already on the market. In order to have a successful crowdfunding campaign, our product needs to differentiate itself to get people to fund our project versus buying a product already on the market. FIGURE 3. EXAMPLE OF AN ANSWERED CONSTRAINT-SOURCE MODEL QUESTION.The design attributes are grouped into sections, as indicated in Table 1. Within its section, eachattribute is listed with an eliciting, reflective question. Students are asked to respond bothquantitatively and qualitatively. On the quantitative side, the CSM provides the
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
that faculty grades are based on academic achievement and externalgraders are based on project success. These reflect two unique perspectives on the capstoneprocess, which leads to future studies related to what bias affect the scores of faculty andexternal judges.IntroductionEast Carolina University’s Department of Engineering (ECU’s DoE) is a general engineeringprogram offering five discipline specific concentrations. ECU’s DoE has a two semester longSenior Capstone Design program that spans two distinct courses. The first semester requiresstudents to compete a conceptual level design for an industry sponsored project. The secondsemester requires students to complete a detailed design and often requires build/test objectivesbe completed. The
have similarities, components exemplified in one model, may be excluded inanother (Flowers, 2010; Reeve, 2016). Other recent findings demonstrated that these engineeringdesign processes, may not be an accurate reflection of the practices used in industry andtechnical fields (Reeve, 2016). Accordingly, we investigated the perceptions of students,instructors, and practicing engineers through the assessment of a collection of student work froma first-year engineering course.Research Questions To investigate the potential similarities and differences in the values related to engineeringdesign between students, instructors, and practicing engineers the following questions guided ourstudy: RQ1: What correlation, if any exists, between the
self-regulation as “self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviorsthat are oriented to attaining goals. Self-regulated individuals are skilled in goal-setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reinforcement4 and "habits of mind" and commitment to theideals of reflective thinking, assessment, and learning as an ongoing, lifelong process. Therefore,it naturally follows, that students with good self-regulation are more likely to perform better intheir academic work.5 In this study, a SRL model showing the dynamic and iterative interplay betweenmetacognitive and cognitive activity described in Butler and Cartier’s model was used.6, 7, 8 Inthis model, SRL is characterized as a complex, dynamic, and situated learning process9
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
; Pictures of Final Prototype; Flowchart; CommentedCode; Design Limitations; and Appendix. The required sections and structure of the final designproject deliverables aim to facilitate students in reporting and reflecting on the integrative,iterative nature of the design project in this course. Figure 2: Module 01: Course Introduction and Makerspace Safety Figure 3: Module 02: Human-Centered Engineering DesignFigure 4: Module 03: Teamwork, Memos, Ethics & Environment Figure 5: Module 04: Solid Modeling & 3D VisualizationFigure 6: Module 05: Additive Manufacturing & 3D PrintingFigure 7: Module 06: Sensors, Microcontroller, & Actuators Figure 8: Module 07: Programming & Flow DiagramsFigure 9: Module 08: Final
be an impediment during the design process.In psychology, sketching and drawing has long been thought to reflect how individuals think.Children’s sketches of human figures (the Draw-A-Person Test) have been considered to reflecttheir developing intelligence [45], [46]. Cognitive milestones have been tied to featuresreflecting the complexity of spontaneous drawings, with older children including articulatedparts such as fingers [47]. Research has also identified drawing as a cognitive aid, showing it ishelpful in organizing and remembering information [48]. Because sketches reveal designers’thinking [49], we reason that designers’ mindset about HCD may be similarly evident in theirsketches.MethodResearch GoalThe goal of our research was to
process, such as including adding a sixth session, were made by the entire group.Throughout the design sessions, all participants offered their insights into everyday practices andco-constructed knowledge relationally and through open dialogue, thus contributing to aparticipatory research and design approach [22, 23]. Within small, large, and “mixed” groupformats, and with an awareness of their relative positions of authority in the School, theparticipants worked together on identifying underlying issues in diversity and inclusion inprofessional formation of engineers and collaborated to create prototype solutions.In design session 1, participants mapped their own professional journey, while reflecting onmoments in childhood, teenage, college
, engineering has a diversity problem in terms of who is in the workforce andwhose voices are being heard at the engineering table. Because of the largely homogeneousengineering population, the designs the field produces also fail to reflect a wide range of culturaland linguistic competencies. When not confronted with diversity, the training of engineers tendsto leave out broader social issues [5], [6], [7], [8]. And to be clear, these issues are not simplymatters of social justice; researchers have argued that the inclusion of traditionallyunderrepresented voices and the development of sociocultural competency in engineering is aneconomic and national security imperative [1].The importance of considering various perspectives and broadening
engineering courses. Most of the SDPs are real-world inspiredprojects, which are externally sponsored by industry and government agencies, and many of themare multidisciplinary in nature involving engineering as well as non-engineering students. Inaddition to carry out these design tasks, they are also required to interact with students in the EDMclass and provide feedback to their junior-level peers while enhancing their skills incommunication and design implementation through reflective learning. Pre and post-class surveysand feedback sessions are conducted to not only gain inputs from students to improve thecoordinated learning process, but also to engage them in self-reflection for continuous learning.The crux of the effort here is to develop an
