Rania Al-Hammoud is a lecturer and the current associate chair of undergraduate studies at the civil & environmental engineering department at university of waterloo. Dr. Al-Hammoud has a civil engineering background with research focusing on materials and the rehabilitation of reinforced concrete structures. She also has passion for engineering education and has published widely in this area. She cares about the success and well-being of her students, thus always being creative with the teaching methods in the classroom. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Reflection on Design Teaching Before, During and After PandemicAbstractThe pandemic caught the world by
Paper ID #38924Board 75: Work-in-Progress: Instructor and Student Reflections onFirst-year Engineering DesignDr. Kyung S Kang, Marian University Kyung Kang has served as an assistant professor of mechanical engineering at Marian University since 2022. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Work-In-Progress: Instructor and Student Reflections on First-year Engineering DesignAbstractThis work-in-progress paper summarizes how engineering faculty tried to make the betterlearning environment for the first-year engineering students by minimizing instructorinvolvement. In the
Paper ID #39980Board 76: Work-in-Progress: Threshold Concepts in Capstone DesginElizabeth A. Debartolo, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE) Elizabeth A. DeBartolo, PhD, is the Director of the Multidisciplinary Senior Design Program at the Rochester Institute of Technology, where students from Biomedical, Computer, Electrical, Industrial, and Mechanical Engineering work together on multidisciplinary capstone projects.James Lucas Daly ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Work-In-Progress: Written Reflection for Threshold Concepts in Capstone
tobe [its] central or distinguishing activity” [1]. Mastering design skills requires students topractice design in authentic contexts and engage in thoughtful reflections formeaning-making. Engineering design notebooks are gaining attention by instructors tointegrate their facilitation (structured, semi-structured or open) and reflections, as thenotebook serves the dual purpose of learning and assessment. The notebook (product orprocess-focused) is intended to record the thoughts, design iterations, and research conductedby students, while the instructors are able to assess student progress in a formative and/orsummative manner.While the structure can vary significantly, we can make an important distinction betweenprocess- and product-based
reflect the complexity of real-world, wicked problems [2]. Whenstudents do engage with wicked problems, either in the classroom or later as professionalengineers, they find them daunting and difficult. Tackling such problems requiresunconventional approaches such as an awareness of positionality and sustained empathy in theengineering design process. While this process incorporates the concept of empathy, it is notalways explicitly, consistently, and intentionally emphasized.Following recent calls to emphasize empathy in engineering design education [3], [4], [5], wedraw on feminist accounts of virtue and care ethics, and scholarship in the philosophy ofempathy to inform our approach to teaching empathy-based engineering design in anundergraduate
comes fromhands on testing and each team will ensure testing of concepts prior to solidifying final designs.As part of this process, each team member is required to report – in memorandum format and inan oral presentation – their prototype design, device, test procedure, and test results. They submittheir work to the instructor and share their results with their team members. At the end of thesemester the students reflect, using an online survey, on the role the individual prototyping andtesting experience played in their (1) contribution to the team, (2) learning of technical matter,and (3) confidence in working a design project in the future.This paper reports on the student responses to this reflection. It also reports on the evaluation
this, we examine methods for promoting an individual team member’s skilldevelopment, confidence, and goal attainment while contributing positively to their team’scohesion and product. We include three data sources: timely surveys of students’ goals, progresstowards those goals, and how they align with their perceived contributions to the team; teamchecklists and manufacturing plans updated in real time to include specific tasks, ownership,status, and any assistance required; and students’ reflective documentation of shared knowledge,skills, and mental models. These data are complemented by peer assessments occurring at majorproject milestones [11]. Combined, these instruments are used to track student and team growthin the context of team
classes was lower than that for students in small classes(Figure 3).Figure 3: Response rates for large classes (1,079 students in six sections) was lower than those of smallclasses (15-20 students per section).Students were asked to rate their agreement with six different statements.Statement 1: The pre-work prepared me for the in-class discussion.Statement 2: This session equipped me with a defined and common language by which a team could discuss the various skills and strengths of different members.Statement 3: This session aided my ability to discuss team strengths and skills with a view to developing specific and helpful strategies for my team.Statement 4: This session helped me to reflect on past team
