Electric Vehicle System Design Course—Implementing Synthesis-Oriented Education

Abstract

The field of electric vehicles and electric mobility, like other modern engineering practice, not only requires deep analytical skills but increasingly demands the ability to synthesise and integrate knowledge across multiple disciplines (e.g., electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, sustainability engineering, design engineering) to create innovative systems. Education today, however, still has a strong analysis focus: learning, exploring, and understanding theories and concepts is the main drive. Design and synthesis build on those and aim at bringing together theories and concepts into creative and innovative systems. Teaching design and synthesis is notoriously hard. The design of electric vehicles exemplifies the complexity of contemporary engineering problems, requiring the integration of multiple domains to experience the challenges connected to design and synthesis. This paper presents the need for, rationale behind, setup of, and experiences with a 5 European Credit (140 h) Master’s-level (postgraduate) course named “Electric Vehicle System Design” that we developed as a joint effort for the University of Twente and the University of South-Eastern Norway. The course is specifically designed to immerse students in the multidisciplinary design and synthesis processes central to electric mobility. In the paper, the course framework, project-based approach, and lessons learned are discussed. This highlights how engineering students can be equipped for the challenges inherent to designing electric vehicles.

1. Introduction

The transport sector has been a large contributor to greenhouse gas emissions worldwide for decades [1]. A significant reduction in emissions could be made by transitioning from internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) to electric vehicles (EVs) [2,3]. Depending on the application field, (plug-in) hybrid electric vehicles ((P)HEVs) can give a significant improvement, too. Improvement is achieved by the inherently higher efficiency of the vehicle’s electric drive train (the tank-to-wheel efficiency), and by creating potential to use sustainable energy sources like wind, solar, tidal, and wave energy, instead of carbon emitting sources.

From a user perspective, there are differences between owning and driving an EV compared to an ICEV. Convincing people to make the step from ICEV owner to EV owner requires more than pointing towards the smaller environmental impact and added comfort due to lower sound levels, and should also address other reservations against EVs [2]. Going beyond the single-user perspective, EVs facilitate other business models, like mobility as a service, that reduce the carbon footprint even further by simplifying sharing vehicles [4]. This shows the entwined nature of the energy and mobility transitions, as the shift toward renewable energy sources directly supports electrification of transport systems, while transitioning to electrified transport reduces the reliance on fossil fuels, thereby enabling a faster energy transition. In education, this interdependence highlights the need for interdisciplinary learning to equip students with skills in sustainable energy technologies, smart mobility solutions, and systems thinking to address complex, real-world challenges.

From a development point of view, we see that EVs could be configured by replacing the internal combustion engine and transmission by an electric drive train, substituting the fuel tank with a battery, and adding a charger. Earlier, the automobile industry created EVs like this. However, the approach does not create an attractive vehicle. Instead, it is wiser to discard the existing vehicle platforms and build on new ways of thinking to create entirely new platforms for EVs. If developing EVs in such a new way is to remain sustainable, engineers that support these development processes by thinking in systems, and from multiple perspectives, need to be educated. Moreover, similar lines of thinking are useful in other sectors.

While specialised automotive engineering programmes exist, we believe that EV design is useful to educate engineers in other fields. There is a notable group of engineering students that like to learn more about vehicle technology. We therefore created the Electric Vehicle System Design (EVSD) master’s course that aims to introduce students to automobile engineering, engage them in systems thinking, and prepare them for contributing to the energy and mobility transitions. This paper documents the course, its rationale, and the experiences of students and teachers.

We continue this paper in Section 2 with exploring the rationale and background of the course, after which we discuss the existing literature and the state of the art in Section 3. The material and course content, including the learning goals, the study material, the assignment, and deliverables are presented in Section 4. The results of the students, their experiences, and the experiences of the teachers are presented in Section 5; followed by a discussion and conclusions in Section 6 and Section 7, respectively.

