Paper ID #12879Exploring the Impact of Cognitive Preferences on Student Receptivity to De-sign ThinkingMs. Jessica Menold Menold, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Jessica Menold is a second year graduate student interested in entrepreneurship, the design process, and innovativeness of engineering graduates and professionals. She is currently working as a student mentor in the Lion Launch Pad program, where she works to support student entrepreneurs. Jessica is currently conducting her graduate research with Dr. Kathryn Jablokow on a project devoted to the development of a psychometric instrument that will
, Feb. 2000.[10] D. M. Buede and W. D. Miller, The Engineering Design of Systems: Models and Methods. John Wiley & Sons, 2016.[11] C. Dym, P. Little, E. Orwin, and E. Spjut, “Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction,” HMC Fac. Books, Jan. 2009.[12] A. F. (Alex F. Osborn, Applied imagination; principles and procedures of creative thinking. New York, Scribner, 1953.[13] F. Zwicky, Morphological Astronomy. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.[14] G. Altshuller, The Innovation Algorithm: TRIZ, Systematic Innovation and Technical Creativity. Technical Innovation Center, Inc., 1999.[15] D. Silverstein, N. DeCarlo, and M. Slocum, Insourcing Innovation: How to Achieve Competitive Excellence Using TRIZ. CRC Press
Paper ID #28754Reflection in Time: Using Data Visualization to Identify StudentReflection Modes in DesignDr. Corey T Schimpf, The Concord Consortium Corey Schimpf is a Learning Analytics Scientist at the Concord Consortium with interest in design re- search and learning, learning analytics, research methods and underrepresentation in engineering. A ma- jor strand of his work focuses on developing and analyzing learning analytics that model students’ design practices or strategies through fine-grained computer-logged data from open-ended technology-centered science and engineering projects. A closely related strand focuses
monitoringgroup processes, whereas TBL depends on difficult tasks to stimulate group processes.Applying TBL to the Design ClassTBL was applied in the following way to the class in this study: 1. Learning phases were one week long to fit chapter length in the design text, Engineering Design by Eggert.8 2. In-class quizzes and exercises followed the TBL model. 3. A team design project spanning several weeks was the homework. Weekly assignments on the project were required. 4. Grading of the weekly assignments and a midterm formed the assessment.The class met in two-hour blocks, twice weekly for 15 weeks. The class of 24 students, 21 menand 3 women, was pseudo-randomly divided into six teams of four by the instructor. Althoughteams were
lack. Further, Page 23.365.4they may imply a certain ideology of engineering design, or may be intended for specificpurposes, such as defining accreditation requirements, and may not be the most useful to studentstrying to understand the complicated range of activities encompassed by engineering design. Thedefinitions also tend to imply a rational, idealized, vision of engineering design practice, distinctfrom that which is actually used by practicing engineering designers.In this project, we explore and experiment with how freshman engineering students in the firstyear design sequence in the Engineering Science program at the University of
engineeringstudents all five of their courses in an integrated format [15]. LCs were an integral component ofensuring student success in ILS, as they “help learners build interdisciplinary links and sociallinks within a community” [16]. LCs were also integral to the ILS design project, where everyLC form two sub-groups to complete a major engineering design project from conceptualizationto delivery, using the technical knowledge gained from their courses. The use of LCs inengineering design education has been shown to be successful through the ILS pilot, and inWinter 2021, this LC-based integrated delivery format has been integrated into all 2nd yearelectrical engineering education.As the vaccination rollout for COVID-19 steadily improves, academic
– first, debuggingsuch systems is difficult and cumbers mbersome. Second, learning the various intricacies of programming pro timed,heterogeneous, parallel embedded-sy systems and completing the project may not be possible possib in one or eventwo semesters for engineering studen students that are non-EE or CS majors. Hence, for the purpose pur of teachingdesign to non-EE and CS majors ajors aas well as freshmen
about the accuracy of the feedback they receivedand how confident they felt in providing feedback to their peers.Taken together, the present research explores student reactions to this tool and their intentions toalter their behavior after being presented with the feedback generated from the assessment.MethodParticipantsParticipants in this study were students enrolled in an electrical engineering course at a largeCanadian university, N = 159. Students worked with group members over the course of thesemester on a number of projects, thereby building an interpersonal connection to the membersof their team prior to providing the ratings.Materials and ProcedureStudents completed a peer feedback assessment via the ITP Metrics platform, in which
