative and entrepreneurial approach to connect students with user-centered learning. Several studies highlight the role of the university that needs to incorporate active-learning methodologies and changes in engineering and scientist profiles (see Fortus et al., 2005; Freeman et al., 2014; Goldberg & Somerville, 2014; Santana & Deus Lopes, 2020; Zappe et al., 2009). Those studies indicate that the curriculum needs to be more strongly connected to Real-World Problems and that active learning methods based on projects must include both soft and hard skills development.

Kamaruzaman et al. (2019) and Santana and Lopes (2020) emphasize which soft skills are expected by engineering professionals in the era of Industry 4.0. In Table 20.1, the left side highlights the skills expected in the labor market as described by Kamaruzaman et al. (2019). The author emphasizes non-technical skills that must be mastered by engineering graduates from three different points of view: (i) that follow the most cited skills from 18 of twenty countries that signed the Washington Accord in the report compiled by the World Economic Forum (2016); (ii) from the skills required for the Industry 4.0 era; and (iii) from skill demands expected by employers in Industry 4.0.

Table 20.1 Skills expected in Industry 4.0—employer’s point of view (left) and academic papers point of view (right)

In the right side of Table 20.1, Santana and Lopes (2020) highlight a set of skills presented by studies in higher education for the era of Industry 4.0. The authors particularly emphasize the skills mentioned in papers about Project-Based Learning in engineering curriculums.

Let us compare the left and right tables. Some skills present in both studies can be checked: (i) Active Learning and Learning Autonomy, (ii) Creativity, Originality, and Initiative, (iii) Critical Thinking and Analysis, (iv) Leadership, Social Influence, and Teamwork, and (v) Problem Solving. Skills such as innovation, leadership, and initiative are indirectly connected with communication, creativity, and problem solving. However, from an employer’s point of view, solving complex problems is more frequent in the real world of work than solving well-defined problems.

Given this context, it is possible to verify changes in the profile of engineers of the twenty-first century influenced by labor market expectations and social needs. There is also a change in the international posture concerning the expectations about the background and role of an engineer and how an engineer can collaborate to change the stance about the production of new products, services, and disruptive technologies. This type of change also affects competitiveness on a global scale, which requires developing skills related to solving increasingly complex problems in the classroom.

In terms of soft skills, engineering graduates’ skills for the future are related to (i) Design Thinking and user experience; (ii) Real-World Problems Solving and how to design solutions for complex problems; (iii) Teamwork and mastering tools for collaborative design; (iv) User-Centered Design and the ability to create with and for the user; (v) Analytical Thinking and evidence-based decision-making; and (vi) Self-knowledge-learning management. From a technical point of view, skills for the future include (i) Digital Literacy and the ability to create technology rather than just consuming technology; (ii) Computer programming, in order to improve and operationalize solutions; (iii) Co-design tools and frameworks to design with and for the user; and (iv) modeling tools to elaborate Digital and Tangible Minimum Viable Products (MVP). In this way, the resolution of real problems primarily involves the participation of real users, which implies the need to develop non-technical social skills to approach problems, and technical skills to facilitate the gathering of requirements and the validation of results with key stakeholders. Additionally, those approaches improve access to the development of Future Global Skills, such as Design Thinking and user experience, Real-World Problems Solving, User-Centered Design, and the capability to design based on Analytical Thinking, with and for the user.

3 User-Centered Design and Real-World Problems Solving

Problem solving with an engineering method usually starts with a problem. However, engineering students often have difficulty in building a good definition of the problems to solve or even in adequately defining the scope of their projects. Usually, students anticipate a solution or technology that will be the subject of the project instead of understanding the problem itself. Other times, they choose a strategy in which they assume that they must control both the process of building a solution and the process of scaling it. Therefore, a problem-definition protocol was developed (see Sect. 20.4) that allows students to scale a problem. Those tools embody the main foundations of Design Thinking by Tim Brown (2008) and were designed based on principles highlighted by Schallmo et al. (2018), Dos Reis et al. (2019), and Leal et al. (2020).

