Creative Laboratory Model for Large Undergraduate Engineering Classes

Introductory engineering courses can benefit from the flipped classroom model as these courses develop hands-on skills such as engineering design and critical thinking skills. Providing students with instruction outside the classroom with e-learning tools frees up class time to engage in activities that promote deeper learning, e.g. classroom discussions, problem-solving sessions, design activities, etc. In this paper, we discuss the implementation of a flipped classroom version of an introductory engineering design course. We evaluate student performance and perception of a flipped classroom version using data collected during the course. We also discuss elements of the course that were found to be the most beneficial for the students.

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.

In the present work, a resilience module is designed to be integrated into a project-based active cooperative learning design course for freshmen. The module is designed to allow the students to practice emergency planning and check the resilience through different virtual drills for different emergency situations. The four-week module is designed to reflect different responsibilities in emergency cases, with decision makers, emergency planners, emergency response coordinators, staff of regulatory bodies and public information officers. The module aims at developing and measuring the students' personal resilience through monitoring the student's performance and attitude in real open-ended problems. The assessment methodology relies mainly on behavior and attitude rather than knowledge gain.

A number of themes, including interest in first year design courses, commitment to active learning approaches, and desires for changes in course structures and costs have come together in a variety of teaching approaches. Some of these approaches have been referred to as using “studio” methods, although the particular pedagogy appears to vary greatly. In this paper, some of these experiments are briefly reviewed and placed in a larger context of studio education in other disciplines. The paper seeks to differentiate studio education from other active learning approaches. An introductory engineering design course was taught using an architecture studio model for two semesters. The experiment demonstrated that the studio method can be very effective in teaching design concepts, but because students are likely to be unfamiliar with this approach, care must be taken to reassure students regarding grades and expectations.

– 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.)

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.

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.

Improving the creativity in introductory engineering course applying fuzzy network process: A pilot study

The purpose of this work is to examine how project management is perceived in the engineering undergraduate curriculum at the University of Guelph across its four-year series of design courses, and to gather insight into the skills, elements, and level of mastery required. As a Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board graduate attribute, project management is taught in all engineering programs. The instructor perspective is explored through interviews with instructors that have taught engineering design courses. The instructor responses are analyzed for insights related to the effectiveness of the curriculum for the development of project management skills. This work is the first component a larger study that will examine and compare the findings with the views of students and alumni of the program. The results of these interviews aim to provide insight to engineering programs related to the level of mastery expected of graduating students, and future activities to explore for the purpose of closing gaps that might exist between graduate competencies and industry needs to better equip students with the skills of future leaders.

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.

BackgroundEngineering education traditionally emphasizes technical skills, sometimes at the cost of under‐preparing graduates for the real‐world engineering context. In recent decades, attempts to address this issue include increasing project‐based assignments and engineering design courses in curricula; however, a skills gap between education and industry remains.Purpose/HypothesisThis study aims to understand how undergraduate engineering students perceive product design before and after an upper‐level project‐based design course, as measured through concept maps. The purpose is to measure whether and how students account for the technical and nontechnical elements of design, as well as how a third‐year design course influences these design perceptions.Design/MethodConcept maps about product design were collected from 105 third‐year engineering students at the beginning and end of a design course. Each concept map's content and structure were quantitatively analyzed to evaluate the students' conceptual understandings and compare them across disciplines in the before and after conditions.ResultsThe analyses report on how student conceptions differ by discipline at the outset and how they changed after taking the course. Mechanical Engineering students showed a decrease in business‐related content and an increased focus on societal content, while students in the Engineering Management and Industrial and Systems Engineering programs showed an increase in business topics, specifically market‐related content.ConclusionThis study reveals how undergraduate students conceptualize product design, and specifically to what extent they consider engineering, business, and societal factors. The design courses were shown to significantly shape student conceptualizations of product design, and they did so in a way that mirrored the topics in the course syllabi. The findings offer insights into the education‐practice skills gap and may help future educators to better prepare engineering students to meet industry needs.

First Year Design courses are commonplace in many engineering curriculums. Although the focus of these courses typically revolves around introducing students to various multistep design processes as well as improving student skills in written and oral communication techniques; they can be limited in replicating the experience of working in a real world interdisciplinary design environment. In an industrial setting, design teams are comprised of members that have the complementary skills that are necessary to complete the relevant task. There are many tools, like CATME, available to replicate this process of designing student teams based on complementary skills. Prior studies have illustrated that, although assigned teams can improve the experience for some, it can also drastically diminish the student experience for others. This work focuses on the assignment of student design teams based on both complementary skills as well as shared interests. As part of the common first year engineering curriculum at Wentworth Institute of Technology in Boston, Ma, students participate on the Introduction to Engineering Design course. This work studies two years-worth of data on the impact of assigned groups in these courses, as they pertain to overall student experience. For this, various sections of the course adopted one of the following structures for group assignments: 1) student selected, 2) skills-based instructor assigned, 3) skills and student interest based instructor assigned. Written feedback and peer assessment, based on ABET Outcome D: Ability to function in multidisciplinary teams, were collected from the students. Our analysis focuses on the process of intelligently assigning student groups and the techniques that can improve the overall student experience. The authors hope to engage in a spirited discussion on the merits of assigned student design teams as well as propose an alternative approach for instructors planning to engage students in interdisciplinary project based 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.

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.

This paper describes a novel format for a proposed Capstone engineering design course that combines industrial experience with international collaboration and uses distance learning as a pedagogical tool. The course is designed for programs in the Industrial Engineering Departments at the University of Pittsburgh and the Instituto Tecnologico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (ITESM) in Monterrey. The team for the design project has two students from each institution and is conducted at an industrial concern whose location alternates between Mexico and the US each year. Project responsibilities are divided between the two sets of students and a faculty supervisor at each institution works with the two groups which stay in close contact with each other by means of electronic mail, the Internet and distance learning technologies. During the last week of the term, the members of the team at the remote location join their teammates to put the finishing touches on the project and to make the final presentation to the faculty and the industrial client. This paper explains the proposed program in detail.