differentiated-inventive design solutions across all aspects of the user-product experience. As a consultant using this strategy, Dan has worked with large and small companies to create and commercialize many differentiated products and processes for their customers, often creatively redefining these spaces, while at the same time receiving an additional twenty patents for his unique and novel new product solutions. In 2001, Dan challenged himself to create a case study project for his design philosophy, to validate the methodologies of his design strategies, and to provide a sales and marketing tool for his design services. Seeking to create a new and innovative product while emulating the Differentiation by Design process
Paper ID #16011The Prototype for X (PFX) Framework: Assessing Its Impact on Students’Prototyping AwarenessMs. Jessica Menold, Pennsylvania State University, University Park Jessica Menold is a third-year graduate student interested in entrepreneurship and the design process. She is currently conducting her graduate research with Dr. Kathryn Jablokow and Dr. Timothy Simpson on a project devoted to understanding how prototyping processes affect product design. Jessica is interested in exploring how a structured prototyping methodology, Prototype for X, could increase the end design’s desirability, feasibility, and
the governing equations (Fig. 4), and to simultaneously solve multiple analysis problems for integrated design projects. Page 12.390.7 6 REVISION Figure 4 Interactive mouse-picking of spur gear geometry factor (J) directly from a graph in the AGMA tooth strength analysis module and nonlinear solution of an eccentric buckling problem in the column buckling analysis modulec. Flexibility: To solve more than one type of mechanics problem using the same tool, to solve mechanics problems in
approaches that share these commonvalues.Although HCD has no agreed upon definition, it has broadly been described by the InternationalOrganization for Standardization (ISO) in standard 13407 as: “the active involvement of users for a clear understanding of their behaviour and experiences; the search for an appropriate allocation of functions between people and technology; the organisation of iterations, within a project, of conducting research and generating and evaluating solutions; and the organisation of multidisciplinary teamwork.” (as cited in [23], p. 44)However, that broad description contains many nuanced conceptions of HCD with variousguiding philosophies and underlying assumptions, as well as, the principles
educators for grades 7-12. Dr. France also helps coordinate the first-year engi- neering experience at ONU. He earned his PhD from the University of Colorado Boulder in Architectural Engineering, and conducted research in K-12 engineering education and project-based learning.Sherri Youssef, Ohio State University Sherri Youssef is pursuing her Masters of Science degree in the Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and is involved in the Department of Engineering Education as a Graduate Teaching and Research Associate at The Ohio State University. She completed her Bachelors of Science in Materials Science and Engineering at The Ohio State University as well in May of 2018. American
controls, and engineering design. Joe’s scholarship interests are in the areas of engineering education and neuromuscular biomechanics. Specifically, Joe’s engineering education activities include student-centric course and curricular development; assessment of student learning and engagement; and innovation in approaches to enhance student learning. In neuromuscular biomechanics, Joe’s interests are in restoration of human movement following neuromuscular injury.Mr. Jeff Wood, Stanford University Goal: Make a difference in the world, through development and training of engineers to solve the most pressing problems facing the world today. ME Capstone Course and Lab Project Development Director Jeff is the ME Capstone
instrument ineducation3 and its integration is often seen as a significant force driving change4. It is nowcausing educators to re-think the very nature of teaching and learning. But where do you start?How can instructors design powerful, innovative, and effective web-based environments that canbe successfully integrated in a face-to-face class or stand alone to support a distance course?In this paper, we answer the question from the perspective of a four-year long project that led aninstructor from using an institutional, unimaginative, web-based template to designing a fullycustomized, award-winning course that truly reflected his teaching style and philosophy,supported the institution’s mission statement and the course objectives, and supported
research projects totaling approximately $7 million in research expenditures. Jackson’s current research interests include image processing, embedded systems, sensor and sensor network development, VHDL hardware descrip- tion language, and programmable device technologies. Page 25.38.1 c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012 A Custom-PCB Design for Microcontroller EducationBackground and MotivationMuch time and effort has been spent attempting to discover the best approaches to the problemof microcontroller education. The methods and processes of teaching