The double-Diamond Design Process was developed by the British Design Council in 2005 and analyzed by Gustafsson (2019) to identify suitable methods for designing a solution based on design principles. In this study, this process was adapted to be applied to the engineering classroom, proposing to help students define a Point of View about a problem (see Fig. 20.1). Sometimes, students do not have an authentic experience with a situation. For example, if the point of view is “Visually Impaired People need a solution to walk on Sao Paulo streets because they feel as if they almost always need help from others, and this makes them feel dependent”, frequently, students do not have experience or do not meet people that live with this problem. So it is essential to know the reality of those who experience this problem, reducing the number of doubts and uncertainties and designing solutions that are desirable by the user.

Fig. 20.1

Double-Diamond Process and Point of View Definition

Wright et al. (2017), Dos Reis et al. (2019), and Leal et al. (2020) describe the Startup Garage Innovation Process as an entrepreneurship course that aims to develop an innovative and sustainable business model as fast as possible (based on agile methodology) besides collecting pieces of evidence with the user. Stanford Graduate School of Business (2020) defines Startup Garage as an “intensive, hands-on and project-based course, in which students design and test new business concepts that address real-world needs”.

Chanin et al. (2018) did a systematic mapping study to analyze and evaluate studies on software innovation in education. After reviewing 31 papers, the authors summarize the contributions, listing a couple of methodologies that contribute to (i) identifying the business model with Business Model Canvas, (ii) validating business hypotheses with the customer, (iii) developing User-Centered Design Thinking, and (iv) working with the Agile Software Development Method. Chanin et al. (2018) describe that the most challenging part of this methodology is identifying real-world problems and properly characterizing them. They highlight that the best methodological practices involve (i) evaluating the process, (ii) working on real projects, (iii) providing opportunities for multidisciplinarity, (iv) creating opportunities for external validations and creating an appropriate environment for it, and (v) engaging in the next step (what’s the next level for the project?).

Agile Software Development Methods focus on simplicity and speed in the development flow. The Manifesto for Agile Software Development, proposed by Beck et al. (2001), focuses on the user and suggests that the development process is about individuals and interaction, working product, customer collaboration, and the capability to respond to change. This paper thus works on the hypothesis that bringing Agile Software Development in conjunction with Design Thinking and supported by Startup Garage Innovation Process is a significant first step to operationalizing Projects in Higher Education focusing on Real-World Problems.

Section 20.4 presents the methodology proposed in this study to operationalize Real-World Problems Solving Based-Learning in higher education. In the scope of this paper, students will develop a product with a business model, which may or may not accompany a service, and which necessarily involves physical programming with an ATMega328 microcontroller. To this end, an 18-week higher education program was designed based on the methods in this section to promote Future Skills development and allow students to scale solutions to real problems and test their creations with real users.

4 Case Study

The results in Sect. 20.5 were part of a Microcontroller and Internet of Things Program of a Brazilian University with students in the second year of Computer Engineering. The program lasted 18 weeks, with classes of 3 h each, and was a case study for this paper. Note that this is not a linear process. It is possible to advance and roll back in each stage until the student communicates the results in the presentation. The class was split into two parts: (i) the first one dealing with the design process, including entrepreneurship skills, and (ii) the second one dealing with the main themes of the Microcontroller and IoT course, with 1.5 h each, followed by homework tasks.

4.1 Materials and Methods

During the development of solutions for Real-World Problems, one of the most important steps is to identify the problem and follow the best candidate solution to create a viable, feasible, and desirable solution. Figure 20.2 illustrates an adaption of the Startup Garage Innovation that includes protocols and frameworks for each step and a hypothesis-building stage before the Point of View (PoV) definition.

Fig. 20.2

Real-World Problems Solving Program, an Adaptation of Startup Garage Innovation

Initially, students are invited to think about different research areas, choosing between one of the five main areas shown in Fig. 20.3. After that, without any systematic process and individually, the students start to think about problems related to the theme they chose for a team discussion in class 2.

