A pre-engineering high school course in engineering design

1 INTRODUCTION Design education usually employs project-based learning, in which students learn to research, plan, design and reflect on the creation of technological projects [1], [2]. Student experience issues may influence students' design process, as well as their perception of professional knowledge development. Studies have pointed out students are ill-informed about design education when entering university [3]. In the field of design, although there have been student surveys to analyze design thinking skills and for assessing design literacy. However, these studies are primarily assessment tools, and do not investigate students’ attitudes or experiences of their design courses. While several studies focus on measuring students’ cognitive knowledge, assessments of affective variables, such as attitude, are far fewer in number. The objective of this study was to investigate student experiences, specifically the issues and challenges faced by students in three foundational design courses – focusing on introductory design, architectural design and engineering design – at the . We investigate issues such as how do students experience various instruction modes such as lectures and studio; and their experience of working individually or as teams in the three foundational design courses. 2 METHOD We conducted a survey in three foundational design courses, in both online and paper format. The survey comprised quantitative and qualitative components. Respondents consisted of 248 students from the introductory design course, 48 students from the introductory architectural design course and 71 students from the engineering design course. Respondents rated their perceptions on 23 items in two types of questions: Likert, semantic differential. Additionally, they provided their input in two open-ended questions. 3 RESULTS A principal component analysis conducted on the data revealed five factors that primarily contributed to students’ perception of foundational design courses: (1) the fun aspects of design, (2) the stressful aspects of design, (3) Course Pressures, (4) Student temperament issues, (5) Teamwork experience. Performance pressures majorly affected student experience in all three courses. The architectural design course was seen to be the most enjoyable for students, as fun scores were higher than the stress scores, and low course pressures. The engineering design course was observed to be very stressful for students, with low scores for fun. 4 SIGNIFICANCE Student perception of foundational design courses is important because it can be used to drive forward changes in curriculum and pedagogy. While this study uses data from one university, the issues reported here are generic and relevant for instructors developing design courses across different parts of the world. Research in student experience and perspectives is crucial to develop design education and propel it into the future. REFERENCES [1] Y. Doppelt, “Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning,” International Journal of Technology and Design Education, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 55–65, 2009, [2] N. Lee, “Project methods as the vehicle for learning in undergraduate design education: a typology,” Design Studies, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 541–560, Sep. 2009, [3] A. B. Gencosmanoglu, “Learning, teaching and administration in design education: DESIGNtrain Project: Training tools for developing design education,” in Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2010.

This work reviews best practices in first-year engineering design courses at 40 universities across Canada and the United States. The authors reviewed the subject matter and instructional methods of these engineering design courses. University selection was based on prominence, level of engineering design content, and availability of data. The authors narrowed the scope of the study to seven Canadian programs and eight American programs for further investigation: University of British Columbia, University of Calgary, University of Manitoba, Queen’s University, University of Sherbrooke, University of Toronto, University of Western Ontario, University of Colorado, Franklin W. Olin Engineering College, Harvey Mudd College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Northwestern University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Stanford University, and Virginia Polytechnic Institute. The authors then identified six reoccurring themes in the methods of engineering design instruction: full-scale project, small-scale project, case study analysis, reverse engineering project, design tools and methods instruction, and integration. These themes are then discussed from the point of view of educators looking to develop first-year engineering design courses.

– Inconsistent transfer policies, lack of articulated syllabi, and subsequent differences on the delivery of comparable courses are a few examples of the obstacles that Ontario students face when trying to change programs. This study sought to develop a framework to support transfer between engineering and engineering technology programs in Ontario using explicit and implicit course outcomes to help develop and define new pathways. Primarily focusing on program expectations in introductory design courses this study compared the content and context of design projects in different institutions and programs across the province. The contextual framework, namely the “Outcome Comparison Framework for Engineering and Technology”, synthesized relevant elements from existing frameworks which can collectively identify the differences in the context of learning in engineering and technology disciplines. This framework looks into disciplinarity, use of tools and design thinking required to successfully finish a design project. We collected design projects from 5 technology programs and 4 engineering programs across the province and coded them based on the content targeted by the project description and the three dimensions of the framework. Content analysis for design courses showed an overall low percentage of alignment between the learning outcomes and the project descriptions across the board. It was found that engineering design courses were more focused on principles of engineering design (problem definition, stakeholder needs, idea generation, decision making) and development of professional characteristics (workplace communication skills, ethics, etc.); but technology design courses, focused on the use of more “hands-on”' skills (building/implementation, troubleshooting, etc.)

