Paper ID #11298Learning from Experiences: Examining Self-Reflection in Engineering De-sign CoursesJennifer Wegner, University of Michigan College of Engineering Jennifer Wegner is an Assistant Director in Engineering Student Affairs at the University of Michigan, with responsibilities including student organization development, leading unit strategic objectives, and supporting university and college co-curricular initiatives. Her teaching and facilitation experiences in- clude a mentorship/leadership course, LeaderShape R , first year seminars, and a university course on social psychology in residence settings. She is a
designed with the help of contemporaryunderstandings of effective instruction methods (e.g. table 1 below), also relying extensivelyon available mechanical design texts such as Dieter & Schmidt.7Table 1: Instructional practices that create effective learning experiences8Affective • Arouse interest to students of contrasting abilities and goals • Provide stimulating, interesting, and varied assignments that are within the range of students abilities but challenge them to reach for the top of that range • Make connections to students interests and intended careersMeta-cognitive • Build self-regulative abilities by explicitly teaching students about them • Promote reflection to enhance attention to meta-cognitive
. Off the six groups in the class, only two did a complete analysis of the water balloon drop incorporating both the physical device and video footage. While all groups tested their devices and redesigned them for second and third attempts, it was a little disappointing to see only two groups actually incorporate the video footage into their design recursion process. For instance, the group “Team Six” used the video footage from the first drop to see how the balloon actually broke. One member of Team Six, reflected on this process saying “the high speed camera was extremely useful in the process of designing the
” were structured to encouragestudents to reflect, respond, and share new ideas. Early topics introduced different designaesthetics and covered broad background, such as the theory of design, a historical approach todesign, or how design paralleled art in the 20th century. Other class sessions explored theaesthetic properties of styles from Romanticism and Gothic Revival to current trends like 8-bitand steampunk. Case studies from art, industrial design, architecture, music, and engineeringincluded successful designs such as the Treepodb, Philips Pavillionc, Piaggio Vespad, BoxAppetite, REMLshelff, Paipei 101g, Soccketh, Zendrumi, Oyster Pailj, London Telephone Boothk,John Deere Tractorl, and the Apple IIm.a Two of the six Flow Vis assignments
and varying models have been developed. For example, Crismond and Adams5present a robust matrix illustrating the design learning trajectories of K-16 students. Their matrixderives from existing literature and explores nine design strategies, from “understanding thechallenge” to “reflecting on the process.” Compared to beginners, informed designers aredescribed as continual learners who work creatively and make decisions based on their skills andknowledge. Similarly, Cross10 compares the behaviors of expert and novice engineeringdesigners. For instance, when solving a problem, expert designers focus on “breadth-first Page 26.1131.3approaches
seek to bring about change – helps us understand the different ways in which peoplesolve problems individually and as part of a team. When team members’ cognitive styles arediverse, creating an effect known as cognitive gap, the team may experience the advantages ofapproaching problems in diverse ways, but the likelihood of conflicts and misunderstandingsincreases6.This study investigated the relationship between cognitive style and the perceptions of studentsworking in teams about their own ideation. Through the analysis of reflection surveys from 202pre-engineering, engineering, and design students participating in an ideation study, we exploredthe following questions: (1) how does working in teams impact students' perceptions of theirown
given a problem statement framed in a way that didn’t encourage anyparticular type of solution. The students were asked to generate solutions to the problem usingvisual and verbal depictions. Subsequently, they were given a second problem framed either toencourage practical solutions based on pre-existing designs or framed to encourage radicalsolutions not based on pre-existing designs. Ideas were coded as either paradigm-preserving orparadigm-modifying. We identified students whose ideas shifted from more of one type to moreof another from their first ideation session to their second, as well as students whose ideasremained consistent. We analyzed their generated idea sets and reflection questionnaires todescribe the influence of the framed
the results from2012 and 2013 in Figures 1 and 2. Page 26.997.4Figure 1: Overall, students perceived engineering as a respected career that involves designing cool things and helping society. Page 26.997.5 Figure 2: A summary of student associations towards male engineers and creativity.Students who participated in the game project also reflected on their experiences and learning.On average, 85% of students agreed or strongly agreed the game project was creative, and 71%said they enjoy creating games, while 80% enjoy playing games. Interestingly, more
experiencethroughout their undergraduate studies. IDEA offers a design certification program for studentsafter completion of several design-related courses, an engineering design portfolio, and multipledesign projects 10. The portfolio must demonstrate the students’ proficiency in the designprocess, design analysis, prototyping and implementation, modern software tools, and effectivecommunication. To enhance communication skills and provide quality instruction and feedback,students collaborate with graduate students, post-doctoral researchers, faculty advisors, andindustry professionals to complete projects. Graduates of IDEA are trained to become competentdesigners and reflective practitioners of engineering. They acquire a well-rounded design skillsetthat
: provide inputs to other team members from the owner’s perspective (more focus on budget and time control) to support their work; assist in design review and project documentation. ● One (1) Project Engineer (optional): provide inputs to other team members from a project engineer’s perspective (more focus on constructability) to support their work; assist in project documentation.Except for the LEED consultants, other team members were encouraged to rotate roles duringthe process to enhance their learning experience. The overall assessment plan of this studyemphasized on the learning progressions and periodical reflections, and included both formativeand summative approaches. Considering the lack of previous exposure