over 20 years with an emphasis on mechanical packaging of microwave circuitry.Dr. Diane L. Zemke Diane Zemke is an independent researcher and consultant. She holds a Ph.D. in leadership studies from Gonzaga University. Her research interests include teamwork, small group dynamics, dissent, organiza- tional change, and reflective practice. Dr. Zemke has published in the International Journal of Engineering Education, the Journal of Religious Leadership, and various ASEE conference proceedings. She is the author of ”Being Smart about Congregational Change.” c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 How Students Create Verbal Descriptions of Physical PartsClear and precise
the bottom of the figure. The x-axis depicts perceived preparedness, with lower perceived preparedness to the left and higher perceived preparedness to the right. (Note that while we also have perceived preparedness data from participants’ pre-graduation interviews and their weekly surveys, we used only the workplace interview data to select participants for this paper; subsequent larger studies will use the full data set.) The size of the circle reflects extent of engineering identity; the larger the circle, the more the participant identified as an engineer. The shading represents mention of gender bias/discrimination (shaded = yes, unshaded = no).As is clear from Figure 1
response was robust (N=632, 85.4% of total population) and reflected classdemographics. Females demonstrated lower mean self-efficacy scores in engineering applicationand tinkering (Table 1a). Both URMs and first-generation students showed slightly lower meanself-confidence in math and science skills (Tables 1b and 1c). Intersectionality of race andgender was examined; and URM females showed marginally lower mean self-efficacy thanURM males in tinkering tasks, when controlling for both demographic factors (femaleURM=3.3, male URM=3.6, αinteraction=.007). International students demonstrated significantlyless professional/interpersonal and problem solving self-confidence (Table 1d).DiscussionTaken together, these results suggest that there are
– March – 2016] 5. R. Morris et al., Sustainability by Design: a reflection on the suitability of pedagogic practice in design and engineering courses in the teaching of sustainable design. European Journal of Engineering Education, 32:2, 135-142, 2007.
, and students are given specifications to which they must adhere while devising asolution. This method requires students to apply theoretical knowledge obtained throughcoursework and lectures to solve a given problem as specified by the instructor. In some cases,the instructor may provide a model design solution that the students can reference as they devisetheir own answer to the provided prompt [5]. Professors act as facilitators of this process,guiding students to resources where appropriate and providing students with the tools necessaryto shape their design approach.This model progresses through three main stages: the development of a prototype, testing andredesign, and then reflection on the task, culminating in the creation of a report
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
students’perceptions of and reflections on the skills developed throughout the courses taken throughouttheir undergraduate engineering curriculum. Students in a senior design sequence were surveyedduring each semester of the course about their perceptions of senior design and the skills andprevious courses that were most relevant to design. The study was conducted within a large,public, MSI over the course of five semesters of the Mechanical Engineering Senior designsequence. Relationships between particular course groups and the skills students perceived asimportant for design were found. The results demonstrate that students perceived EngineeringCore Courses, Engineering Design Courses, and Engineering Track Core Courses as important inpreparing them for
that the primary focus for us is getting [User] to participate, rather than getting the device to do the job. We were going in with the attitude of we need to hit XYZ, and then we're going to need to move an object from point A to point B at X velocity… whereas their focus is much less can you build something that works, so much as it is can you help [User]? Which retrospectively, duh, but at the time it was remarkable for me to hear that from the parent.In other words, the perspectives of the user and associated individuals during this initial meetingwere surprising enough for Team C that they prompted reflection about how engineering’straditional focus on the more technical aspects of solution concepts may have
point, coming largely out of analyses of professional practice anduniversity design courses, reflects what we are calling product-oriented iteration. The primaryvalue of iteration is to improve designs and artifacts or solve problems, and in service of thosegoals, to build understandings of materials or tools. In this view, while iteration is central toengineering design, it should be employed only when efficient and effective, and the drafts leftbehind are erased in presentation of the final artefact.In contrast to product-oriented iteration in which iteration is complete or successful only when itleads to decisions or improvements [3], in person-oriented iteration, or iteration-to-learn, thechance to redo and revise provides novice designers
based on our past experiences, cultural perspectives, innocuous misconceptions, orsubjective biases. Measuring these different mental models poses a unique challenge sinceconceptualizations are held in the mind and any description of them is simply a representation ofthe mental model and not the mental model itself; in other words, we are seeing a reflection ofthe mental model through a dirty mirror. In this work, the previously published instruments usedto elicit undergraduate students’ mental models [1-3] are deployed without intervention to makeprogress on validation of the instruments for future research studies, therefore cleaning thatmetaphorical mirror. Despite the impossibility of perfectly representing a mental model, thiswork takes a