technology [4] to a course management system of ED education as it has become a major technology which supports multimedia content publishing and sharing over the Internet. The authors proposed a concept of a new Web 2.0 course management system of ED education as the first step to complete the proposed system. Kanazawa Institute of Technology is a pioneering university in Japan that began its Engineering Design education in 1996. Our Engineering Design courses are characterized by project-based learning in groups. The current web-based information systems for Engineering Design education at KIT are composed of the following independent systems: a course website, an e-Learning system, an oral-presentation review system, and a report-submitting system. The systems are causing unnecessary confusion to both instructors and students, because it is composed of a variety of independent software and their human interfaces are not unified. 2. Learning activities of Engineering Design education A total of 1,700 engineering students from all fourteen engineering divisions must take ED courses. Fifty ED classes are offered in each year. A class consisting of approximately 34 students is divided into seven teams. Each team consists of 4 to 5 students. In order to maintain a high level of quality in the course management, a learning manual for students as well as a course management manual for instructors have been published and revised every year. The students must conduct two hours of in-class instructed learning as well as four hours of outside-class learning activities in teams per week for ten weeks. In our ED education, the Engineering Design Process (EDP) is defined as the process by which the following activities (stages) are performed. The authors analyzed students' learning activities in Engineering Design courses and then designed a new Web 2.0 course management system of Engineering Education in order to help students' learning. The paper shows the first stages of our research efforts toward the completion of a new Web 2.0 course management system of Engineering Education.

The number of undergraduates entering computer science has declined in recent years. This is paralleled by a drop in the number of high school students taking the CS AP exam and the number of high schools offering computer science courses. The declines come at a time when career opportunities in CS continue to grow and computer science graduates are seen as crucial in building a globally competitive workforce for the 21st century. Efforts aimed at reversing the declining interest in computer science include curriculum revisions at the undergraduate level at many institutions, a re-design of computer science AP courses [1], and the inclusion of computational thinking into disciplines outside computer science [3].This panel discusses four projects of computer science researchers collaborating with high school teachers on integrating computing and computational thinking into their courses. The majority of the high school teachers involved is teaching science and math courses. They are teaching a diverse group of talented and college-bound students. The goal of all projects is to integrate computing into disciplines represented in the high school curriculum and to raise the awareness of computer science as an exciting and intellectually rewarding field.This panel will outline recent and on-going activities and interaction with high school teachers. Each panelist will describe how he/she got involved and the nature of the interaction. The panelists will talk about their individual projects, outline their visions for future interactions, and how their effort can be replicated by others. The session will briefly describe NSF's RET program which provided teacher support for three of the four projects. The session will then be opened for discussion; the audience will be encouraged to ask questions and contribute additional ideas for the inclusion of computational thinking in high school courses.

Assessment in capstone engineering design courses is vital to engineering education programs. The capstone design course is the climax of design education and often the context for much of the assessment done in engineering degree programs. Capstone design course instructors’ admittedly low confidence for assessing student performance in these courses poses a crucial obstacle to the assessment process. A key issue is a lack of clear outcomes definition for engineering design and sound, defensible assessments for these outcomes. This paper draws from findings in design literature and from engineering design education experience to construct a conceptual model of engineering design that guides development of associated design learning outcomes and assessment of student achievements in design. A conceptual model of design is vital to design education, because it is one of three essential cornerstones— model, observation, and interpretation— for constructing assessments. In the context of an engineering classroom, design performance produces two different and complementary types of outcomes: learner development and solution development. Further, design is: open-ended, iterative, creative, collaborative, goal-driven, process-intensive, productfocused, customer-oriented, value-added, and constrained by society. Learner and solution development usually progresses from a state of students’ fragmented understanding and ideas to a more mature state of integrated understanding and design solutions. The proposed conceptual model for engineering design identifies four areas of performance that describe design: (1) personal capacity, (2) team processes, (3) solution requirements, and (4) solution assets. The first two characterize learner development and the latter two characterize solution development. Personal capacity is the designer’s development of skills which support technically sound and responsible design. Team processes address a team’s behaviors and productivity in design activities. Solution requirements address the team’s understanding of stakeholder needs and concerns. Solution assets encompass the value added, practicality, and impact of the design solution. These four performance areas are essential to design. They identify performances that develop over time, contribute to the success of design outcomes, and stimulate growth in one another for integrated enhancement of design performance. They also provide the basis for a versatile, comprehensive definition of engineering design performance that can guide instruction and can focus assessments in capstone engineering design courses.

