Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning
Crystal Chen2005, Journal of Engineering …
Sign up for access to the world's latest research
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Abstract
This paper is based on the premises that the purpose of engineering education is to graduate engineers who can design, and that design thinking is complex. The paper begins by briefly reviewing the history and role of design in the engineering curriculum. Several dimensions of design thinking are then detailed, explaining why design is hard to learn and harder still to teach, and outlining the research available on how well design thinking skills are learned. The currently most-favored pedagogical model for teaching design, project-based learning (PBL), is explored next, along with available assessment data on its success. Two contexts for PBL are emphasized: first-year cornerstone courses and globally dispersed PBL courses. Finally, the paper lists some of the open research questions that must be answered to identify the best pedagogical practices of improving design learning, after which it closes by making recommendations for research aimed at enhancing design learning. The capstone course is a U.S. term for design courses typically taken in the senior year. The term cornestone is a recent U.S. coinage for design or project courses taken early (e.g., first year) in the engineering curriculum. It was intended to draw a distinction from and preserve the mataphor of the capstone course. G handle uncertainty; G make decisions; G think as part of a team in a social process; and G think and communicate in the several languages of design.
Related papers
Ac 2011-2576: Problem Definition in Design by First Year Engineering Students
2011
Engineering design involves insightful identification of factors influencing a system and systematic unpacking of specifications/requirements from goals. However, many engineering students are slow to articulate the major problems to be solved and the sub problems associated with achieving the main design goals and constraints. Prior research in design describes students" premature termination of solution finding to select a single idea. Then all other design decisions are constrained by this initial decision [1]. In this paper, we report how first-year engineering (FYE) students attempted to translate given design goals into sub-problems to be solved or questions to be researched. We found that, instead of decomposing the problem through further analysis and sense making, many FYE students tended to "restate" the goal, identify one major function, and then use hands on building as the central creative process. Further, students claimed they used a systematic design process, but observations of their problem solving process and teaming skills indicated a different behavior. Further investigation indicated that many FYE students could identify the superficial features from the problem statement, but they were not able to identify the implicit logical steps or deep structure of the problem. Our current data provided the baseline of how FYE students abstract and interpret information from a design goal to generate a specific problem statement. We are interested in treatments to improve students" ability to recognize critical features of a given context and encourage taking multiple perspectives to identify alternative solutions. We are combining the use of graphical representational tools as organizational tools to support teams collaboration and we encourage opportunities to reflect and refine their design process. This research is relevant to engineering instructors/researchers who want to develop students" ability to deal with complex design challenges and efficiently decompose, analyze and translate the problem statements into meaningful functional specifications, stakeholder requirements and a plan of action.
Problem Definition in Design by First-Year Engineering Students
2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings
Engineering design involves insightful identification of factors influencing a system and systematic unpacking of specifications/requirements from goals. However, many engineering students are slow to articulate the major problems to be solved and the sub problems associated with achieving the main design goals and constraints. Prior research in design describes students" premature termination of solution finding to select a single idea. Then all other design decisions are constrained by this initial decision [1]. In this paper, we report how first-year engineering (FYE) students attempted to translate given design goals into sub-problems to be solved or questions to be researched. We found that, instead of decomposing the problem through further analysis and sense making, many FYE students tended to "restate" the goal, identify one major function, and then use hands on building as the central creative process. Further, students claimed they used a systematic design process, but observations of their problem solving process and teaming skills indicated a different behavior. Further investigation indicated that many FYE students could identify the superficial features from the problem statement, but they were not able to identify the implicit logical steps or deep structure of the problem. Our current data provided the baseline of how FYE students abstract and interpret information from a design goal to generate a specific problem statement. We are interested in treatments to improve students" ability to recognize critical features of a given context and encourage taking multiple perspectives to identify alternative solutions. We are combining the use of graphical representational tools as organizational tools to support teams collaboration and we encourage opportunities to reflect and refine their design process. This research is relevant to engineering instructors/researchers who want to develop students" ability to deal with complex design challenges and efficiently decompose, analyze and translate the problem statements into meaningful functional specifications, stakeholder requirements and a plan of action.
