NextGEng – CEL Implementation Guide

Overview

The CEL Implementation Guide outlines a structured methodology for applying Cases for Experiential Learning (CEL) within the NextGEng framework. It aims to support universities, companies, and research groups in designing, deploying, and reflecting on CEL projects in engineering education.

What is CEL & Why It Matters

CEL is a pedagogical model where students learn-by-doing: tackling real or simulated industry / research challenges in a hands-on, project-based way. It fosters both technical competences (design, simulation, prototyping) and transversal / soft skills (teamwork, communication, problem-solving) in a multicultural setting.

CEL builds on earlier experiential learning models (e.g. RePCI, HEIBus) by combining company-driven problems and research-group challenges in an international, multidisciplinary context.

Structure & Phases of a CEL Project

  1. Kick-off / intensive week
    • Face-to-face sessions at the host university
    • Tailored seminars, team formation, project planning, company / research group presentations
  2. Remote / distance work phase
    • Teams work virtually under supervision of academic and domain experts
  3. Final virtual seminar & evaluation
    • Presentation of solutions, discussion, evaluation by proposers and supervisors

Each project typically involves ~18 students (in 3 interdisciplinary teams), ~6 academic supervisors (from 3 universities), and at least one proposing entity (company or research group).

CEL in NextGEng: Six Case Studies

The guide documents six CEL implementations across two rounds (2024 & 2025).

Some examples:

  1. CEL1 – ISR (agri-food sector): design of a machine-vision inspection system for fruit quality
  2. CEL4 – Bosch: studying screw tightening in PCB manufacturing
  3. CEL6 – UJA / RG: redesign via additive manufacturing for aerospace / combustion mockup
  4. CEL2 (TUCN RG) and CEL6 (UJA RG): research-group driven topics involving mechatronics, simulation, prototyping

Feedback from students and supervisors was largely positive, with suggestions to extend the on-site phase or clarify reporting guidelines.