Problem-based learning techniques involving small collaborative teams of students are widely regarded as being effective in teaching engineering design courses. However, the heavy requirements upon the teaching staff to support and coordinate such teams typically limit these courses to small numbers of students. In this paper, we describe the design of a computer-based tool for supporting small collaborative teams with the ultimate goal of scaling these engineering design courses to larger numbers of students. The system, deployed on laptops with wireless networking, utilizes student self-evaluations and instrumented project management tools to provide feedback of individual and team performance to the students and teaching staff. We present an example of the usage and data collected from this system during a pilot test in an undergraduate computer science design course. Based on that experience, we discuss future plans to refine the system for early detection of problem teams and to instrument asynchronous and instant messaging tools to support social network analysis of team communication.

As a follow-up to our previous paper on the successes and limitations of using Rube Goldberg machines in a first year engineering design course, in this paper, we outline how we addressed some of the limitations from our first attempt to use Rube Goldberg machines in our course.As pointed out in our previous paper, the first year engineering curriculums of many engineering programs are heavily loaded with science classes and have very little exposure to engineering.Engineering schools must find ways to introduce students to engineering in a fun, engaging fashion.For the past two years, we have been using Rube Goldberg machines to help achieve this goal.Our first year design and communications course attempts to engage students by challenging them to design and build a working Rube Goldberg machine as part of a group project.By working to achieve specific design goals that are subject to constraints, students get to work on a miniengineering project that is fun, creative, and challenging.The long-term goal of the Rube Goldberg Experiment is twofold: (1) to give first year engineering students a positive engineering design experience in their very first semester and (2) to develop a culture of anticipation in Grade 12 students who might be considering an engineering education at the University of Regina.In this paper, we outline changes made to our approach that address shortcomings identified from our first semester and provide results from student feedback, which demonstrate a positive response to the project.

NOTE: The first page of text has been automatically extracted and included below in lieu of an abstract High School Enterprise: Introducing Engineering Design in a High School Team Environment Abstract In efforts to promote interest in engineering careers among secondary students, across the country there are several current initiatives intended to introduce engineering concepts at pre- college levels. There are basically three approaches in use: teach the concepts in a course dedicated to engineering, blend them into traditional courses such as math and science, or expose students to engineering in a project work environment. For concepts such as engineering design and project management, the project-based approach may be best. High School Enterprise (HSE) offers a project-based learning environment well suited to the introduction of these concepts. HSE is an extra- or in-curricular school activity where students from grades 9-12 engage in authentic, inquiry-based STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) learning. Students participate on teams organized as virtual companies that develop products or services. Each year, there is a capstone event where secondary student teams gather on a university campus to present their project work alongside college teams to an audience of university faculty and students and industry representatives. The overarching goal of HSE is to seed and cultivate what will become a world-class and broadly inclusive science and technology workforce. Due to the long-term nature of the projects, there are many opportunities to introduce, and then spend significant time on, the engineering design process. To introduce engineering design concepts into this program, the topic was presented to teachers during a week-long workshop in the summers of 2008 and 2009. In 2008, the presentation was of a general nature and intended as a very basic introduction, while in 2009, a more extensive unit was presented encompassing both design and project management. This paper provides information on the current efforts to introduce engineering topics at the high school level and where HSE fits into this landscape. It describes the High School Enterprise program and how secondary students and teachers are exposed to engineering design. Some examples of student-project work from the 2008/2009 academic year that convey how students engage in the design process are included. Finally, the lessons learned to-date and how those lessons are helping to shape plans for future development and assessment are discussed. The National Landscape of High School Engineering Until just a few years ago, there were very few high schools that had any sort of engineering curriculum other than a small selection of graphics courses such as drafting and computer aided drafting. As of late, there has been a push to get more engineering content into high school curriculums. Today several state education standards address engineering to some degree, but there is considerable variation among those state standards, and the national effort to introduce such standards is still in its infancy. Indeed, the National Academy of Engineering is currently conducting a study (due out in March 2010) on K-12 engineering education standards. The Academy states: “The goal of this exploratory project is to assess the potential value and feasibility of developing and implementing content standards for engineering education in K- 12.” 1