Fig. 20.3

General topics suggested by the instructor

In this course, three restrictions were pre-defined: (i) students must develop projects related to one of the themes, (ii) the developed project must generate a solution capable of solving a problem for a group of people, and (iii) the project must contemplate a solution that involves physical programming, and possibly internet of things. The topics internet of things and “physical programming” were chosen because the course was written to develop technical skills in those fields and because these are critical themes in Industry 4.0. Student groups must have between three and six members.

4.2 Program Block 1: First Diamond and Problem Definition

Firstly, in the Explore Step, students try to find a problem and work with non-guided brainstorming on topics suggested by the instructor (Fig. 20.3). After that, students are invited to think about four different dimensions of a problem, as represented in Table 20.2.

Table 20.2 Problem Definition Protocol: four dimensions of a problem

Still in the exploration stage, students write a point of view as follows:

[WHO?] needs [WHAT?] because [HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE

WHO?] or [TO SOLVE WHICH PROBLEM?]

After having drawn a Candidate’s Point of View and a Candidate User Persona, students can start on the Formulation Step and begin to draw a proto persona, including:

• A profile image of a non-public figure, using an open-licensed image

• A set of demographic data, such as name, age, gender, salary range, and region where someone lives

• Technological fluency, evaluating experience with digital and analog technologies, but mainly focusing on applications for mobile devices, social networks, and intelligent solutions that use sensors

• Needs and goals related to the Point of View designed by the students in the previous stage.

• A small biography, including important information about the needs and objectives

Following this, the Hypothesis Step is started, in which students make significant doubts and assumptions about the problem and possible users in team. The results of this step are used to create an interview script for the Immersion Step, in which students are expected to interview at least three people who fit some of the characteristics of the proto persona they created.

In this process, it is crucial to understand that only a real user can describe a real problem. Therefore, students are invited to elaborate on their interview script to collect more information about user issues and refine their Point-of-View. It is suggested to structure the interview into four sections:

• Sect. 1: Present the project to the participants, highlighting the conversation objectives, and clarify the data usage and acquisition process.

• Sect. 2: Includes questions about demographics and trying to establish a relationship with the interviewee.

• Sect. 3: Discuss the problem, with questions such as “How does the user deal with the problem? How does the user search for solutions to this problem? What does he or she already know about solutions to this problem? What makes finding a solution to this problem difficult?”.

• Sect. 4: Specific questions, including branch questions. For example: “if the user answers that, I will ask about …”.

Throughout the process, students are challenged not to ask the user’s opinion about their solution but to understand what he/she feels about the problem. Also, questions that stimulate the “why?” and “how?” are better than multiple-choice or yes-or-no questions because, with more open questions, they can achieve more with real stories rather than pre-formatted answers. After that, they analyze the results, revisiting the Point of View and proto persona to consolidate it. This step usually occurs in class when students write Post-it notes with doubts and assumptions.

In parallel to these steps, students study themes and exercises related to (i) the elements and components of a project that involves embedded systems; (ii) the life cycle of an application that uses the ATMega 328p microcontroller; (iii) I/O in ATMega 328p; (iv) sensors and shields for Arduino¹; and (v) serial and communication protocols.

At this moment of the course, students have spent six weeks structuring the first phase of the double diamond, as suggested in Fig. 20.1. As a result of this stage, students have a clear idea of who their target audience is, for whom they are developing, and with whom they should talk to gather knowledge. Also, they have the basics of microelectronics to start phase 2 of the course, which focuses on structuring models, prototypes, and the validation strategy.

4.3 Program Block 2: Second Diamond and Candidate Solution Selection

Before starting the prototyping step, students should decide on the best Candidate Solution that matches the problem defined in the PoV Step. For this, students should do a new brainstorming (following the second diamond suggested in Fig. 20.1), and each one needs to elaborate on at least one Candidate Solution. Each student needs to illustrate a Candidate Solution considering that their proposal for the other team members should highlight answers to the following questions: (i) How does the solution solve the problem and mainly, solve the problem of our persona? (ii) What resources are needed to prototype this solution? (iii) How does the solution relate to the program objectives? (iv) Our team can develop this solution because our team has [STUDENT NAME], who is capable of [WHAT;] (v) Does our solution involve a product? A service? Both? Finally, it is also suggested that the students make a free sketch on paper to illustrate this. After that, students should vote on the Candidate Solutions using a Decision Chart, as represented in Fig. 20.4.