2. Course Rationale and Background

As stated in the Introduction, the energy and mobility transitions are closely related. That means that in teaching one, the other should also be discussed, as their interdependence reflects the growing need for integrated approaches to sustainability. For example, an understanding of how renewable energy powers electric vehicles helps students grasp the broader implications of clean technologies and how changes in one sector (e.g., energy) can drive transformation across others, such as transportation, infrastructure, and urban planning. The EVSD course presented in this paper focuses on the design of EVs, but considerations on the full life cycles of the materials and the energy used are essential. Further, an EV is a highly integrated combination of electric, electronic, and mechanical subsystems in an appealing package. The consequence is that a course aimed at providing a foundation for prospect EV designers is of a very broad nature. This can lead to presenting loose elements and leaving integration to the responsibility of the individual students.

The authors are part of a group founded in Systems Engineering and Multidisciplinary Design. Integration of various disciplines is core to our research and education. We therefore have made this integration central to the EVSD course. Furthermore, the vision from the outset was to provide this course to various master’s programmes, including Industrial Design Engineering (the seed programme), Mechanical Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Civil Engineering, and more.

Due to the integration focus, each element of the course receives only limited attention. The broad range of programmes means that almost every element is treated in more detail by at least one of the participating programmes. For instance, electronic power converters are treated in their own courses in the Electrical Engineering programme. Electrical Engineering students will find that part easy, and thus have to be challenged by other elements, like the treatment of mechanical transmissions. A related consideration is the need to ensure equitable learning opportunities for students from diverse disciplinary backgrounds. This is addressed by explicitly including topics from all contributing fields and by forming student groups with varied academic profiles, fostering interdisciplinary and complementary learning. The challenge for the teacher(s) is to be up to date with all elements to at least be able to follow a specialist’s explanation of such an element, and to avoid presenting an element wrongly in an expert’s understanding.

A further challenge lies in balancing the depth and breadth of the course content. With limited time and a wide scope, not all topics can be explored equally. Some content areas are introduced only briefly to provide context, while others are explored in more detail to enable deeper learning. This requires careful lecture planning, where core topics are identified for in-depth treatment based on their relevance to the course’s learning objectives and interdisciplinary nature. At the same time, less central (yet relevant) topics are presented in a way that encourages curiosity and invites students to explore them further, either individually or in their project group. The teachers of the course play a key role in helping students navigate this layered structure by clarifying which topics require deeper understanding and which ones serve mainly to connect ideas across disciplines. This approach encourages students to take ownership of their learning paths while maintaining coherence across the course.

These considerations reinforce the importance of integration as a guiding principle and such integration should be addressed explicitly. We build on the systems engineering (SE) approach [5,6], where problem exploration and solution definition occur in an iterative manner. In fact, having completed an introductory course on SE is mandatory for following the EVSD course. Other entrance requirements, such as basic knowledge of physics and design methods, aim to level the knowledge ground among students, ensuring a balanced starting point for interdisciplinary collaboration.

Preparations for the course started in the 2014–2015 timeframe, where five students studied the selected course book, prepared lecture slides, and worked on exercises as a capita selecta course (a capita selecta course provides students an opportunity to study a certain subject or field and receive credits). These slides were then developed further by the main teacher to be suitable for in-class use. Course development was a joint effort between the University of Twente and the University of South-Eastern Norway (USN). The resulting course has been taught at the University of Twente (UT) every academic year since 2015, with one exception in 2023 due to time constraints of the main teacher. The course was also taught for one year in Kongsberg at USN in 2016–2017.

In the first years of teaching the course, EVs were a new phenomenon for many, while nowadays they can be seen everywhere. Also, technology has changed, with, for example, ever-higher charging speeds for EVs impacting use scenarios for EVs. This has resulted in evolution of the course over the years. The present paper focuses on the current setup of the course, but will also look into some of the changes implemented in past years.

3. State of the Art in Teaching on EVs

The continuing development of EVs, as demonstrated by rapid global sales growth and market expansion [7,8], signals a growing need for specialists in the field. Previous research, for example, in [9,10,11], already highlighted this. Such need has been recognised by the EV industry that is nowadays actively seeking a workforce skilled in EV design, battery technology, and charging infrastructure [12,13]. Also, governments have identified this need (e.g., Canada [14,15], China [16], the European Union [17,18,19,20], India [21], Jordan [22], the United Kingdom [23], the United States of America [24,25]), and other stakeholders, like research institutes and universities [10,11,26,27].