peerreviews and periodic reflections on team dynamics. Interestingly, Giurintano, et al. [8], found aneed to focus on teamwork and leadership coaching after observing a lack of effective teamworkamong interdisciplinary teams. They adopted an approach similar to that discussed here withseveral capstone lectures devoted to teamwork and related topics. They also providedspecialized training to interdisciplinary teams. However, an important difference from ourapproach is that their capstone instructors developed and provided the training. The authorsreported that 70% of students surveyed felt that the material was valuable and only 6% said thatit had no value to them. This outcome supports the validity of our approach.MethodologyOur university is
for students,makerspaces encourage experiential and situated learning experiences through communities ofpractice. Experiential learning is not merely a technique that can be utilized to provide studentswith an experience from which they can learn, but a philosophy of education (Dewey, 1986; A.Y. Kolb & Kolb, 2005). This experiential learning philosophy is characterized by several tenets:learning is (1) a process not an outcome, (2) relearning, (3) resolving conflicts, (4) holisticallyadapting to the world, (5) interacting with the environments, and (6) creating knowledge (Kolb1984). This perspective is built on the notion that knowledge is created from reflecting upon atransformative experience, exemplified through the processes of the
others interested in the project to discuss skill sets and to make ageneral determination of their compatibility as teammates.During each lab time, up to 75 students mingled and placed sticky notes on up to 25 posters. Weallocated about 45 minutes for this mingling process. Students were encouraged to monitor thenumber of sticky notes, colors, and names on a particular project poster in order to gage the levelof interest and note which other students were interested in the project. Based on thisinformation, they had the opportunity to adjust their choices. Pictures of the activity as itprogressed are shown in Figure 5.After this first 45-minute round, we asked the students to stop and reflect: Did their first-choiceproject include people with
or likelyfuture jobs within the firm (due to a lifetime employment culture, Lorriman, 1986), whereas self-marketability was observed to be more common amongst American engineers.3. Cultural values underlying problem-solving and creativityShifting lenses to the specific educational goal of fostering creative design capability, there is arise of creativity research in engineering design education, as reflected in growing research incurriculum design (Zhou, 2012), creativity-facilitating intervention (Hawthorne, et al., 2014) andcreative behavior and cognition (Toh & Miller, 2014). However, we lack a deep understandingabout different, and possibly conflicting, cultural beliefs and practices around creative problemsolving amongst students
the course, after a key milestone;and the third interview set was between 1-3 months after the end of the course project. Thisspread allowed data collection which would capture temporal and situational contexts toinfluence the data, as well as allow the liaisons to regularly reflect on the value of the project,enabling rich data.The interview methodology used followed the semi-structured, intensive interviewingapproach, where the premise is to create a directed conversation with individuals who haverelevant experiences, which – with the help of the interviewer – are reflected upon in-depth ina way that is rare in everyday life [36]. Broad open-ended questions were devised toencourage interviewees to explore the notion of value for themselves
strive forin their own learning, monitor their progress towards those goals, and adapt and self-regulatetheir cognition, behaviors, and motivation in order to reach those goals. Students who believethey can learn (personal efficacy) and perceive their efforts to learn will result in desiredoutcomes (outcome expectancy) [18], [19] are more likely to report the use of self-regulatorystrategies associated with task orientation [23], [24].Self-regulatory strategies are important because they can be used by learners to manage theiracademic time on projects or tasks, prioritize and reflect on their progress towards learning goals,and seek help when experiencing difficulty [20]. By contrast, students with low self-efficacymay perceive that they aren’t
vehicles.abstractGrowing enrollment numbers in Computer Science programs in schools across thecountry are a reflection of the rapidly growing computer industry over the last fewdecades. Many schools have met the challenge of higher enrollment numbers by addingclasses to address new course content and increasing the sizes of these classes. Whilethe size of the more specialized classes may still be kept at a manageable andreasonable level, the core classes that most university students have to take presentspecial challenges for the administration. Over the last ten years, we have, at differenttimes, tried different approaches and used a variety of different class sizes toaccommodate the higher enrollment numbers for such core classes.Importantly, each approach has
positively because learners who fall into this group tend to be motivatedby learning new things, are persistent in completing difficult or ambiguous academic tasks, andtend to use cognitive strategies to support learning such as metacognition and reflection [20, 21].Task oriented students tend to view mastery as dependent on effort, and perceptions of ability areself-referenced [22]. Task oriented students focus their attention on the task, not on extrinsicrewards; learning, understanding, developing new skills, and problem-solving are motivators [17,23]. Task orientation, like mastery orientation, is the most adaptive orientation for self-regulatedlearning [24, 7]. Task oriented students set self-improvement and learning as their goals; as aresult
viability [16],[17]. Table 2 lists the four processes as well as how they fit within the structure of the capstoneand the learning outcomes they deliver. The Creative Idea Process addresses both creativeideation and team development. The Customer Discovery Process and the Client ValidationProcess address meeting customer needs at different stages of product development.Commercial viability is addressed in the process of the same name.Experiential learning has four phases: the concept, the application expectations, the experience,and reflection on the three prior phases [26]. We designed the implementation of each process tosatisfy pedagogical scaffolding that supports these phases of experiential learning without takingsignificant time or resources