Fig. 20.4

Decision Chart

For the next step, students should receive a pair of cards with numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, and 13 (Fibonacci Series), as shown in Fig. 20.5. This series was chosen because the weight of numbers in the lower or upper limit significantly impacts student choices. This process is like the Planning Poker used in software development with Agile Methods. However, students can establish criteria that are more aligned with the course theme or team characteristics (repertoire, technical skills, training, among others).

Fig. 20.5

Effort and Impact Points

Students individually start to vote on Candidate Solutions; each student receives six yellow and six green cards containing the numbers identified in Fig. 20.5. After that, they distribute the team effort points and impact points (without sharing with teammates) for each Candidate Solution. For the yellow cards, 1 represents a solution quickly reachable and 13 represents a solution that is hard to reach. For the green cards, 1 has little impact on the user and 13 has a high impact on the user.

As a product of those steps, students finally complete the second diamond and need to start to prototype their solution. They need to select some tools that could contribute to that. As described in Fig. 20.2, students will do low-cost and low-fidelity prototypes to validate with the user as fast as possible. Furthermore, they need to draw a schedule with a 15–30 day sprint to generate the most value potential in their prototypes before creating the most elaborate prototype. For such a program, a two-week sprint is recommended.

At the end of this stage, students will be in week 9, that is, halfway through the course. During the classes, they will also have practiced traditional technical skills related to Microcontrollers and Internet of Things topics.

4.4 Program Block 3: Prototyping and Validating with the User

In this step, students are invited to plan a backlog with the essential tasks that are of value for the user. The protocols designed in this step follow the principles of Design Thinking and Agile Software Development Methodologies.

They start the Design and Ideate Step and elaborate a low-cost prototype. If they develop software or an embedded system, the first version of the prototype will be made with paper, a pencil, and a ruler; after that, they will take pictures using the POP Application with their smartphones to simulate a flow. Alternatively, students can prototype an embedded system using a simulator such as TinkerCad (see Fig. 20.6) before starting to develop in real hardware. However, if they deliver a physical prototype, the prototype first version is drawn in a flat superior view, using a flip chart OR modeling clay (see Fig. 20.7).

Fig. 20.6

A wearable that helps seniors with Alzheimer’s in their daily tasks

Fig. 20.7

Motorcycle Support for a mechanic shop with constrained space

After that, they need to interact with at least three users to show their solutions and collect feedback. They thus start to elaborate on a User Journey and User Stories to help define a backlog of development. For a User Journey, students draw a process that starts with the user’s perception of having a problem that needs to be solved and ends with the user interacting with the proposed solution, using it, and providing feedback about the experience. Students must register user feelings and try to sketch “small sentences” that could illustrate the user’s emotion during the process.

User Stories (see Fig. 20.8) are small clippings that contemplate the moments that make up the user’s journey. For this, students must structure a story focused on the user and actions simply enough so that they can be prioritized and implemented according to the need and the value that these stories must compose a solution.

Fig. 20.8

User Story template—prioritizing team effort and story value (user point of view)

This stage has two breakpoints; the first in week 12 (backlog list with user’s story) and the second in week 14 (user interview and measurement of features acceptance). At the end of this stage, students also advance with technical concepts related to the Internet of Things, HTTP protocol, requests, encryption, and data security. Furthermore, students work on a business plan and set the value of the task for the user, rethinking the Point of View with tools such as Business Model Canvas and Value Proposition Canvas.

4.5 Program Block 4: Integrating and Communicating

The last few weeks (between week 13 and week 18) will be studio classes (classes with developing project emphasis). In this sense, students reinforce the necessary technical concepts in the laboratory with the instructor, and in week 15, they perform an intermediate presentation to review and mature the projects.