In recent years, governments worldwide have introduced policies at regional, national, and international levels to support development of the necessary workforce for advancement of EVs and charging infrastructure. In the US, for example, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, established in 2021, mandates founding of the Electric Vehicle Working Group, which has as one of its primary responsibilities “to prepare the workforce for the adoption of electric vehicles, including through collaboration with labor unions, educational institutions, and relevant manufacturers” ([28], 135 Stat. 849). Similarly, in the EU, with the creation of the Automotive Skills Alliance in 2020, the European Commission is facilitating the re-skilling and up-skilling of workers in the EU automotive sector [29]. Furthermore, “the EU industrial action plan for the automotive sector aims to tackle challenges on innovation and leadership in future technologies, clean transition and decarbonisation and the skills needed to achieve them” ([30], p. 3).

In response to such policies and the forecast demand of experts in the field, universities are addressing the skills gap by introducing specialised study programmes on design and development of EV technology and related subjects. Educating EV specialists is not an easy task, though [31,32]. The design of electric vehicles exemplifies the complexity of contemporary engineering problems: it requires integration of multiple domains. It therefore provides context to experience the challenges connected to design and synthesis processes. While engineering programmes at universities worldwide offer enough courses related to the automotive field, most of those courses are still focused on conventional vehicles or not adapted to new technological needs [10,33,34] and, similar to most university education, the focus of the courses is on analysis, where learning, exploring. and understanding theories and concepts is the main drive [31,32,33,34]. In contrast, EV-related courses require a multidisciplinary approach, integrating aspects such as battery technology, power electronics, energy management, and environmental considerations. This shift necessitates not only a broader scope of knowledge but also a practical and design-oriented focus that prepare students for the complex, real-world challenges of designing electric vehicles.

4. Material and Content

The EVSD course immerses students in multidisciplinary design and synthesis processes central to electric mobility. In the following subsections, the course setup, educational approach, and the students’ deliverables are presented and discussed. At the UT, a master’s course like EVSD has a study load of 140 h, equivalent to 5 European Credits (ECs). (One full year equals 60 ECs. In the Netherlands a year contains 1680 h, hence one EC equals 28 h.) The ratio between US credits and ECTS is 2:1. So the EVSD course corresponds to 2.5 US credit hours.

4.1. Learning Goals

In educational developments, formulation of learning goals is a crucial step to specifying the course [35,36,37]. Also, learning goals help students to select one course over another. With the intention to attract students from multiple programmes, this is even more important.

The current learning goals are formulated along the levels of the revised Bloom’s taxonomy [38], using the terms explaining and understanding at the “Understand” level; apply, explain, and model at the “Apply” level; and create and design at the “Create” level.

After passing the course, the student can perform the following:

1.

Explain advantages of electric and hybrid electric vehicles over vehicles with internal combustion engines.

2.

Explain the principles of operation of electric and hybrid vehicle components.

3.

Model and reason about (hybrid) electric vehicle architectures and their consequences.

4.

Create a system design in the field of electric mobility.

5.

Interpret and refer to developments in academia and industry in the field of (hybrid) electric vehicles.

6.

Apply a systems view in other fields of design and engineering.

The goals were developed starting at the overall teaching aim: enabling students to apply a systems view (#6), and create a system design in the field of electric mobility (#4). The other learning goals were added as intermediate goals to support the overall goals. The learning goals have remained constant over the years, only sharpening the formulation to better align with Bloom’s taxonomy terms.

4.2. Study Material

Learning goals 4 and 6 constitute the main purpose and innovation of the course. These are dealt with in lectures on the system design process, discussing how to use design space exploration [39], and how to present a system design/architecture using, for instance, the A3 Architecture Overviews; see Section 4.4.2.

As a knowledge foundation on EVs (goals 1–3), a suitable book has to cover the width of the field, and should give sufficient depth. Specialised books are therefore not suitable. Fortunately, Husain’s book gives a broad overview, including driving mechanics, electronics, battery technology, and more. We used the second edition [40] for the earlier years. We adopted the third edition [41] as the main text upon its release.