Design-Based Learning in Engineering Education
Design-based Concept Learning in Science and Technology Education. BRILL-SENSE Publications., 2021
Design-Based Learning (DBL) is an educational approach applied in higher engineering education in order to gain knowledge while engaging students in open-ended, hands-on and authentic engineering problem-solving tasks. Grounded in the theoretical underpinnings of active learning methods such as problem-based learning, inquiry and discovery learning, DBL involves students in critical thinking: the learning of concepts and understanding of ideas by analyzing multiple routes in order to apply knowledge while creating engineering solutions. The engineering design process encourages students to explore and experiment and to analyze, abstract and synthesize data so that the meaning of concepts can be constructed, and new insights can be applied iteratively to generate new knowledge. Design-Based Learning has been applied in four bachelor’s projects of the Departments of Mechanical Engineering and Electrical Engineering and the effects on students’ performances in problem-solving have been investigated. The results have indicated that DBL features such as project characteristics, design elements and coaching are crucial when it comes to supporting students in gaining and applying knowledge in the design of artifacts and engineering solutions.
Define “Engineering Design”: Understanding how freshman students develop their understanding of engineering, design, and engineering design
2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings
Freshman engineering students often begin their studies with limited, imprecise, and minimally informed conceptions of "engineering design." A deep understanding of this term, however, is vital to an informed awareness of what engineering practice might involve and what engineers see themselves as doing. Textbooks can provide authoritative definition for the student, but these formalisms are (1) challenging for freshman students with limited engineering experience to engage with and (2) fail to capture the complexity of engineering design practices, especially in different disciplines and cultures. In this paper, we examine the efficacy of an activity, developed for a freshman engineering design course that is intended to deepen and enrich students' understanding of these terms by asking them to categorize various artifacts as works of engineering design. Starting with a simple binary question-yes or no-they move to a planar assessment-and finally to a comparative exercise as complications are introduced into the artifact set. Analyzing their pre and post-activity definitions and student reflections on the activity allows us to explore the impact of the exercise on the students' understanding of and engagement with the concept of "engineering design."
Critical Thinking, Design Practices, and Assessment in a Fundamentals of Engineering Course
2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition Proceedings
This Complete Evidence-based Practice paper will describe a longitudinal study of 6 years of enhanced attainment of course and programmatic outcomes in a Fundamentals of Engineering course. A process of continuous improvement of active learning techniques to achieve each course goal and demonstrate each outcome has resulted in more effective development of firstyear engineering students. One of the signature assignments in the course, the short midterm research paper and presentation, demonstrates effective incorporation of elements from The Critical Thinking Initiative. It is a framework to teach a mentality of critical thinking, guide development of a researched writing piece, and as a rubric instrument to assess student critical thinking through writing. Student oral communication is another key outcome. A subjective rubric has been replaced with a transparent, straightforward, binary check sheet rubric. Another signature assignment in the course is a team-based design challenge. Evaluation of student performance was difficult and subjective. Through continuous improvement built on student feedback we developed a transparent method of evaluating the design challenge. We demonstrate the effectiveness of a simple check-sheet style rubric for evaluation of demonstrated design thinking and project management skills in the team-based design challenge. Results of this 6-year study show steady achievement of the course outcomes, with progress toward achieving all course goals.
An Engineering Design Course to Develop and Assess Critical Thinking and Problem Solving
Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)
A challenging new engineering design course is developed as part of the Engineering Design and Practice Sequence in the Civil Engineering program. This course engages students in a cyclical design process where they plan, build, test, and evaluate a model-scale tidal current turbine. They then use their own observations and analysis to iteratively inform, improve and re-test their design.The two objectives of this paper are to provide a description of the development and structure of this design course, and to assess student learning. The Final Design Reports were externally evaluated using the Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education rubrics. Students also completed a standardized test called the Collegiate Learning Assessment as an objective evaluation of longitudinal learning gains. The Civil Engineering students demonstrated significant improvement in critical thinking, problem solving, and written communication skills.
The Design Processes of Engineering Educators: Thick Descriptions and Potential Implications
Expertise in Design: …, 2003
Engineering student design processes: Looking at evaluation practices across problems
The act of evaluating solutions is a common engineering design activity. Over the past eight years we have used verbal protocol analysis to gain insight into engineering students' design processes. This study includes protocols from 32 freshmen and 61 seniors who solved 2 design problems that differed in complexity. In this dataset, 18 of the subjects solved the same problems as both freshmen and seniors. This dataset has allowed us to characterize differences between freshmen and seniors on a global scale as well as an individual scale. Additionally, the inclusion of two problems that vary in complexity allows us to analyze differences in performance and behaviors across problems. One of the important findings that has emerged from an across problem comparison is differences in the amount of time that students spent evaluating their solutions. In particular, (i) students spent more time evaluating their solutions and (ii) a greater number of students evaluated their solutions when solving a more "complex" problem as compared to a less "complex" one. In this paper, we present these results and discuss reasons for these differences. These include differences in the complexity of the two problems and the kinds of processes students employed while designing their solutions. We will also discuss the relationships between time spent evaluating and the number of constraints considered (constraints either given or introduced by the student). We conclude this paper with a summary of implications for engineering education.
