June 15, 2019
June 15, 2019
June 19, 2019
Design in Engineering Education
Senior design or capstone students are often faced with a large open-ended project with no clear “best” solution. Keeping students motivated to complete the project is an ongoing challenge. Self-determination theory states that intrinsic motivation has three innate needs that are linked to competence, relatedness, and autonomy (or choice). Our goal is to see how choice or perceived choice affects the outcome of students in capstone. Giving students choice in the classroom promotes intrinsic motivation and is considered a good practice in teaching (Lepper and Hodell, Hofer). We want to see if that practice extends into the capstone classroom where students often have more choice compared to a traditional classroom.
At a small southwestern university, the senior design course is a two-semester sequence which is co-taught by an engineering professor and a technical communication professor across the aerospace and mechanical engineering departments. To measure whether choice affects student motivation, students enrolled in the first-semester class were given a survey on perceived choice in their capstone class along with other questions on demographics, self-esteem, conscientiousness, student-instructor rapport, engineering identity, and group dynamics. The survey was given to students in six sections of mechanical and aerospace engineering. The surveyed mechanical engineering classes included capstone classes focused on robotics, energy, and propulsion while the aerospace engineering courses focused on aeronautics and astronautics. A total of six sections were surveyed each with a different engineering professor and three different technical communication professors.
In addition to the survey, the syllabus for each engineering instructor was collected to determine what choices students were explicitly given, as a matter of course policy, in each class. The survey results were then compared between sections to see how different amounts of choice changed the motivation of students. Furthermore, the results were considered across sections to see if performance changed based on other constructs such as group dynamics and engineering identity.
Lepper, M. R., and Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames and R. Ames (eds.), Research on Motivation in Education (Vol. 3, pp. 73-105). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hofer, B. (2014). Motivation in the College Classroom. In M.D. Svinicki and W. J. McKeachie (eds.), McKeachie’s Teaching Tips (14th ed., pp. 139 –149). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Martin, K. M., & Mangum, R. T., & Battaglia, D. M. (2019, June), Giving Students Choice in their Capstone Experience Paper presented at 2019 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Tampa, Florida. 10.18260/1-2--32874
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: © 2019 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