A particular deviation from the book, illustrating our systems approach, is that treatment of the internal combustion engine (chapter 13) is dealt with early in the lecture schedule. This is to show why electric and hybrid vehicles make sense: While an internal combustion engine can be somewhat efficient, it is only in a small part of the total operating range. When introducing electric motors later, their inherent high efficiency stands out as a clear advantage compared to internal combustion engines. When hybrid vehicle architectures are discussed, it can be shown that in this way the internal combustion engine can be used more often and closer to its desired operating range.

In addition to lectures on the book’s content, other subjects are covered, including user interfacing, battery production, and the overall energy transition and charging (fortunately, the third edition [41] goes into more detail on charging). Consequences for the grid due to transitioning to EVs receive particular attention, including smart scheduling of charging [42].

4.3. Assignment

The level of achievement of the first two learning goals can be easily evaluated in a classical test, but that is not the case for the other goals. In particular, learning goals 3 and 4 require more elaborate work than what is possible in a time-constrained test. Also, given the broad audience, it is a great opportunity for the students to learn knowledge and ways of working from other disciplines when the teams are composed of students from multiple programmes.

Therefore, students have to work in small teams of 3–4 persons on a design case. The teams are created by the students under the condition that there are at least two disciplines in each team. Also, the teacher(s) checks the team composition and occasionally shifts a person from one team to another to have a better distribution of disciplines. Together with team composition, the students select a case. A few examples of cases over the past years are listed in

Table 1. Examples of cases for the group assignments over the years.

Acronym	Assignment Summary
CLV	City logistic vehicle: The goal is to improve logistics in dense and old cities. By combining the flows of multiple delivery companies into zero-emission vehicles for the final delivery, cities can be relieved of noise, emissions, and road blocks.
ECT	Electric commuter train: There are still many places where diesel–electric trains are used. Often the cost and time prohibit implementation of overhead wires to transition to full electric trains. The assignment is to develop a battery powered drop-in replacement for diesel–electric trains.
HEHV	Develop a human–electric hybrid vehicle for commuting, delivery, or other application. It should be a vehicle, not an e-bike or similar.
SPC	Self-propelling caravan: A trailer that can be pulled by an EV, with only minimal impact on the range. A particular point of attention here is the use scenario, as a battery for such a trailer is too expensive to be only used in a few weeks of summer vacation.

. Depending on the number of enlisted students, there are 3–5 cases offered, and for each case the aim is to have at least two teams working in parallel and independently, to allow for some competition and comparison.

4.4. Deliverables

While the course aims have been rather stable, the students’ deliverables have evolved over the years. In the first years, the main deliverable was a concise report on the design, the process, and to underpin the interactive model. In later years, we removed the report from the deliverable list but focused on the interactive model. In the current form, the deliverables and their weight for grading are as follows:

1.

Interactive model (50%);

2.

Architecture/design description (25%);

3.

Presentation and discussion (25%).

These are discussed in the following subsections.

4.4.1. Interactive Model

To practise with and show the achievements on learning goals 3, 4, and 6, the teams develop, use, and deliver a model that can be used for design-space exploration (DSE) and to underpin the final design. DSE helps to find and make the important trade-offs in systems design [39]. It is very possible to develop an EV with a range of over 1000 km, but that comes at high purchase cost, heavy weight, high total cost of ownership (TCO), and lower efficiency. Depending on the use scenario, it can be better to shift the trade-off to a significantly lower range, thus improving efficiency and TCO. This should be supported by improving charging by increasing charge power and/or more charging stations.

At the outset, it is not always clear what trade-offs have to be made and in what way. Students learn how to deal with this by starting to set up calculations that they can play with by asking questions like the following:

• What is the impact of changing a particular design parameter on other aspects of the design?
• In what direction should we move to increase the use value of the vehicle for the various stakeholders?
• What constitutes a balanced set of design parameters?

For all cases, the students have to use a drive profile to show how the vehicle behaves. This drive cycle can be a standard cycle like the WLTP and SAE J227a [41], or a custom one for the case at hand.