Paper ID #11935Using Design Process Timelines to Teach Design: Implementing Research Re-sultsDr. Cynthia J. Atman, University of Washington Cynthia J. Atman is the founding director of the Center for Engineering Learning & Teaching (CELT), a professor in Human Centered Design & Engineering, and the inaugural holder of the Mitchell T. & Lella Blanche Bowie Endowed Chair at the University of Washington. Dr. Atman is co-director of the newly-formed Consortium for Promoting Reflection in Engineering Education (CPREE), funded by a $4.4 million grant from the Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust. She was
Design EngineeringEducation (TIDEE) project has yielded assessment tools intended to measure engineering designlearning outcomes, including communication, teamwork, and design outcomes. 4, 8, 9Missing from these measures of student outcomes, however, are reflective accounts from thestudents themselves, though Pierrakos et al. did explore student perceptions of learning using a Page 26.1425.350-item survey instrument. 10 But capstone design is a complex instructional environment thatoften results in a diverse array of learning experiences; surveys or rubrics may overlookadditional or unanticipated outcomes. To address this gap, we present an
that the nature ofthe information provided by reviewers impacts the actions taken by the reviewee to reduce thegap.Giving feedback is an important skill for engineering professionals both in industry16 andacademia17. In engineering education, this skill is linked to the fulfillment of multiple studentoutcomes, particularly those related to problem solving, design, communication, andprofessionalism18. Feedback provides a means for thinking deeply about someone else’s work,reflecting on one’s own work, and receiving and interpreting criticism. Although an ability toprovide high quality feedback is an important skill in engineering, it is lacking amongengineering professionals19, professors20, researchers17, and students21. There is
. Student and faculty assessment of the pilot to dateshow good progress made but challenges remaining. A significant feature of this initiative is itsgoal to scale the approach to all engineering programs at the university. Introduction Engineering educators are challenged to prepare their students with the knowledge andcompetencies that will support success both in the immediate post-graduation period and also asthe foundation for careers in the rapidly changing global environment in which these will bepursued. It is not sufficient to educate engineers just to be technically competent. Engineeringcurricula and the accreditation criteria for engineering programs have evolved to reflect thisreality by demanding that an array of non-technical and
integrate the feedback into their performance. As a result, we were not achievingour desired program outcomes: improved project-specific engineering design skills, professionalbehavior, and evidence of self-reflection. To address this, we have created and implemented anadditional avenue for peer-to-peer anonymized feedback: a qualitative survey utilizing codedcompetencies. The purpose of this research is to evaluate this qualitative instrument in terms ofoverall effectiveness. This paper outlines insights and trends noted in the first year ofimplementation.Context The Multidisciplinary Design Program is an academic program that provides studentsfrom across the university an opportunity to develop and refine their engineering skills byworking
. Page 26.1455.2IntroductionThis paper lies at the intersections of two movements. The first, a realization for the untappedproblem-solving potential inherent in big, collaborative meetings of passionate people (mostcommonly seen in hackathons). The second, the realization that design thinking can extend muchfarther beyond the traditional product design engineering classroom and into the hands of ourcitizens in order to capacitate them as able problem-solvers in our community.To understand the first realization is to understand the hacker culture that has expanded acrossnations and disciplines. Originally used to describe someone who makes furniture with an axe,this makeshift nature reflected onto the first programming-oriented use of the word
may be more appealing and more readily accepted and adopted by some individualsthan others – as anecdotal evidence collected from design classrooms and design thinkingworkshops seems to indicate. The aim of this study is to determine whether student receptivity todesign thinking might be linked to individual cognitive characteristics that reflect innatestructural preferences. This research could help educators determine the most appropriate designmethodology based on the cognitive preferences of their students, as well as the need to teachcoping strategies when students are required to engage in design activities that do not align withtheir natural cognitive preferences.Our work presents the results of data gathered during a design thinking
design decisions were influenced by varyinginterpretations of the main objective. Both shortening the chassis and moving the center of masstied in well with concepts being taught in class during weeks 2 to 5. It was valuable to see thatstudents were recommending design changes based on core course concepts and that they werealso able to apply these concepts to a real-world design.The recommendation to reduce weight from the original design (1A) was not applied asfrequently as expected to the students’ final designs based on how frequently this suggestion wasmade. Although students appreciated that the weight of the chassis was unnecessary for itsapplication, this did not reflect in their final designs. This may stem from many students
, including learning “how to make things” • Technical proficiency, including “mechanical/technical skills that crosses boundaries”, “better background in electronics”, and “programming”. • Entrepreneurship, including “how do you sell it, how do you do something with it”This reflects a multi-disciplinary, holistic attitude towards engineering education that is risingfrom discussions on the future of engineering education. The attitudes of the toy Makers reflect those of engaged students in classrooms. They viewthemselves as active participants in the learning process; they recognize that making mistakes isboth expected and valued during the process of learning; they have an understanding of theirlearning strengths and weaknesses