data collection are useful and valid, they also constrain participants’ responses to fixedoptions in the case of Likert-type scales and multiple-choice questions, and to verbal expressionsin the case of open-ended prompts. Few examples of other types of reflection activities (e.g.,graphing, sketching) have been presented or studied in the engineering education literature. In this project, which is part of a larger investigation into high performance design teams, weexplored the use of graphing and other visual techniques for recording designers’ perceptions oftheir design processes and products. Our primary aim was to introduce greater richness into theevaluation of designers’ behaviors and outcomes as we posed research questions about
capture the real problem when addressed from a multitude of viewpoints.Diverse designers provide diverse ideas to generate a variety of solutions. When the diversity ofthe designers is eliminated we risk the alienation of potential users and lose the intuitive interfacedesign. How can we produce effective user-product interaction or, more importantly, ensure ournext generations of designers are producing effective user-product interfaces?Background and Previous WorkThere have been a number of programs consciously reflecting on this need for developinggraduates who are aware and receptive to the needs of clients, users, and the general public. ThePicker Engineering Program at Smith College has implemented the TOYtech project into theircurriculum
exerciserelated to defining the problem, and how such activity informed the remaining engineeringdesign project: Student 2: Okay. So, we have to define the problem and investigate, create test, and then find, and you could like create design, test it, and if it doesn’t work you have to investigate back to here. I'm excited for the great design, we’ll still need to do.Student 2 clearly expressed that the activity helped understand other student’s ideas, and how theactivity fit into the larger engineering design curricular unit. Yet, Student 2 did not writenumerical quantities runoff or absorption and decreased in numerical quality. It is uncertain whyStudent 2 did not represent the numbers in the second model.4.1.5 Negative change in
its’ value for designing complex systems [1]. Accordingly, what qualitiesdefine successful systems engineers as well as how to instill these qualities in engineeringstudents has been a major area of research amongst engineering educators. In a study conductedamongst engineering professionals, most of whom were systems engineers, researchers foundthat those exposed to formal education in systems thinking as well as had experience withacademic projects in controlled environments displayed a propensity for systems thinking andaptitude in systems design [8]. Research efforts to investigate systems thinking competenciesamongst undergraduate engineering students have shown that students generally do not exhibit astrong capacity for systems thinking
STEM pedagogy, design thinking, project-based learning and educational entrepreneurship.Dr. Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University-Main Campus, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) Carla B. Zoltowski is an assistant professor of engineering practice in the Schools of Electrical and Com- puter Engineering and (by courtesy) Engineering Education at Purdue University. She holds a B.S.E.E., M.S.E.E., and Ph.D. in Engineering Education, all from Purdue. Prior to this she was Co-Director of the EPICS Program at Purdue where she was responsible for developing curriculum and assessment tools and overseeing the research efforts within EPICS. Her academic and research interests include the profes- sional formation of
to Operate aDevice," Cognitive Science, 8(3) pp. 255-273.[6] Ibrahim, B., and Rebello, N. S., 2012, "Using Johnson-Laird’s Cognitive Framework ofSensemaking to Characterize Engineering Students’ Mental Representations in Kinematics,"Physics Education Research Conference, (1413) pp. 219-222.[7] Zhang, Y., 2007, "The Influence of Mental Models on UndergraduateStudents’ Searching Behavior on the Web," Information Processing and Management, 44 pp.1330-1345.[8] Frank, M., Sadeh, A., and Ashkenasi, S., 2011, "The Relationship among Systems Engineers'Capacity for Engineering Systems Thinking, Project Types, and Project Success," ProjectManagement Journal, 42(5) pp. 31-41.[9] Camelia, F, Ferris, T. L. J, and Cropley, D. H, 2015, "Development and
Paper ID #25586Exploring Differences in Senior and Sophomore Engineering Students’ Men-tal Models of Common ProductsMr. Francis Jacob Fish, Georgia Institute of Technology Francis Fish is a current Ph.D. student at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He earned his Bachelors of Mechanical Engineering and MBA at the University of Delaware, in 2016 and 2017, where he conducted research for DARPA and ARL funded projects as well as private industry projects. From 2016 to 2018 he worked as a Nuclear Engineer for NAVSEA.Alexander R. Murphy, Georgia Institute of Technology Alexander Murphy is a mechanical engineering Ph.D
