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
University. She earned her B.S. in Software Engineering from Makerere University and her M.S. in Information Technology, with a focus on Software Engineering & Data Science, from Carnegie Mellon University. Her research focuses on reflective practices and outcomes in scaffolded computational modeling and simulation engineering projects, alongside the integration of data and ethical reasoning in engineering, and computing education within the African context. ©American Society for Engineering Education, 2024 Developing the Design Reasoning in Data Life-cycle Ethical Management FrameworkAbstractHuman-designed systems are increasingly leveraged by data-driven methods and
experience. These are situations in which the designer(s) are most likely not to reflect anunderstanding or shared identity of end users’ needs and conditions. While the field ofengineering is diversifying, in the United States, nearly three-quarters of engineering positionsare still held by men, two-thirds of whom identify as white [12]. Until there is greaterrepresentation in the sciences and engineering fields, new pedagogical approaches are required toensure that engineering designs are inclusive and appropriate for the sociocultural contexts intowhich they are implemented.Many institutions develop DEI education as a separate, focused course to assist engineers inunderstanding place-based context. Social science courses may go some way in
to reorder nature. This reordering of theworld is consequential, driven by imperfect human ambitions and choices subject to subjectiveaesthetic, ethical, and moral scrutiny of their impacts. It is of infinite variability based on culture,discipline, resources, environment, reasoning, imagination, and reflection, but rooted in humanniche for rapid adaptability. Human design began with a cognitive ability tied to visual neuralpathways and ability to think visually—visual thinking and the hand to abstract and manipulatematter for practical applications [26]. This functionality came through the power of observation,curiosity, imagination, abstraction, and goal-directed deliberation. It also came withunderstanding form and aesthetics and
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
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
conclusions or recommendations expressedin this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation orother funding sources.clinician with expert knowledge. But, what is the benefit received by the need-knower for sharingtheir expertise? While some students may produce a usable artifact and deliver it to theneed-knower, others may not. In some assistive device design classes, there may be noinstructional requirement for producing a working artifact delivered to the need-knower at the endof term at all – we call this an education-first approach. While some need-knowers may be awareof this potential outcome, others may be disappointed by the lack of follow-through.Unfortunately, in talking with
brainstorm and research extensively, allowing for a freeflow of creative ideas without immediate constraints. The Explain phase then guides students tosynthesize and articulate their findings, akin to defining a clear problem statement in design thinking. Theprocess continues with the Elaborate phase, where students develop tangible solutions or prototypes,reflecting the prototyping stage in design thinking. This hands-on approach encourages the practicalapplication of their ideas, emphasizing testing and refinement. Finally, the Evaluate phase mirrors thetesting phase in design thinking, where students assess the effectiveness of their solutions and gatherfeedback. This not only allows for reflection but also encourages iterative improvement, a
the center since its launch and our progress after twoyears of operation with the help of tutors. We also present the formation of a tutor network,which is designed to be diverse in terms of academic background and culture. An evaluation ofthe impact of our approach on makerspace diversity, inclusion, and equity is presented throughthe analysis of statistics and reflections from the tutors involved in the initiative. The studyshows that our proposed tutor network can effectively serve as a role model for fosteringdiversity, equity, and inclusion in academic makerspaces for undergraduate students.BackgroundThe University of Hong Kong's Faculty of Engineering has established the Tam Wing FanInnovation Wing [1], also known as the HKU Inno Wing
].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
ofbreakthrough innovation. This paper delves into the course’s framework, which draws inspirationfrom the vast reservoir of innovation literature and two decades of the instructor’s industryexperience applying and improving innovation business processes with her teams in a fast-paced,high-tech industry. The core hypothesis of this paper is that innovation is fundamentally a learningprocess, that personal innovativeness can be cultivated and elevated through the teaching ofestablished principles derived from the realm of learning science. These principles encompass theelevation of metacognition, the deliberate integration of intentionality into the learning process,and the embedding of reflective practices into the students' educational journeys
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
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
. 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
, 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
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
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
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
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
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
refining during the later stages oftheir design processes. Meanwhile, professional participants often reflected on ways theynarrowed down their target context and target users and acknowledged settings in which theirsolutions should not be implemented. For example, one participant described: “There's such a vast diversity of context that patients receive care…it is an extremely complex and varying group…I mean there are lots of cases where [this product] either can't or shouldn't be used.”- Professional participant C4.2.2 Characterization of LMIC contexts Experienced designers acknowledged more nuance and differences across differentLMICs and within them than students. In general, student participants used terms like “low-resource
of correct behaviors, identification of weaknesses,adaptation of strategies, and reflection on their learning process. The AI model dynamicallyrecommended personalized learning pathways based on students' progress. This multifacetedfeedback approach contributed to a more effective and engaging learning environment,ultimately leading to improved understanding and mastery of swarm intelligence concepts andalgorithms. Williamson et al. [5] revealed how Internet of Things (IoT) technology can replicatebrain functions within physical settings, enabling the sensing and comprehension of humancognitive behaviors. They also showed how this innovation enhances human cognition andperformance.AI-driven Gamification: AI-driven gamification in education
research [44].3. METHODOLOGYThe methodology employed in this study consisted of a review process of the coursesyllabi, encompassing a detailed examination of individual modules and coursesegments. The primary aim was to identify the presence of design thinking embeddedwithin the curriculum. The initial phase of the review process involved a preliminaryexamination of the course content, facilitating the early identification of elementsrelevant to design thinking. In the coding phase, the accumulated data were classifiedaccording to predetermined criteria that reflected the implementation aspects ofdesign thinking within the educational offerings.The methodology adhered to a three-pronged search principle, focusing on:Design Thinking as Process
• Is your assignment prompt visually organized and accessible? • How can you scaffold this assignment with smaller “stepping stones” assignments? • Can you analyze examples in class to distinguish between excellent and adequate work? Additional • How will you encourage creativity so that examples are not seen as templates? Considerations • Will students have the opportunity to engage in peer review before final submission? • How will students reflect and comment on their completed, graded work after evaluation to identify what they did well and changes to
societalimpact and to align with ABET standards, the Webb Communication Program at the WoodruffSchool has established a guiding framework that defines our understanding of what effectivecommunication is. Specifically, this framework names appropriateness and responsiveness as thefoundation of effective communication. These are defined in the following ways: 1. Appropriateness: The quality of a prepared message that reflects its suitability in addressing the specific context, audience, and purpose, resulting in a communication that is ideally curated and positioned for maximum effectiveness. 2. Responsiveness: The quality of being adaptable and receptive to the evolving dynamics of a communication context, enabling timely and