provide insights intothe conduct of a complex multidisciplinary design project that may lead to improvementsin the design process for future projects.The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. First, it provides an overview of theWild Sound project. Next, it summarizes the relevant theories of design. After this, itprovides excerpts of the interviews of participants, including the composer, theperformers, and the student engineers, and then maps observations from the interviews tothe design theories. Following this, the paper provides reflections from the participants Page 26.1123.2on what they learned from the project, as well as suggestions from
responsible for thesuccess of the project even though a team failure may result in some self-flagellation. We often learnmost in failure and so do students. Sponsors have experienced failure also. Still the goal of Capstone isfor students to learn to apply design, and to expand their engineering knowledge, skills and abilities KSAsbeyond what they’ve learned in the classroom and that may involve failure on some level; the goal is notto induce failure. Let ‘em stumble. Let ‘em fall. Let ‘em pick themselves up. As a faculty advisor,guide them in reflecting on what happened and push them to excel.This guide is offered in the spirit of helping students and faculty excel in Capstone. This is the facultyversion. Use this in conjunction with the “Purple
are asked to design posters to advertise the various activity booths (Figure 3). Their job is tochoose an activity booth (Step 1), design a poster for it (Step 2), and “market test” the posterwith a focus group (Step 3). Students then choose either positive (“I like…”) or negativefeedback (“I don’t like…”) (Step 4) from each of three characters (see Figure 3.B). After readingthe feedback (Step 5), students can choose to revise (Step 6) or submit their poster (Step 7).Upon submission, students can see their booth’s “ticket sales” reflecting the quality of theirposter design. There are three rounds of posters to design, thus nine opportunities to choosepositive or negative feedback. The key measure is whether the students choose
distinct from sex. Connellnotes that gender is not a supposedly biologically-obvious division between men and women, butinstead the way human society collectively makes relevant these reproductive distinctions Page 26.1007.5between human bodies in a social context. For us, the context is engineering education. In its simplest form, gender reflects the set of characteristics, behaviors, and practices that we think ofas “feminine” or “masculine” – characteristics that any individual biological male or female mayor may not embody.Race, like gender, is not a biological category but a social one. And unlike sex, race has nobiological basis, despite a
understand the implications of early design steps until much later in the course whichdoes not allow for reflection and improved learning. One of the key early design process steps isthe analysis of customer needs. Through experience it has been observed that students struggleto grasp the importance and nuance of this stage of design. This unfortunately can lead to furtherchurn, rework, and major schedule impacts later in the time-constrained capstone. This struggleis not limited to only the educational domain, but is a challenge for many in the engineeringdesign industry.4Without a clear understanding of what lies ahead for a student, there is a tendency to take eachstep only at face value, without appreciating the integrated fashion in which
and cooperative. Marginal Sometimes failed to show up or complete task, rarely prepared. Deficient Often failed to show up or complete task, rarely prepared. Unsatisfactory Consistently failed to show up or complete task, unprepared. Superficial Very little participation. No show No participation at all. Note that the ratings should reflect each individual's level of participation and effort and sense of responsibility, not his or her academic ability. EVALUATE YOURSELF AND ALL YOUR TEAM MEMBERS Rating
development. This paper is based upon worksupported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1037655. Any opinions,findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. Page 26.335.14Bibliography1. Paretti, M., Howe, S., Blair, S., Rogers, P., Kanai, J., Stanfill, R. K., and Livesay, G. (2012) “Capstone Design Hub: Building the Capstone Design Community,” Proceedings of the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education Conference.2. WordPress. (2015) https://wordpress.com/ Accessed March 2015.3. Kline, W
capability.”During the final interview with Team 1, another student stated: “I mean, there was some stuff that [the lab] kind of thought of late, [features] that they sort of thought about and they wanted added in… they didn't really tell us about [the features] until way into the designing process.”These thoughts were reflected in the students’ post-course surveys. For example, one Team 1student added a caveat to their pre-course response about how stakeholders should have aprominent role during design: “Stakeholders should have a large role but they also need to understand the entire design process and know what kind of limitations there are.”The same Team 1 student also changed their pre-course response to Question 4
activities (unassociatedwith courses or engineering student clubs).11 Rarely is the facility used to support curriculum orresearch activities. Given its purpose to support student design interests, this facility perhapsqualifies to be called an academic makerspace but that title may not be appropriate due to aunique attribute of the facility. The MITERS workshop operates nearly independent from MIT,with the student members directing all aspects of its operation. This organizational structure ismore reflective of that found in community-based makerspaces outside of the academicenvironment.What is striking in these two examples from the same institution is their very different
and clearly state that sophomores wereencouraged to enroll. This is reflected in the enrollment numbers listed in Table 2. Table 2: Semester Enrollment in ME 449 (formerly ME 601) Semester Sophomore Junior Senior Graduate Fall, 2012 3 6 2 3 Spring, 2013 0 2 14 8 Fall, 2013 0 2 13 3 Spring, 2014 0 2 17 5Additionally, it was noted during that first semester that students with lower technicalbackgrounds, e.g., those who