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
design and manufacturing. Chijhi is a teaching assistant in the College of Engineering Education, instructing the Transforming Ideas to Innovation I & II courses, which introduce first-year students to the engineering profession using multidisciplinary, societally relevant content.Dr. Robert P. Loweth, Purdue University Robert P. Loweth (he/him) is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. His research explores how engineering students and practitioners engage stakeholders in their engineering projects, reflect on their social identities, and consider the broader societal contexts of their engineering work. The goals of his research are 1) to develop tools and
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
. 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
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
3outcomes. Moreover, antecedents and interpersonal outcomes may differ across contexts,resulting in different ways empathy might be observed and different facets that might be mostcritical to empathy’s manifestation. Thus, for the next stop on our tour of empathy models, weexplore Smeenk, Sturm, and Eggen’s [16] Empathic Formation Compass.Smeenk, Sturm, and Eggen’s Empathic Formation CompassSmeenk and colleagues [16] developed their empathic formation compass through a focus onproviding a model that addresses empathy as a construct and process, supports reflection ondesign action, and focuses on designers’ roles and design decisions. The empathic formationcompass integrates several empathy and design models to create a more robust sense of
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
data training set that was used, thisis reflected in the results or writing created by it. “ChatGPT is known to perpetuate stereotypessuch as nurses being female and doctors being male…” [2], many of these biases are included inhuman writing which is then reflected by the program however the identifiable source of thesebiases are lost when in this form making it harder to identify. While many of the other problemscan be solved through increasing the data set of the AI model, this problem will have to becarefully considered by the AI companies if it can be solved at all.False Information‘Hallucination’ or falsely presenting information can be an issue. While the software excels at thegeneration of documents it is prone to falsely presenting
, and understand spatial relationships in a directand immediate manner [8]. However, with the emergence of CAD tools, there has been a paradigmshift in how these skills are taught and developed. CAD offers precision and efficiency but oftenat the expense of the instinctive comprehension associated with freehand sketching [9].Studies by Merzdorf et al. [10] and Contero et al. [11] have underscored the importance ofsketching instruction in augmenting spatial skills, thereby improving students’ overall designprocess in engineering education. This underlines the critical role of spatial visualization in sketchcreation, indicating that experts in the field prioritize the shape quality metrics over line quality insketches. This reflects the evolving
together about a common question[4]. This relational interview process is fundamental to ethnographic interviewing [5].Similarly, participant observation allows researchers to relationally discover, in-situ, how clientsunderstand and articulate problems. Neither insider nor outsider, the role of the participant-observer is to gain understanding through immersion, often reflected in ethnographic fieldnotes[6]. Thus, observation is another important skill to be developed.In terms of pedagogical design, the team decided to use a flipped classroom strategy. Over thepast decade, flipped classrooms have become increasingly popular in engineering [7, 8]. In arecent meta-analysis in engineering education in K-12 and higher education contexts, the
Validate functions Troubleshoot1, 3, 5, 6 Analyze solutions Implement Revise/Iterate ●Iterate toward most viable Evaluate hi-fi prototype ●Evaluate quality of design 2, 4, 7 Analyze solutions Reflect on solution with team Assess policy and Process members regulatory issues ●Evaluate user experience Evaluate After developing the framework, we sought
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
classroom, moving lower cognitive loading activities outside of classto become a foundation for building in-class content. Prelab materials are generally sourced fromalready-existing content and thus do not need to be created by student-teachers; they maycomprise readings, online videos & tutorials, or configuration prompts such as softwaredownload and setup. Evidence of learning is checked via a low-point value quiz with no timelimit to ensure everyone comes to class prepared. The teaching team utilizes varying questiontypes with questions phrased to emphasize key learning goals for the week and prompt personalmeaning-making and reflection. These quizzes are instrumental to the learning process; theycheck that learners did the reading and
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
disrespected and the issuewas never addressed following the incident.Student D reflects on the constraints of decision-making within certain limitations andacknowledges the importance of working with diverse perspectives. Despite differing decisions,she said her team recognized the value of collective decision-making for the overall success of theproject.Contrary to the other students’ approach, Student E describes a time when there was conflictregarding her team members being unable to attend their project competition due to limited funds.The conflict was resolved through management’s decision to require members to fund their travelexpenses if they wanted to attend, which demonstrated a hierarchical resolution approach. Shesaid: “The way it was
,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
ofexperimental design.Watson et al. [24] developed a rubric in a Civil Engineering senior design course to improvestudent’s sustainable design skills. This rubric includes 14 criteria to evaluate student’sperformance in their capstone reports in four areas including environmental, social, design tool,and economic. In this study, students reflected on their design skills and rated their projects basedon a rubric and discussed the results with other students. This formative rubric assessment assistedstudents in a better understanding of sustainable design. 4. Needs for a college level design assessmentBased on both literature review sections, the authors did not find any universal and comprehensivedesign knowledge assessment tool that can be used