This research paper examines first-year student performance and retention within engineering. A considerable body of literature has reported factors influencing performance and retention, including high school GPA and SAT scores, gender, self-efficacy, social status, hobbies, and social integration. Although these factors can help explain and even partially predict student outcomes, they can be difficult to measure; typical survey instruments are lengthy and can be invasive of student privacy. To address this limitation, the present paper examines whether a much simpler survey can be used to understand student motivations and anticipate student outcomes. The survey was administered to 347 students in an introductory Engineering Graphics and Design course. At the beginning of the first day of class, students were given a three-question, open-ended questionnaire that asked: “In your own words, what do engineers do?”, “Why did you choose engineering?”, and “Was there any particular person or experience that influenced your decision?” Two investigators independently coded the responses, identifying dozens of codes for both motivations for pursuing engineering and understanding of what it is. Five hypotheses derived from Dweck’s mindset theory and others were tested to determine if particular codes were predictive of first-semester GPA or first-year retention in engineering. Codes that were positively and significantly associated with first-semester GPA included: explaining why engineers do engineering or how they do it, stating that engineers create ideas, visions, and theories, stating that engineers use math, science, physics or analysis, and expressing enjoyment of math and science, whereas expressing interest in specific technical applications or suggesting that engineers simplify and make life easier were negatively and significantly related to first-semester GPA. Codes positively and significantly associated with first-year retention in engineering included: stating that engineers use math or that engineers design or test things, expressing enjoyment of math, science, or problem solving, and indicating any influential person who is an engineer. Codes negatively and significantly associated with retention included: citing an extrinsic motivation for pursuing engineering, stating that they were motivated by hearing stories about engineering, and stating that parents or family pushed the student to become an engineer. Although many prior studies have suggested that student self-efficacy is related to retention, this study found that student interests were more strongly associated with retention. This finding is supported by Dweck’s mindset theory: students with a “growth” mindset (e.g., “I enjoy math”) would be expected to perform better and thus be retained at a higher rate than those with a “fixed” mindset (e.g., “I am good at math”). We were surprised that few students mentioned activities expressly designed to stimulate interest in engineering, such as robotics competitions and high school engineering classes. Rather, they cited general interests in math, problem solving, and creativity, as well as family influences, all factors that are challenging for the engineering education community to address. These findings demonstrate that relative to its ease of administration, a five minute survey can indeed help to anticipate student performance and retention. Its minimalism enables easy implementation in an introductory engineering course, where it serves not only as a research tool, but also as a pedagogical aid to help students and teacher discover student perceptions about engineering and customize the curriculum appropriately.

The purpose of this study is to consider how to use the e-Learning system in the engineering design courses at Kanazawa Institute of Technology (KIT). The courses consist of two levels: Engineering Design I (ED I) and Engineering Design II (ED II). The former is taken by all freshmen during the second quarter, and the latter is taken by all sophomores during the sixth quarter. KIT's calendar has three 10-week quarters per year. The courses require students to participate in a team project from the problem discovery stage to the concept design stage. As the first e-Learning trial in the engineering design course, we introduce the collaboration-communication function of the e-Learning system to our ED I class. In this paper, we describe the students' activities in each engineering design process in situations where students can use the e-Learning system.

It is important to determine the attitudes of physical education teacher candidates who will carry out physicaleducation courses in secondary and high schools and classroom teacher candidates who will carry out physicaleducation courses in primary schools. The purpose of this study is to determine the attitudes of physical educationand classroom teacher candidates towards teaching profession. The research was evaluated with a general surveymodel. The research group consisted of totally 280 teacher candidates; 168 of them study at School of PhysicalEducation and Sports in Physical Education and Sports Teaching Department, 122 of them study at the Faculty ofEducation Primary School Teaching Department in the 2017-2018 academic year Hatay Mustafa Kemal Universityin Turkey. As data collection tools Personal Information Form developed by the researchers and the “Attitude ScaleToward Teaching (ASTT)” developed by Erkus (2000) et al. were used. In the statistical analysis of the data, t-testand one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used. In the result of the research, it was determined that theattitudes of physical education and classroom teacher candidates towards teaching profession were high, but it wasfound that physical education teacher candidates had higher attitudes than classroom teacher candidates.

Engineering Design and Manufacturing Education through Research Experience for High School Teachers

The purpose of this study is to consider how to use an electronic learning (e-learning) system in engineering design. An e-learning trial in an engineering design course was introduced as an online self-study module in order to support learning outside of the classroom at the Kanazawa Institute of Technology. This paper contains a description of the e-learning system and the related student activities and teamwork.

Mercer University's School of Engineering has been using K'Nexreg based design kits in its Introduction to Engineering Design Course for several years. These kits have been used to build vehicles that participate in a variety of competition venues including amphibious, boat, cable car, dragster, off road, and ramped. These competitions have been run in timed race, tug-of-war, and head-on collision formats. This course is not just a brainstorming or build and test experience but also introduces the concept of an engineering design process including the selection of a 'best' design based on technical considerations and prediction of design performance. Students present their design experience and decisions through two design reviews which include a document and presentation. This workshop will consist of a mini-design experience. Participants will work in small groups. The design experience will include brainstorming, technical calculations, design selection, design construction, testing, and presentations. The design experience will conclude with a competition