education and develop structures and systems tosupport more effective design among both novice and advanced designers [7]. While the resultsof this area of study have been widespread and influential, it is widely acknowledged that there isno “one right way” to practice design, no single way designers think. In part, this finding reflectsthe diversity of design practitioners, who may experience design in a variety of ways [8]. In part,this finding also reflects the diversity of settings in which design is practiced, the changingnature of those settings over time [7], and expansion of design thinking outside of the traditionaldesign settings (e.g., architecture, product design) from which it emerged [4].One important setting for novel applications of
powerful tools for capturing one’s true affective state, asthey are implicit, cannot be reflected upon, and are typically not amenable to participants’voluntary control.Yet, both explicit (self-report) and implicit (psychophysiological) measures can capture differentfacets of complex behavior. A framework that combines phenomenological andpsychophysiological indicators poses the possibility of a balanced and disciplined account ofcognitive phenomena at multiple levels of analysis that can help bridge the biological mind-experiential gap [7]. Although limited in their scope, several recent investigations have providedevidence in favor of joint phenomenological and psychophysiological indicators of complexhuman experience. For example, combining a
between first-year and fourth-year studentsthroughout an open-ended, real-world engineering project, a handful of intervention strategiesand tools have been devised. The critical objectives of the intervention techniques are to providea framework to facilitate mentor-mentee interaction and to encourage meaningful interactivitybetween the involved parties. Providing some structure aims to motivate active involvement,learning, and leading among students, as opposed to passive observation. To understand andappreciate the students' perceptions of peer mentorship for engineering education, surveyinstruments will prompt student responses and reflections. These survey tools are curated withquestions and prompt to guide mentors and mentees for an
and Design, the Association of Independent Colleges of Art and Design, and the College Art Association. She joins the multidisciplinary design faculty eager to explore the problem-solving potential of mixing art and design with engineering. You’ll likely find her designing learning toys and games for her students, fiddling with the latest techno-crafts, or maybe just playing with blocks. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2023 Student Learnings and Teaching Insights from a Multidisciplinary Engineering Design CourseAbstractThis paper presents an analysis on student learnings and a reflection on teaching in amultidisciplinary design course. With the rapidly
entrepreneurial-mindedlearning (EML) with DEI efforts through the design prompt. It is beneficial to make connectionsfrom historical designs to inspire novel approaches to design opportunities. Reflecting onindividual’s unique designs and their individual influences from historical approaches can bringawareness. It can be difficult to initiate conversations around DEI, especially in engineering designclassrooms. The incorporation of DEI in this DfAM workshop helps to naturally coach students toengage in an inclusive classroom environment where they feel an increased sense of belongingand become more socially aware of others differing cultures by talking about one’s own uniquebackground with classmates. This workshop spearheads discussions on diversity
].Indeed, education researchers advocate for integrating HCD in higher education curricula [14],[7]. When using an HCD approach, designers focus on the human elements in the project andimplement processes such as exploring, empathizing, reflecting, brainstorming, and iterating toidentify and connect with stakeholders, generate ideas, and create and test prototypes of solutions[10], [11]. Within HCD, solutions may be products, services, experiences, or changes. Authors[15] visualized the HCD process as consisting of five spaces and 20 processes (Fig. 1).Figure 1: The human-centered design spaces and processesMerging Engineering Design and HCD: The Conception of Human-Centered EngineeringDesign FrameworkIn this paper, we argue that it is important
theimportance of interdisciplinarity in sustainable solutions that align with the SDGs. The resultssuggest that interdisciplinary designs boost sustainability in multiple SDGs through the samesolutions, making interdisciplinary design more efficient and with higher impact to the world.The authors reflect on the future steps that educational institutions could take to form newpedagogical approaches that highlight interdisciplinarity within engineering schools.Implications for research and practice are provided.IntroductionToday’s world faces complex problems such as environmental, social, and economic challenges.In response, many organizations and interdisciplinary teams have shifted their focus towardsustainable design. The Sustainable Development