Engineering design, complexity in its teaching
Dyna-colombia, 2022
The trend toward increasing the design component in engineering curricula is part of an effort to better prepare graduates for engineering practice. The objective of the article is to review and contrast some methodological strategies of engineering design teaching at the university level to analyze the psychological theories in teaching practice and the temporal location of these courses within 5 years of the program. The results of the bibliographic review made allowed us to infer psychological postures, preferably cognitive and constructivist, and the location of design courses in the first semesters of engineering curricula. However, engineering design courses are recommended throughout the degree (taking as a reference some results of the Saber PRO tests) in which students participate in applied projects, and get closer to the industry, as more favorable strategies for the adaptation of future engineers to the particular demands of the national productive sector.
Moving beyond formulas and fixations: Exploring approaches to solving open-ended engineering problems
His research activities are in the areas of active learning, problem solving, critical thinking, and use of qualitative methodologies in engineering education. Specifically, he has published and presented work on the use of guided inquiry as an active learning technique for engineering; how critical thinking is used in practice by students; and how different epistemological stances are enacted in engineering education research. He has been involved in faculty development activities
Related papers
A Reflection on the Process of Selecting, Developing, and Launching a New Design Project in a Large-scale Introduction to Engineering Design Course
2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition Proceedings, 2015
Physics and Keystone Instructor in the A. J. Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland. Broadly speaking he is interested in modeling learning and reasoning processes. In particular, he is attracted to fine-grained analysis of video data both from a rnicrogenetic learning analysis methodology (drawing on knowledge in pieces) as well as interaction analysis methodology. He has been working on how learners' emotions are coupled with their conceptual and epistemological reasoning. He is also interested in developing models of the dynamics of categorizations (ontological) underlying students' reasoning in physics. Lately, he has been interested in engineering design thlnking, how engineering students come to understand and practice design.
Inquiry-Based Learning in Design
Inquiry-Based Learning – Undergraduate Research
is a professor of physical interaction design in the degree program in interface design. 22.1 Scientific Research in Design Mieg: What role does scientific research play in design? Heidmann: There is art and there is art studies; there is media and there is media studies; thus there is design and design studies, too. Design studies is basic research that deals with the history, theory and perception of design. The concept of research about design was established based on the work of Christopher Frayling (1994). This must be distinguished from research for design, the results of which include new design methods and processes, for example, as well as the knowledge transfer of other disciplines (e.g. cognitive sciences, information technology, material sciences) for design. The third and most difficult-to-grasp category, research through design, expresses that an artifact itself is the embodiment/materialization of research and generates new knowledge. In this way, the "state of the research" is not just conveyed verbally, but graphically as well. Design may thus become a third class of research. It is a "science of applied, everyday problem-solving." This opportunistically utilizes the method sets of other disciplines, for example of ethnology. Godau: In the case of a new discipline, it is an inevitable development that, initially, methodological use be made of other disciplines. In design, we do not have a unified "textbook" that sets forth design methods that can be used in a precise manner. At best, the educational model at the Ulm School of Design (HfG Ulm), which conceives of design as a social and not as a formal task, could be considered to some extent as such. According to the philosophy of the HfG Ulm, products should be developed based on their purpose. HfG Ulm was founded back in 1953 and dissolved 15 years later; since that time, a lot has changed in the field of design. Langer: Naturally many methods have been adapted and introduced from other disciplines, the reason for which is that designers are interested in bigger problems and want to "save the world." Nevertheless, design also has its own research methods-these are simply not summarized in a single compendium. Designers have always worked with variant formation after changing the practical variables, for example. This is a typical design method that has not been "stolen." Frank Heidmann studied geography and is a professor of software interface design in the degree program in interface design.
Design Thinking as a catalyst for changing teaching and learning practices in engineering
Today's engineers' needs are evolving rapidly as the information and technologies that compete for their attentions. At the same time, our institutions and systems are stretched to their limits to keep up with the changing demands of the times. There is, especially, a need to sustain reflective integration of social and technical knowledge into the future generations of engineering, to make engineers more humane, in order for them to generate technological solutions that are more human-centric. Addressing such needs requires new approaches to teaching and designing engineering courses. Any advancement in the education sector from here forward requires a new thinking paradigm that can be applied in large-scale systematic reform of education: design thinking. This paper outlines means to use design thinking as the foundational methodology for transforming a traditional electrical and computer engineering department into an agile department where design thinking, systems thinking, professional skills and inclusion are promoted, and collaborative, inquiry-driven processes are stimulated to create and sustain new ways of thinking, interacting, teaching, learning and working.