Students are free to select a suitable format and software for making the model. We point students to [39,43] as aids to verify their models, and ensure usefulness. As not all software may work on the teachers’ computers, the students also deliver a movie/screencast showing how the model works and was used by the team.

4.4.2. Architecture/Design Description

The final conceptual design of the system and its architecture as a result of using the interactive model have to be shown by the students in a compact format. We typically expect a picture of the design (physical view), an overview of the functionality and workings of the design (functional view), and the main parameters describing the design (quantification view). An A3 Architecture Overview (A3AO) [44,45] provides a concise format for presenting such a design. It consists of an A3 sheet (297 × 420 mm, or 11.7 × 16.5 in) with one model side and one summary/text side. The model side shows the architectural views and system design using visuals (e.g., block diagrams, flow charts, sketches). The summary side provides context and explains the diagrams shown on the model side. The A3AO resource site provides background information on the A3AO approach, as well as several examples (https://a3ao.eu/ (accessed on 14 August 2025)). For the description of the system design and architecture, students may use other formats, but they should not submit a traditional report.

4.4.3. Presentation and Discussion

Neither the interactive model nor the design description contain process information of how the team came to the design. Also, discarded concepts are not shown in the model or the design description. The presentation the student team has to deliver can be used for those.

This deliverable is a concise and information-dense 15-minute presentation to the teachers and at least one other team working on the same case. The audience takes notice of the design and possibly the model beforehand. This sparks an intense discussion between the two or three teams present and the teachers. The aim of this short time is to stimulate the students to stick to the core concepts. In their professional careers they will often face situations where time is limited, and they need to drill down to the essence.

5. Results and Experiences

In this section, we present the results of the course, including examples of students’ work, their experiences and course evaluations, as well as experiences from the teachers.

5.1. Students’ Results

5.1.1. Interactive Model

The students’ modelling approaches have shown great variety, including using MATLAB^®, MATLAB/Simulink^®, Excel^®, and python^® models, and even an occasional executable computer programme. Some weaker models simply simulated a vehicle’s behaviour over a short time period based on a simple drive profile. DSE was then only possible by completely rerunning the simulation and subsequent comparison and evaluation of the performance. Some made design-space exploration easy, with sliders or input boxes for varying certain parameters; others made it hard, because many clicks were needed to drill down to the place to change a parameter. The stronger ones ran multiple simulations with well-planned parameter variations. The results were then shown in a comprehensive way, sometimes even relating back to the overall performance criteria for the vehicle. Two examples of strong deliveries from the academic year 2024–2025 justify more attention.

The model for an electric commuter train (ECT) is written in MATLAB. It consists of a set of scripts (m-files) that must be run sequentially. The parameters can be changed to see their effect. For dimensioning the battery, a live script is created so that the effect of changes can be seen directly. A particular feature is a plot that shows the required force against speed, in combination with the maximum (continuous and peak) forces. By mapping the drive profile, it is quickly seen how the drive train performs; see Figure 1.

The comprehensive model for a city logistic vehicle (CLV) uses an online python environment. Multiple vehicle parameters are given, but can be adapted. Based on the fundamental mechanics, power and torque are calculated for multiple situations like accelerating, driving up an incline, and constant-speed cruising. In combination with a given (but adaptable) drive profile, overall power and energy use can be determined, as well as the required transmission ratio. The model even shows the system view, by calculating how many vans are needed for a chosen number of packages and drive scenario. A known case (Tesla Model S plaid) was used to verify and validate the outputs of the model.

The model can be run online via https://ev-system-design.streamlit.app (accessed on 1 July 2025). Through the user interface of the model, the user is helped in the development steps and intermediate results are shown. Interpretation of the results and comparison of different parameter choices is left to the model user.

5.1.2. Architecture/Design Description

In the majority of cases over recent years, students have chosen an A3AO to show and describe their design and system architecture. Examples of exceptions include presentation slides or a poster. The main disadvantage of these alternative formats is that the focus on the expected architectural views may be somewhat diminished. In contrast, in an A3AO, the functional, physical, and quantification views are prescribed; therefore, students tend to pay sufficient attention to each of these.