The students demonstrate the results by preparing a presentation that should not exceed 10 min. This presentation must contain (i) information related to the problem and the primary references used to understand the problem; (ii) the results of the prototype development, highlighting each of the versions; (iii) the technical diagrams, which involve Physical Programming and Web Applications (if applicable); (iv) the results of the user interviews; (v) the business model; and (vi) the future steps, followed by the main conclusions. Students also need to elaborate a commercial pitch, between 1 and 3 min, to summarize the project from a business point of view.

4.6 Project Assessment

The grades are composed of the products generated in the Design Process and the incorporation of technical knowledge (Microcontroller and Internet of Things). Design process assessments involve the deliverables: (i) problem definition, (ii) persona definition, (iii) interviews, (iv) problem and persona review, (v) user journey, (vi) user stories and backlog, (vii) feature review, (viii) two interviews for prototype validation, preparing a benchmark to show the main differences (one in week 12 and another until week 17). So, those deliverables are assessed by a formative assessment.

Design steps tend to encourage the development of Future Skills such as Real-World Problems Solving by connecting students with real users and their needs. In order to promote Design Thinking, the product is based on user-centered design, Teamwork, because in each step, students need to evidence the main contributions and how they can improve the contribution of each member, Analytical Thinking by an elaborate hypothesis based on evidence and defining paths by Primary and Secondary Research. Self-learning management is when students find new technical components or technologies to include in the MVP or a new tool to interact with the users to map their needs.

In parallel, this course targets traditional technical skills related to Microcontrollers and Internet of Things. By incorporating technical skills to operationalize the expected results from the design process, students develop Future Skills such as Digital Literacy when:

• Developing an MVP using a programming language.

• Scheduling meetings, defining goals, and planning together using collaborative design tools.

• Seeking computational resources to optimize project planning and interact with the user.

• Incorporating strategies to develop digital prototypes.

Also, students work in solutions that include three pillars of Industry 4.0, such as rapid prototyping, when students create models to prototype with a 3D printer, computer simulation to test solutions, and cloud computing and the internet of things to develop prototypes.

The final presentation involves a panel of external professors who appraise the projects and assess the students through rubrics.

The following section consolidates the main results of the research, mainly involving (i) the assessment of non-technical skills developed by students, (ii) the average score obtained at the end of the course, and (iii) some projects developed by students throughout the study.

5 Results

In addition to these assessments, students answered a self-assessment questionnaire, which included questions about technical and non-technical skills expected by the program and related to the Future Skills listed in the previous section. All in all, 49 students from the Computer Engineering program experienced the course and answered both the pre-test and the post-test anonymously (each student used a unique identifier to fill out the form). In general, students showed good progress in all the skills assessed throughout the program.

Whereas topics related to the business model and the value proposition concerning the technical knowledge of the Design process had a more significant increase in the score, topics related to hardware development with Arduino had the highest score increase in technical knowledge.

When dealing with non-technical skills, the score with the most significant increase was noticed to be related to the student’s perception of solving problems using hardware; this is positive since the core of the discipline focuses on physical programming. However, the non-technical skills related to leadership and planning, respectively identified in the attributes (i) organizing goals for your team and (ii) creating a schedule and distributing tasks, did not validate the alternative hypothesis and indicated that there was no significant change after the practical experience in the program.

This may have occurred because: (i) a specific strategy was not implemented to define a leader; (ii) the project took the form of self-management on the part of the students, who, despite having decentralized the actions, did not identify leaders for each of the project’s areas; and (iii) due to the maturity of the students, who, for the most part, had their first project experience in higher education and, for the first time, in designing with and for the user.

In addition to answering about skills development, the student also answered questions about the individual perception of the program. This course, in general, represented the students’ first experience with the development of an unguided project without a pre-defined scope by the instructor (concerning the problem). The students’ statements also highlight the importance of the students being monitored by the instructor in each stage and how other skills, not necessarily belonging to the course, are fundamental in the students’ view for structuring the students’ mindset. Furthermore, students’ comments indicate that this approach supports the development of Global Future Skills such as Design Thinking and entrepreneurship, Real-World Problems Solving, Learning Literacy, Communication, and User-Centered Design.

