Zemke, S. C. (2012, June), Student Learning in Multiple Prototype Cycles  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. 10.18260/1-2--21942

\bibitem{asee_peer_21942}
  Zemke, S. C. (2012, June), \emph{Student Learning in Multiple Prototype Cycles}
  Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas.
  10.18260/1-2--21942

Steven C. Zemke.  "Student Learning in Multiple Prototype Cycles".  2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2012.  https://peer.asee.org/21942 Internet.  07 Oct, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_21942}
  Steven C. Zemke.
  "Student Learning in Multiple Prototype Cycles".
  \emph{2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, San Antonio, Texas, 2012, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2012.
  https://peer.asee.org/21942 Internet.  07 Oct, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_21942
author = "Steven C. Zemke"
title = "Student Learning in Multiple Prototype Cycles"
booktitle = "2012 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2012"
month = "June"
address = "San Antonio, Texas"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/21942}
number = {10.18260/1-2--21942}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                    Student Learning in Multiple Prototype CyclesThere are striking differences between how new products are developed in industry and howengineering students are taught design in college. In industry new products are usuallydeveloped in multiple prototype phases. Each proto phase is composed of three sequentialstages: design, fabrication, and prototype testing. The testing of the first prototype usuallyuncovers shortcomings in the design. These shortcomings represent “learning from theprototype” and this learning drives the redesign during the subsequent proto phase. The processis shown in the figure below.            Proto 1 Phase                                    Proto 2 Phase   Design       Fabricate       Test             Re-design        Fabricate    Test                                                                      e                        Period of learning from the prototypeIn contrast, design in school is usually taught with a single prototype phase. In this model, thefirst prototype is assembled and tested as the academic term ends. This has the potential ofmotivating the students to simply get the prototype working, rather than learn from the prototypewith the goal of redesigning the product. This course structure is diagrammed below.                                                   Learning from the prototype is            “Single Chance” Proto Phase                cut short or redirected       Design       Fabricate          Test/Modify Proto             NO Redesign                                        until it “works”                                                      SEMESTER ENDSThe intent of this study was to characterize how a multiple prototype structure affects studentlearning.This study was conducted in a Mechanical Engineering design class that teaches the designprocess. Three separate design projects, each utilizing a proto1/proto2 structure, were completedduring the semester. During this course the students were required to write reflective learningjournals about what they had learned. These journals constituted 236 entries, totalingapproximately 25,000 words, where roughly two-thirds of the entries related to design. Thisvolume of data was coded to identify:   1. What the students had learned about their products and about the process of design.   2. When during the design cycle the learning had happened.   3. What pressures and/or motivators the design cycle had created.The data supported two findings (these are preliminary and will be refined as the data is codedanother time). First, many of the difficulties that students encountered in the first prototypedesign continued through the second prototype as well. For example, fixation on a particulardesign idea can persist through testing of the first prototype into the redesign of the secondprototype. Second, the students developed a growing awareness that oversights made during thedesign stage dominate the performance of the prototype. This was true even of secondprototypes redesigned based on testing of the first prototype.
AU  - Steven C. Zemke
CY  - San Antonio, Texas
DA  - 2012/06/10
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Student Learning in Multiple Prototype Cycles
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/21942
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--21942
ER  -