To follow up on the examples given above about the interactive models for the CLV and ECT assignments, three examples of A3AOs delivered by students in recent years are offered below. For the sake of conciseness, only the model side of the A3AOs is shown. The full versions of these A3AOs can be found on the http://a3ao.eu/ website.

Figure 2 shows an example of an A3AO for a CLV submitted in academic year 2022–2023. On the left side of the A3AO, the functional view shows the steps of the logistics process. These represent the functions occurring at the distribution centre (DC), functions performed by the workers at the DC, and functions of the CLV and its driver. In the centre of the A3AO, as part of the physical view, the components of the envisioned vehicle’s dashboard are depicted, while at the bottom, an overview of the components of the cooling system, the battery system, and a general idea of the envisioned appearance of the vehicle are provided. On the right, the quantification view shows the envisioned key performance parameters. Notably, certain subprocesses (such as online shopping, distribution centre logistics, and parking), as well as driving profiles, have been included in the overview to provide context about possible use scenarios of the vehicle.

Figure 3 shows the architectural views and the high-level conceptual design of an ECT. In this case, the functional overview is decomposed into three different systems: the infrastructure and charging system, the power supply system, and the powertrain system. A visualisation of how these systems come together in an ECT is shown in the physical overview at the centre of the A3AO. In this view, one can also observe the concept of a battery swap system that would be part of the design. To connect the functional and physical overviews, students used a consistent colour-coding scheme to help the reader identify the functions and physical components corresponding to each view. In addition, the A3AO shows the key parameters that characterise the design, as well as an overview of the interfaces between systems and their types (namely, physical or energy interfaces). Lastly, students present an overview of the driving profile and a summary of the main technical specifications of their design. With these views, the students aimed at outlining the ECT’s conceptual design in a structured manner, highlighting the relationships between systems and the intended functionality without delving into detailed implementation.

As previously explained, the focus of the EVSD course is on the design of the powertrain. Therefore, it is expected that when describing the conceptual design and the system architecture, the functions, physical components, and (desired) performance of the powertrain are depicted in the A3AO (as shown in Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). The A3AO format also allows for illustration of other elements such as the user interface and services surrounding the system under design. In Figure 4, for example, the students paid attention to the functional flow of the distribution system within which the electric CLV would operate (see bottom left of the A3AO) and the routing and scanning system necessary for the user to plan and confirm deliveries (see top right of the A3AO). With such an overview, students demonstrate understanding of the technical aspects and a holistic view of the design elements that require attention at upper and lower levels when designing an electric CLV.

In conclusion, this deliverable challenges students to clearly describe their design and define the system architecture by bringing together functionality, physical structure, and performance. It encourages students to address all critical architectural views while also allowing flexibility to incorporate broader system-level considerations. It is not just about listing components or steps, but about making deliberate choices and showing how everything fits into a coherent whole. The A3AO helps present this work, but the real emphasis is on how students use it to communicate their ideas balancing clarity, depth, and context in a single, well-structured overview.

5.1.3. Presentation and Discussion

It is challenging for students to give a 15-minute presentation. They feel it is too short to show all the work performed. Nevertheless, the vast majority of the teams adhere to the short period. The discussions sometimes stay at the explanatory level (e.g., “You used this profile, we chose another one. Is our choice not better than yours?”), but often go deeper into exploring the consequences of design choices. Students are so active that the teachers only have to steer the discussion and only have to ask a few questions. This shows the commitment of the students.

5.2. Students’ Experiences and Evaluation

It is university policy to evaluate master’s courses regularly, typically every second year. The last evaluation survey of 2024–2025 was filled out by only four students, and is therefore not reliable. The last full evaluation with sufficient responses (27 out of 52 students participating in the course) is from the academic year 2021–2022 (the next regular evaluation would have been 2023–2024, but that year the course was not delivered). Students’ evaluations are voluntary and conducted after conclusion of the courses, resulting in low response rates. In BSc courses at the University of Twente, for example, average response rates are below 20%. Consequently, a response rate above 30% is considered good.