Learning Engineering and Teaching Engineering: Comparing the Engineering Epistemologies of Two Novice Teachers with Distinct Pedagogies of Design
2016
is a graduate student at Tufts University. She is currently pursuing a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering with a research focus on engineering education. She received a M.S. from Tufts University in science, technology, engineering and math education and a B.S. from Northwestern University in mechanical engineering. Her current research involves examining different types of homework problems in mechanical engineering coursework and the design process of undergraduate students in project-based courses.
Conjectures, Cycles and Contexts: A Systematic Review of Design-based Research in Engineering Education
Studies in Engineering Education, 2021
Background: Design-based research frameworks have become more widely embraced by education researchers since 2003. Ann Brown (1992) first suggested design-based research as a means to move research about learning from the laboratory to the classroom setting. Design-based research does not imply particular methods, but rather is an epistemological approach to carrying out research projects focused on the design of an innovation. This shift in epistemological outcome shifts how researchers consider evidence gathering and analysis. So how are engineering education researchers using and reporting on design-based research? Purpose: The design of educational innovations should be situated in context and balance both theory and practice. In this paper, we summarize research in engineering education that has used a design-based research approach. We first describe design-based research from a theoretical and epistemological perspective and then present its use thus far in engineering education settings. Our goal is to suggest it as a useful model for undertaking engineering education research that advances knowledge about the design of learning environments. Scope: Our analysis is situated in significant features of design-based research (Kelly, 2004; Sandoval, 2014). Our review process began with systematically searching for articles and then coding them for the features of design-based research. We have coded a set of engineering education and design-based research articles to summarize the contexts, conjectures, and design cycles. Discussion/Conclusions: We found articles across K-12 and higher education settings. The articles focused on designing models and tools for engineering education including curriculum, tasks, and frameworks. First, design-based research in engineering education includes conjectures about engineering disciplinary practices, problem-based learning, and affective aspects of students' learning. Second, cycles of design inform improvement and theory development. Design-based research is still emerging in engineering education but has potential for building knowledge and developing resources grounded in practice.
1 Graduate Study of Design Pedagogy
2016
A graduate course in the pedagogy of engineering design has been developed, implemented, and refined over the past three years. This was done to address a three-fold need: undergraduate design courses can benefit from the involvement of teaching assistants who are well-prepared to contribute effectively to the day-to-day learning process, graduate students are seen to be capable of contributing significantly to design pedagogy, and these graduate students can also become much better prepared to take on leadership roles in the area of undergraduate teaching. It has long been assumed that the mere fact of exposure to many years of being taught provides sufficient preparation for graduate students to take on the teaching mantle. The shift away from conventional modes of teaching to inquiry-based learning, however, requires that teaching personnel take on quite different roles and use a distinctly different set of skills and tools than those with which they are familiar. Modeling the pe...
Towards characterising design-based learning in engineering education : a review of the literature
Towards characterising design-based learning in engineering education: a review of the literature, 2011
Design-based learning is a teaching approach akin to problem-based learning but one to which the design of artefacts, systems and solutions in project-based settings is central. Although design-based learning has been employed in the practice of higher engineering education, it has hardly been theorised at this educational level. The aim of this study is to characterise design-based learning from existing empirical research literature on engineering education. Drawing on a perspective that accounts for domain-specific, idiosyncratic and learner-centred aspects of design problems in the context of engineering education, 50 empirical studies on project-based and problem-based engineering education, to which the design of artefacts is central, were reviewed. Based on the findings, design-based learning is characterised with regard to domain-specificity, learner expertise and task authenticity. The implications of this study for the practice of engineering education are discussed.
Strategies for supporting student inquiry in design tasks
1998
Abstract Design projects are rich contexts where students may apply scientific inquiry to develop and test explanations for their design's performance. These contexts may serve as opportunities for students to develop skills that are traditionally difficult to master, such as generating experiments to test hypotheses and using evidence to support one's reasoning.
Developing engineering design expertise though reflection
2011
The three key elements of engineering design expertise - framing, systemic thinking and the conscious application of first principles - have been shown to be difficult to acquire by both students and practicing professionals. Because of this, it is of value to investigate how framing, systemic thinking and the application of first principles can be better developed in engineering students which will in turn develop better graduate design engineers. This paper reports on a project to do this in two mechanical engineering design subjects. Students were introduced to one or all of the three key elements of engineering design expertise, encouraged to apply them in a design project and practice questions throughout the semester of study. Finally, students were examined on their framing ability and their ability to apply first principles. It was found that only around 15% to 20% had a developed framing ability. Further, the ability to apply first principles appeared to be bimodal some stu...
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.