from a broad viewpoint to a specific focus (converge). Divergence is associated with activitieslike brainstorming, ideation, building, and prototyping. Convergence is associated with activities such asanalysis, selection, evaluation, and testing.Altogether, five stages comprise this framework. The shape in figure 1 was created to represent and showthis framework as an iterative process versus a linear one. Stage 1 focuses on conversations or actionspertaining to defining requirements, project scoping, and gathering information about a particular project Page 26.1038.5or the needs of stakeholders. Stage 2 focuses on conceptual
of the social high-speeddevelopment. In the same sense, the curriculum arrangement of engineering majors inundergraduate level practical teaching mainly consists of cognition practice, productivepractice, graduation practice, curriculum design and graduation project, among others.1 Beingthe significant component of practical teaching process carried out by engineeringuniversities, productive practice is recognized as the effective measure for consolidating anddeepening the professional basic theory, boosting engineering students’ abilities to linktheory with practice and to deal with practical problems, as well as optimizing the students’engineering practical abilities.Productive practice is a course which closely integrates classroom
directly from page 9. This short introductory video to creativity included a quick activity to encourage them to think outside the box. III. Team construction | As part of the class, students were grouped for their team projects in groups of 2-5. While all data for this study was collected on an individual basis, students were instructed to dissect different products than their teammates. IV. Concept Introduction | Students were introduced to the inventive concept they would be brainstorming and discussing with their teammates. For the graduate students, they would be discussing the design of a novel alarm clock for those that have a difficult time waking up
-course graduate module focused on problem solving leadership and is currently investigating the impact of cognitive style on invention and design.Danielle DeCristoforo, Lockheed-Martin Danielle DeCristoforo is a Proposal Manager at Lockheed Martin TSS (Transportation & Security Solutions) on the MTA (Metropolitan Transportation Authority) Program in New York City. Prior to this position, Danielle worked as a Systems Engineer at LMTSS (since 2002), where she was also a member of the Engineering Leadership Development Program (ELDP) and acted as Deputy Program Manager for a final group project. Danielle received her Master's degree in Systems Engineering from the Great Valley School
, structured approach is a great benefit to the development of complexsystems, both for large aerospace contractors and student projects. Systems engineeringdisciplines help provide the order necessary to the design and production processes. Common tothe aerospace industry, systems engineering processes are often discussed in engineeringcurriculum, but opportunities to participate in these processes are rare. Capstone engineeringcourses, such as the FalconLAUNCH courses, are perhaps the best way to provide a meaningfulexperience in these important disciplines.One of the important systems engineering disciplines is configuration control and managingchanges during the design and manufacturing processes. An example of this is the engineeringchange
, realistic constraints,collaborative, and includes an artifact or artifact design. The high school program was chosenthrough chain sampling41. Chain sampling for this research involved asking those “in the know”(teacher educators, graduate students as practitioners, the state office of education) torecommend high school programs. The school was chosen from the Mountain West Region. The High School had predominantly White students. The school has a certified pre-engineering program using Project Lead the Way curriculum. There are six courses offered thatbecome available to the students starting their sophomore year: Introduction to Engineering,Digital Electronics, Civil and Architectural Engineering, Computer Integration andManufacturing
formeasuring a system’s portability can be a critical asset when designing or redesigning a mobilesystem or when comparing two systems where mobility is important. Unfortunately, such arubric does not exist. The development and implementation of such a rubric is the focus of thisresearch. Note that this rubric could be used across a wide variety of student design projects and,as such, has wide applicability for enhancing engineering design projects. The portability rubricintroduced is designed to allow engineers to analyze systems being designed or systems thatalready exist. In either context, the rubric is used to quantify how portable a system is. The 18metrics that make up the rubric combine to cover the key components that constitute a