June 24, 2017
June 24, 2017
June 28, 2017
Engineering Design Graphics
Intervention through process-oriented instructions induces metacognitive processing to focus attention on monitoring and evaluating students’ problem-solving efforts . There is a lack of knowledge of instructional intervention strategies to help students be more creative. In this paper we discuss implementation and assessment of UnTiED (Unconventional Thinking in Engineering Design) ideation methods and design heuristics cards to refer to a set of concept generation intervention strategies that support an iterative loop of divergent (creative) and convergent (critical) thinking within the context of a project-based learning environment in a freshman engineering graphics course. The four elements of UnTiED ideation, namely (i) random connections with unusual combinations between unrelated concepts, (ii) absurdity (pattern breaking thinking), (iii) tinkering with many nonjudgmental and open ended ideas, (iv) questioning the status quo and challenging assumptions with reverse thinking are initially introduced for ideation with divergent thinking. Students are encouraged to use design heuristics cards for ideation with convergent thinking. These process-oriented creative interventions are intended to help students’ creative processes during engineering conceptual design. To assess the above mentioned intervention strategies in terms of their impacts on engineering design, four design problems were selected from the literature  and the students were given 50 minutes to generate as many solutions as possible using an unguided method; they could not use any outside tools. The solutions were then scored according to metrics originally designed by Shah and further developed by Linsey . The students were also given a survey at the beginning and end of class that included an engineering design self-efficacy assessment previously designed .
This paper will present results on (1) Quantity, quality, novelty, variety, and completeness of generated ideas for the two design problems (2) comparison of Self-Efficacy Motivation Scores, Self-Efficacy Confidence Scores, Self-Efficacy Success Scores and Self-Efficacy Anxiety Scores between the Control and Experiment Groups and (3) Results from a survey on student perceptions of ideation methods and data on Students’ course survey comments and design descriptions analysed using open-coding approach.
The control group includes students without any intervention on concept generation methods and the experimental group includes students with intervention instruction on concept generation methods (Spring 2016). In ongoing (Fall 2016) experiments the experimental group includes two categories. In category 1, students are explicitly instructed to use the concept generation methods with instructions and design heuristics cards and in category 2, students are asked to work on design problems without explicit instructions on the use of concept generation methods.
Spring 2016 results indicate that there may not be a significant difference between the experimental and control groups in reference to their scores in the ideation metrics. Analysis is ongoing and will be completed before the draft. Results from a survey on student perceptions of ideation methods indicate somewhat mixed results. Students’ course survey comments and design descriptions were analysed using open-coding approach.
References:  Berardi-Coletta, B., Buyer, L.S., Dominowski, R.L., & Rellinger, E.R. (1995). Metacognition and problem solving: A process-oriented approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. 21, 205-223.  Durand, Fabien, et al. "In Search of Wood, and C. Schunn, A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty Effective Design Problems for Design Research." ASME 2015 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 2015.  Linsey, J.S., I. Tseng, K. Fu, J. Cagan, K.L.. Journal of Mechanical Design, 2010. 132(4): p. 041003-041003.  Carberry, Adam R., Hee-Sun Lee, and Matthew W. Ohland. "Measuring engineering design self-efficacy." Journal of Engineering Education 99.1 (2010): 71.
ASEE holds the copyright on this document. It may be read by the public free of charge. Authors may archive their work on personal websites or in institutional repositories with the following citation: © 2017 American Society for Engineering Education. Other scholars may excerpt or quote from these materials with the same citation. When excerpting or quoting from Conference Proceedings, authors should, in addition to noting the ASEE copyright, list all the original authors and their institutions and name the host city of the conference. - Last updated April 1, 2015