disciplinescommonplace. These systems are further broken down into specialized subgroups to divide tasksequally and ensure tasks are completed by those most qualified for them, such as materialsselection. Due to the structure of engineering design teams, it is important to maintain propercommunication between the various groups, as alterations in one group’s designs could affect othergroups’ designs.To better prepare students and meet industry needs, new innovative teaching approaches have beendeveloped, such as Project-Based Learning (PjBL). This method of teaching seeks to encouragestudents to learn during a project (Uziak, 2016). The closer a project reflects reality, the more astudent will learn by utilizing the theoretical knowledge gathered through their
which reflects long-term thinking, they could earn 3 pts. Table 2 shows thedesign evaluation rubric. The design work of each group was assessed by both the instructor andtheir peers following the same sustainable design rubric shown in Table 2. Peer evaluation is aneffective collaborative learning strategy [19]. Related to self-assessment, peer evaluationencourages students to critically examine peers’ work and reflect on the meaning of quality workin general, primarily when consulting a detailed rubric as a guide. Students themselves providefeedback to one another, while the instructor focuses on more targeted guidance toward alearning outcome. Through peer evaluation, students ultimately learn to better self-assessthemselves, which pays
. “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
signalindicating their likelihood to graduate [3][4]. Full time enrollment, grade point average, and timeto completion are also indicative of successful student support programs. But contemporaryscholars point out that these outcomes are situated within the viewpoint of how the studentsimpact the institution, and less concerned with how students are intrinsically impacted by theireducation. Outcomes such as civic engagement, leadership, critical consciousness, andbelongingness have been dubbed liberatory outcomes, a name reflective of the liberation thateducation is meant to provide [5][6].At the outset of this study, we hypothesized that a comprehensive student support programwould embody academic outcomes and support students’ access to and
the utility company, theengineering design team, and the installation contractors, directly affected landowners,community members either in support or opposed to the project, and other community leaders.Impacted parties with similar interests worked together to establish different arguments in favoror against the proposed project. During the final exam period, we held a mock town hall meeting.Afterward, the students reflected on why they voted as they did and how the arguments that werepresented during the hearing influenced their decision (Appendix D). This final assignment wasdesigned to help students imagine themselves as engaged citizens as they prepare to graduate andbecome working professionals in the community.ResultsInitial results
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
]. Ultimately, designthinking exercises thinking skills and overall literacy, both during and after achieving learningoutcomes [12].5. CONCLUSIONSThis study first aims to classify engineering design thinking in curriculum design, analyse thecharacteristics and connotations of different introduction approaches, and establish a basicframework and methodology for the study of design thinking in the field of higher engineeringeducation. Finally, the study concludes with a detailed analysis of keywords and key coursetypes in design thinking in higher engineering education, laying the foundation for futureresearch. The backbone of existing research is reflected in the case studies, individualisedcurriculum design, the connotative purpose of the curriculum
,sequential, mixed methods approach (N = 163) was used to assess the importance of industrymentor and teammate support using quantitative data analysis techniques followed by thematic(qualitative) analysis to explain those results.Likert-type items were analyzed using exploratory factor analyses and resulted in six constructs.Two constructs reflected student perceptions of their learning: engineering design and decision-making skills and adaptability skills. Two forms of support emerged from the factor analysis:industry mentor support and teammate support, and two control variables also emerged: designself-efficacy and preparedness. Support and control variables were then used as dependentvariables in regression models for the two learning outcomes
Design, Design Thinking, and Systems Thinking; and "Computer-AidedEngineering", an elective course for juniors and seniors.In general, it is not unexpected that both design frameworks have a comparable approach andpossess features typically present in all design processes. Some of these similarities are:● Both are iterative, adaptive, and collaborative processes that help solve ill-defined and open-ended problems that are not amenable to being routinized or solved algorithmically (aka “puzzles”). The iterative and nonlinear nature of both design methodologies is reflected in the existent feedback loops. This iterative nature can also be viewed as coevolution of the problem space with the solution space. That is, as designers search for
prior work done in measuring spatialvisualization skills, our work involves contributions concerning international engineeringeducation.We are embarking on this project to develop a test from scratch rather than using existingassessment tools. Before making our own, we want to learn from previous projects what doesand does not work in existing assessment tools with a critical lens. Often, the tests currently usedin literature and the subsequent course or curriculum appear to result in score gains of studentsafter the intervention [3]. We are questioning whether this could be a result of the test notaccurately capturing the spatial visualization skills initially, whether this reflects ceiling/flooreffect in statistical data analyses, or if gains