Table 2. Most important evaluation results of the EVSD course in 2021–2022, 2018–2019, and 2015–2016. The survey in 2021–2022 contained, upon the teachers’ request, questions about the appreciation of certain activities. Note that the evaluation for 2015–2016 was conducted among industrial design engineering students only.

Academic Year	2021–2022	2018–2019	2015–2016
Aspect (10-point scale; 10 is best)	Score
Relevance for a future engineer	8.2	7.7	8.1
Learning goals achieved	8.6	7.8	8.0
Overall course grade	8.3	7.8	7.6
Appreciation (10-point scale; 10 is best)	Score
In class discussions	8.2
A3AO/architecture description	7
Oral presentation	8.2
Interactive model	9
Study load and difficulty (Target = 3.0)
Hours spent	3.1	3.1	3.4
Difficulty of course	3.1	3.2	3.5
Difficulty of oral exam	2.9
Difficulty of assignment	3.4	3.2	3.2
Number of responses	27	13	14
Response rate	50%	87%

gives several relevant results from evaluations of three academic years.

As previously mentioned, ensuring equitable learning opportunities is a complex task. Fortunately, student feedback and evaluations indicate that the overall perception of the course is good (scoring 8.3 in the last evaluation). In particular, the appreciation about achievement of the course’s learning goals presented in Section 4.1 is high and there is not much variation between respondents from different programmes. This shows that the course has successfully provided a balanced and inclusive learning environment.

The difficulty of the assignment, including the deliverables specified in Section 4.4, is considered a bit more difficult than ideal; the number of hours spent (compared to the course weight of 5EC = 140 h) is almost spot on for the evaluations of 2018–2019 and 2021–2022.

Looking at the specific questions asked in 2021–2022, the very high grade for the interactive model is of particular value. This is stressed by another question formulated as “Creating an interactive model to explore and underpin your design was a good thing” that scored 9.2 (out of 10). Creation of the A3AO (or alternative) got very mixed feedback. While the average grade was sufficient with 6.2, the range of answers was very large. From the open comments, it is found that the A3AO allows students to prioritise specific elements of their system design, yet is also seen as a limiting factor. The variety of topics presented in the course is well received, yet students sometimes feel they cannot showcase all these aspects and the work performed via an A3AO. Others mention the usefulness of the A3AO as a means of highlighting the key design decisions throughout their work.

Both the grade for the course relevance and the open comments across the years underpin that this is a very suitable course for engineering students from different master’s programmes. On top of that, the multidisciplinarity is appreciated. The lectures are well attended by students, with most being present at all sessions. Since there is no mandatory presence, these high numbers imply that students see the lectures as valuable.

It is important to note that the course evaluation data presented here are based on the standard institutional surveys, which do not explicitly ask about individual learning styles of the students.

5.3. Teachers’ Experiences

From the main teacher’s experience, this course is satisfying to teach, partly because of the group size (40–50), where it is possible to engage the students in the lectures. There are frequent discussions on the presented topics, often extending beyond the teaching material. This forces the teacher to stay up to date, and sometimes explore new areas that can be revisited in a next lecture, or sometimes triggering new teaching elements for a next year. In addition to giving satisfaction for the teacher, this was also positively evaluated by the students (see Table 2).

On the other hand, it is challenging to teach EVSD. The students come from a broad range of programmes, leading to expertise on many different subjects in the room. The teachers should connect to that expertise and knowledge, and be able to explain knowledge elements to these people with very different backgrounds.

As an example, a mechanical gear box is already treated in earlier courses for mechanical engineering students, but is new to electrical engineering students. The approach taken for this course is to not go into every detail (e.g., the involute profile of the gears’ teeth), but explain it in a conceptual way, and discuss the strengths, weaknesses and limitations.

In early years of the course, students had to submit a report prior to the presentation/discussion session. Reading these reports constituted a significant work load for the teachers, as well as a large effort for the students in creating them. Replacement of the report by an architecture description (Section 4.4.2) reduced the workloads.

Evaluation of the interactive model (Section 4.4.1) and the architecture description (Section 4.4.2) is split over two teachers. The presentation and discussion sessions (Section 4.4.3) are evaluated by these two teachers together.