. Tofurther complement their product design education, interested students can also take a seniorelective course that places a strong emphasis on design thinking.This paper describes in detail the multi-pronged approach used at South Dakota Mines’mechanical engineering undergraduate program to provide students a comprehensive educationin product design and development. The product design process selected as the commonreference is presented, the product design and development topics covered in each course of thesequence are given, and examples of key learning activities that take place in each course areprovided. Reflections from faculty teaching the courses are also shared.Faculty members from other educational institutions may find the information
printing to teach these topics in an integrated manner within the time constraints ofa three-credit-hour course. Couplings between CAD and CAE tools (motion simulation andanalysis) and 3D printing were leveraged to reinforce student learnings on topics frommachine elements and mechanics, and provide opportunities through project-basedassessments to reflect on their design choices and use economically-available designperformance results to introduce design refinements.The course was very well-received by the students who reported that they found itmotivating and stimulating, and that it enhanced their knowledge, skills and confidence. Thepaper presents an overview of the course and summarises experiences, challenges, lessons,recommendations and
contentauthored by graduate students with subject matter knowledge in Robotics. We discuss ourprocess for reviewing each chapter of the OER textbook, including readings to prompt studentthought and reflection, and how we leverage the Universal Design for Learning (UDL)Guidelines [6] for examining the chapters for learner-centeredness. We highlight the benefits ofincluding students in creating learning materials, such as how students know what works inteaching and learning and what falls short. As such, incorporating student feedback can infusematerials with learner-centered elements and provide opportunities to improve howtextbook-based OER presents information, perspectives, and ways of thinking about the subjectmatter in ways that traditional textbooks
semester with the overall goal ofdecomposing the project into functional modules. In the spring modules are built and tested,integrated, iterated, then the project finally undergoes an acceptance test. While the V-model isintuitive for those with design experience, as a project management model it does not accuratelythe reflect the actual and iterative work of design so it needs to be implemented flexibly and withsignificant scaffolding.Because capstone courses can be very time-intensive for faculty, the instructors have developed asignificant amount of scaffolding over time using an action-based research approach [4] (seenext section). This has resulted in a “hands-off” approach where students have responsibility formost project decisions. While
education that emphasizesculminating skills in lieu of a list of courses would provide a better alignment between professionalpractice skills and undergraduate education [9, 10]. Research also discusses the role of internalreflective conversations in creating effective designers. Literature has shown that accomplisheddesigners reflect on their design experiences to improve their future work and practicedengineering designers thoroughly engage in problem setting and reflective conversations [11-13].Conversation during engineering design is not only important in internal reflective conversationsbut also in external communications with colleagues and stakeholders to successfully advocate fora solution. Researchers have examined how engineering design
. Three research questions are asked:RQ1: How does student STEM SC relate to their design performance in parametricbuilding design? In this study, “design performance” refers to the ability of students to generatesolutions that have good performance in quantitative metrics such as low energy usage. Previousresearch shows that student self-efficacy and performance are positively related both outside ofSTEM [11] and in STEM [12]. However, this study evaluates performance specifically in abuilding design exercise with quantitative goals that are simulated within a parametric designtool. This relationship can reflect potential student effectiveness in technical building design, butit does not fully reflect student behavior. The extent of their
development [9]. Idea generation, synonymouswith brainstorming, focuses on generating a large quantity of ideas in a short period of time, withlists ranging from 50 - 100+ ideas. Concept development works to pare down and combineelements of this list into manageable numbers, no more than a dozen or so for consideration. Ashuman-centered design is a defining characteristic of design thinking, the finalized list ofsolutions should reflect the user’s needs in an end product [9]. For those who wish to develop adesign thinking mindset, practice in divergent thinking or thinking creatively, is an essential step.Creativity is often referred to in the idea generation step of design thinking, as it is of great aidwhen developing a large list of potential
elicitation processes – meaning the way in which the authors of each article took out theinformation that would create the mental model – was unique, though they can be broadlycategorized as having a significant visual element (e.g., Pathfinder Networks in Braunschweig &Seaman (2014)), being derived from text(s) that were either generated by the students themselves(e.g., in the form of reflective writing found in Sochacka et al. (2020)) or observations ofdesigning (e.g., audio recordings found in Quinones et al. (2009)). Depending on the context ofthe study, the elicitation technique that was used could also act as the generation process of themental model – meaning the way in which authors interpreted or translated the knowledge togive it
