Hammond, M., & Martinez, J., & Ziff, E. (2022, August), Driving the conversation of social and educational influences in human-centered design biases among first-year engineering students  Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN. 10.18260/1-2--41572

\bibitem{asee_peer_41572}
  Hammond, M., \& Martinez, J., \& Ziff, E. (2022, August), \emph{Driving the conversation of social and educational influences in human-centered design biases among first-year engineering students}
  Paper presented at 2022 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Minneapolis, MN.
  10.18260/1-2--41572

Megan Hammond, Joan Martinez, and Elizabeth Ziff.  "Driving the conversation of social and educational influences in human-centered design biases among first-year engineering students".  2022 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, 2022, August.  ASEE Conferences, 2022.  https://peer.asee.org/41572 Internet.  28 Mar, 2025

\bibitem{asee_peer_41572}
  Megan Hammond, Joan Martinez, and Elizabeth Ziff.
  "Driving the conversation of social and educational influences in human-centered design biases among first-year engineering students".
  \emph{2022 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Minneapolis, MN, 2022, August}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2022.
  https://peer.asee.org/41572 Internet.  28 Mar, 2025

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_41572
author = "Megan Hammond, Joan Martinez, and Elizabeth Ziff"
title = "Driving the conversation of social and educational influences in human-centered design biases among first-year engineering students"
booktitle = "2022 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2022"
month = "August"
address = "Minneapolis, MN"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/41572}
number = {10.18260/1-2--41572}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - Abstract

This complete evidence-based practice paper focuses on how to introduce the concept of social, cultural, and educational biases in a first-year engineering course through the lens of human-centered design. Consideration of the user can be a challenging concept to capture and effectively communicate to engineering students, but engineers are critical in the design and experience of everyday life. Therefore, it is crucial for engineering students to be exposed to the social and cultural differences of the user. Engineering curriculum can produce heightened levels of social responsibility and concern about public welfare, but to effectively do so, social issues, diversity, and social responsibility need to be consistently and effectively presented within the engineering curriculum.

This work is motivated by the Engineering Accreditation Commission’s (EAC) desire to promote the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility and the understanding of engineering global, economic, environmental, and societal solutions. The insistence by the EAC that students be educated on the impact engineering and design have on the general public has led our research team to facilitate the first conversations of deconstructing assumptions around social and ethical dimensions of design, specifically, the interaction between the human, machine, and environment. 

In an effort to introduce diversity in design and to troubleshoot the concept of the universal user, we adapted the display compatibility questionnaire from Smith’s study of display-control stereotype designs, and presented the ambiguous design questions to first-year engineering students, non-engineering students, and non-engineering professionals. First-year engineering students completed the survey, after being introduced to principles of design methodologies and human factors, and then were required to provide the questionnaire to two other non-engineering students or professionals. The first-year engineering students collected the completed surveys of their non-engineering peers and responded to three open-ended questions related to commonalities and differences in understanding the ambiguous interfaces. 

In three cohorts’ reflections (99), nearly half attributed the variation of responses to differences in experiences and shared understandings. Other explanations for the observed variation in responses were disciplinary differences (23), difference of interpretation of instruction (30), and common sense (20). The series of ambiguous design questions facilitates the conversation for the unique insights of first-year engineering students to naturally identify the complexity and impact of the design process. While students demonstrate a base level understanding of diversity or difference in user approach, it is the responsibility of educators to extract how these recognized differences are the scaffolding to begin to design for inclusivity. 

The compatibility questionnaire within the human-centered design unit provides a strong pedagogical tool to have students analyze and critique survey design, cultural trends, diversity in users and populations, and the overarching concept of the universal user. The students were surprised by the differences they found, especially when they assumed similar characteristics would be found amongst peers. The assignment serves as an evidence-based practice to expose first-year engineering students to the challenges of designing for a universal user, creating an interactive unit to understand the variations of user interpretations in an active way. 

AU  - Megan Hammond
AU  - Joan Martinez
AU  - Elizabeth Ziff
CY  - Minneapolis, MN
DA  - 2022/08/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Driving the conversation of social and educational influences in human-centered design biases among first-year engineering students
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/41572
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--41572
ER  -