6. Discussion

In this section we use the results presented in Section 5.1 and the evaluation in Section 5.2 to determine whether the course goals (Section 4.1) are met. We end the section by reflecting on improvements to the course based on students’ evaluations.

As explained in Section 4.4, the course’s deliverables have evolved over the years. While the level of achievement varies, there is sufficient evidence to show that these deliverables support attainment of the learning goals. Firstly, the submitted interactive models and architecture descriptions (Section 5.1.1 and Section 5.1.2, respectively) clearly demonstrate students’ ability to engage with the technical and conceptual aspects of electric and hybrid vehicle systems. These results indicate that students are able to explain the principles of operation of electric and hybrid vehicle components, addressing learning goal 2. Furthermore, the interactive models show that students can model and reason about (hybrid) electric vehicle architectures and their consequences, which aligns with learning goal 3. Lastly, the architecture descriptions also showcased students’ capacity to create a system design in the field of electric mobility, fulfilling learning goal 4.

Secondly, the references used by students when reporting their system architectures and conceptual design descriptions show that they are able to identify and incorporate developments from the EV industry, though references to academic sources are less common. This result partially fulfils learning goal 5, which is to interpret and refer to developments in academia and industry in the field of (hybrid) electric vehicles. This should be a point of attention for future instances of the course. For instance, by explicitly pointing students to the body of knowledge generated by conferences like the Electric Vehicle Symposium series, and scientific journals like the World Electric Vehicle Journal.

Thirdly, observations from the presentation and discussion sessions indicate that students are able to articulate the advantages of electric and hybrid electric vehicles over vehicles with internal combustion engines. Although this is difficult to document in a paper, it provides evidence that learning goal 1 is being achieved.

The student evaluations highlight the value of the interactive model. This suggests that the course contributes to learning goal 6, which is to apply a systems view in other fields of design and engineering. While this goal cannot be formally assessed within the course, its relevance is affirmed by students’ evaluations and the instructors’ educational intentions and experiences.

In response to the students’ feedback provided in the course’s evaluation report(s), the teachers have implemented a few adjustments intended to improve the contents of the course and the students’ learning experience. For example, from 2022, formal Q&A and feedback sessions were introduced to allow students to discuss the progress on their projects. Similarly, more content about the creation of A3AOs was added to one of the lectures, and the order of the guest lectures was adjusted in order to align better with the timeline of the project.

Lastly, concerning guest lectures, they have slightly changed over the past few years. The three main subjects are still human factors and usability, electric mobility as a service, and battery manufacturing. A guest lecture providing an overview of the European EV market uptake was removed, but a summary of the content was included in another lecture. The timeslots are now used for the Q&A and feedback sessions mentioned before. Our outlook for the upcoming years is to introduce a guest lecture about electric aviation, focusing on the possibilities of up/downscaling design, connecting to learning goal 6.

7. Conclusions and Future Work

7.1. Conclusions

The Electric Vehicle System Design course meets five of the six learning goals. That means that students are able to explain the advantages of (PH)EVs, the principles of operation of these vehicles, and that they can model and reason about (PH)EVs, create a system design, and interpret relevant literature on (PH)EVs. Attainment of the sixth goal is harder to assess within the context of a single course. Yet, we conclude, based on the students’ submissions and their evaluation, that the course content does provide a solid basis for application in broader system design challenges.

The synthesis orientation, in contrast to the usual analysis orientation, is useful, appreciated, and is also attained. The field of electric vehicles and electric mobility in general allows for synthesis due to its broad and multidisciplinary nature.

7.2. Future Work

The course will remain under continuous improvement based on students’ and teachers’ experiences, supported by regular student evaluations. Also, the main teaching task will be transferred, which automatically leads to adjustments.

We think that the approach, course setup, learning goals, and deliverables can also be used in other fields, for instance, electric aviation [46]. A particular challenge is the development of a new course on high-tech equipment design. The setup of EVSD will be transferred to this field, where also a broad range of subjects (mechanical stability and stiffness, electrical motors’ performance, sensor technology, etc.) have to be integrated into a well-composed and balanced system design that meets customer expectations on price, speed, accuracy, and footprint.