begun modifyingexisting project spaces and creating new makerspaces to reflect the developing pushes ineducation [3,4]. However, the ongoing initiatives to reflect the more creative and less rigidlydesigned nature of making can be challenging to implement since many ideas are, or seem to be,counterintuitive to existing organizational structures within traditional academia. This difficultyis especially true in engineering-focused entities where the parties that have historically managedexisting workspaces and their resources may not be as familiar with the pedological approachesand philosophies behind these areas. In addition, by the very nature of making, many commontrends in makerspaces present unique challenges for the management; often, they
situations to help lead to problem Proficiency 5 resolution and objectively determine a design solution from a set of design solutions which best meets a given set of requirements. Develop physical and/or virtual prototypes using engineering tools which are tested to evaluate candidate designs, then apply the results back into the design Proficiency 6 process to develop improved design solutions, inform the decision making process, and improve the final product. Evaluate test results and determine if a solution meets given requirements and Proficiency 7 draw conclusions. After solving a problem, students will reflect to comprehend
,prototyping, test and measurement, and process iteration. This would allow a multidisciplinaryteam of engineering undergraduates to have more experience of design with iterative steps thanis possible in the collection of separate prerequisite courses. They would also be able to havemore authentic experiences of project reporting with periodic reviews or quick poster snapshots(sessions where posters that reflect project status at key points are presented) as well as having towork with integration of hardware and software systems. All these elements are intended tobetter prepare students for the follow-on senior design (capstone) course, where the projects aremore complex and more open-ended. Therefore, the longer-term research goal of this effort is
. “High-road”transfer refers to the reflective, intentional, and effortful application of strategies in a problemthat is, at least initially, perceived to be different from the problems practiced previously. It wasthe latter that was perceived to happen infrequently, as it requires abstraction of strategies fromthe particular learning context and the effortful search for their relevance to a new problem [10].Research on improving transfer among engineering students has built on these theories toemphasize the need for teaching fundamental concepts and their relevance for application in newsituations for students to achieve “mastery” [11]. Felder and Brent (2016) suggested the need foropen-ended projects, like senior capstone, to include a problem
the assigned process mechanicallybecause their project deliverables follow the steps in the process. Engineering students need to study design. In other disciplines, students begin by observingthe phenomena to be studied, but engineering students are plunged into a design process (especiallyin cornerstone design courses) before they have ever seen anyone design. Indeed, engineeringstudents learn about design in cornerstone design courses, but they learn only one process, whichis a limited perspective, and they have little opportunity to reflect upon the process and consideralternatives. By observing more experienced students and professional engineers, new engineeringstudents gain a richer understanding of design. Moreover, this type of
biweekly) basis, attending sponsor-student team meetings, reaching out tosponsors for feedback). Working in collaboration, the co-instructors refreshed the coursestructure to address two reoccurring themes observed in previous cohorts: (1) students strugglingto adopt a “post-academic” mindset; and (2) students not perceiving design documentation asintegral to the design process.The course was restructured to reflect a semi-imaginary consulting engineering firm, “MountainTop Engineering”, where the instructors acted as the firm’s CEOs, the students acted as thefirm’s engineering associates, and the firm’s customers were external industry or non-profitsponsors. (Note: all design projects were funded by external industry or non-profit sponsors.)While
to reflectively consider these differences duringour research process.4. FindingsParticipants reported a variety of advantages and limitations of VR as a training tool compared to thetwo-dimensional (2D) video-based design observation practice they received as a part of their globalhealth program training, as well as the in-person design observation practice they gained whileworking in clinical environments. Findings are organized below into 1) a comparison of VR andclassroom-based design observation training, 2) a comparison of VR to in-person design observationpractice, and 3) description of the effectiveness of VR as a training tool.4.1 Advantages and limitations of VR compared to classroom-based design observation trainingmodesCompared