5.1 Outstanding Projects

Twenty-Four projects were developed during the program by 24 different teams. The projects listed in Table 20.3 were the ones that stood out regarding the development of the solution at the hardware and software levels. They additionally structured a good business model with User-Centered Design.

Table 20.3 Outstanding Projects in 2020

Each project developed a physical prototype, accompanied by an article presenting the main results. The 4D1 team project involved only physical programming, while the 10D1 and 13D3 teams also involved the internet of things. All the projects experienced the entire cycle of the discipline, designed a set of personas, and validated their solutions with the user, collecting evidence of the use of the solution. The 13D3 team, for example, validated their solution with 54 people, of which 62% have a family member or know someone with Alzheimer’s. The 4D1 and 10D1 teams performed the validations with at least five users.

All the teams indicated in their results that they generated changes in the project design due to interactions with the user. The 4D1 squad, for example, stated the need for changes to the user interface and concerns about fixing the equipment in public places. The 10D1 team, in turn, identified the need to improve the graphical interface and the usability of the Web system and incorporated the role of the person who performs measurements in homes (this action takes place manually in Brazil) into its business model. This was due to the frequent concern of the team, confirmed by the interviews, regarding the sustainability of the jobs. The 13D3 team was challenged to rethink the user interaction strategy and involve multidisciplinary health professionals as a central part of its user group.

In addition, all the teams performed a Pitch for the institution’s technology incubator and received feedback regarding their business model (but did not incorporate this step in the discipline evaluation).

6 Discussion

This paper highlights the main results of a methodological process for Real-World Problems Solving in engineering courses based on innovation projects concerned with the sustainability of the solution and its impacts on a real user. In addition, the article also highlights a strategy for evaluating the project and the student’s trajectory, considering that the discipline needs to incorporate technical subjects; in this context, related to Microcontrollers and the Internet of Things, in the engineering field.

The results indicated that the students improved the skillset designed for the discipline. These skills agree with what engineering professionals expect to fully exercise in their social and professional roles in the era of Industry 4.0.

Concerning the strategy and materials needed for this type of activity in the classroom, note that students must have access to computers, the internet, and materials that enable the construction of prototypes. However, for the context of the discipline, some simulators, such as TinkerCad and software for design, can favor the reduction of costs with physical products, considering that there are some losses regarding the tangibility of the built solutions and the validation process with users at more advanced stages.

Students understand that the process favored the development of Future Skills such as:

• 1. Learning autonomy.

• 2. The ability to solve real-world problems with different complexities and co-designing with real users.

• 3. Teamwork and negotiation to work with other people.

• 4. Thinking of different approaches to find more creative solutions, negotiation, and evidence-based judgment.

Wicked Problems and real-world problems, from an engineering point of view, are complex and are connected with the expectations of industry and society for the engineer of the XXI century profile. Thus, rethinking higher engineering education to promote, practice, and develop skills connected with the following social and environmental challenges, must be considered in constructing new engineering curricula. Furthermore, Global Future Skills are encouraged by this program when students start: (i) defining a real problem; (ii) improving the problem statement when interacting with real users; (iii) working within multidisciplinary teams; (iv) negotiating features and prioritizing tasks; (v) interacting with potential users; (vi) validating ideas or improving features; and (vii) when students work in an MVP approach, to evaluate how the solution could affect users’ problems, by giving more value, and less risk.

Future Skills in Practice: Our Recommendations

Design Thinking, Real-World Problems Solving, Teamwork, User-Centered Design, Analytical Thinking, Self-Learning Management, Digital Literacy, and Programming Computers are important engineering Future Skills. It’s important to make students conscious of these skills and integrate them into engineering curricula.

Also, students strengthen the pillars of Industry 4.0, emphasizing the internet of things, cloud computing, computer programming, computer simulation, and additive manufacturing. This approach can be recommended for other contexts from other design disciplines.