Flipping introductory engineering design courses: Evaluating their effectiveness

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.

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

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.

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.

Universities are under continual pressure to reduce the expense associated with the laboratory education of undergraduate engineering students. Many alternatives to traditional laboratory instruction have been tested to improve educational benefits and to reduce academic input. This paper describes the benefits of laboratory classes run in an interactive competitive framework to enhance the teaching of structural engineering and construction materials. A creative framework that defines limits and quantifies performance encourages student engagement and allows reasonable control without stifling creativity. Two examples are presented in this paper: a wood bridge competition as part of an introductory structural engineering design course and a concrete technology competition within a structural concrete course. The educational benefits of this broad-based approach are compared with other laboratory methods. Course surveys suggest that students view this method of laboratory education positively when it is w...

A discipline-specific first year introductory course has been the norm in engineering education. Most of these courses are often theme-based and use engineering design as a device to emphasize the relationship between the various components of a field like Electrical and Computer Engineering. Online learning has also been incorporated in such common courses to enhance student experiences. As an alternative to a first year discipline-specific engineering course, there have been recent efforts to develop common first year engineering courses that target all engineering disciplines. One rationale for such a common courses has been an early instillation of common engineering education elements like ethical and social dimension of engineering design. A problem-based curriculum is often used in such first year introductory engineering courses to also ensure that students find relevance in the Physics and Math course being taken in the first two years of engineering. Students are also challenged to work on a design project in a multi-disciplinary team. A college wide engineering course allows students to learn about various engineering disciplines and wisely choose an engineering discipline. In this paper, we introduce the "Introduction to Engineering" freshman course offered to all students enrolled in the College of Engineering. The course consists of lectures, labs, recitation sessions, and a competition. Students are introduced to the major responsibilities of engineers, presentation skills, documentation, teamwork, problem solving, design process, ethics, and the basic concepts in each of the six engineering disciplines offered in the College. We evaluate the course outcomes by collecting and analyzing the student's feedback over 2 years. The results are very encouraging and reflect a positive learning experience. We share some of the challenging multidisciplinary project ideas offered to the students. We also discuss the topics covered in the course and the relationship of each topic to the ABET criteria.

– 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 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.

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.

We propose and execute an introductory engineering course for investigating the history of technology and the philosophy of technology. Soft...

Written communication is an important, however often neglected, component of an engineering curriculum. The civil engineering department at North Dakota State University has included word processing in its CE 101 course in order to teach students to write reiteratively and to gain an appreciation for the convenience associated with word processing. Several conclusions were drawn from this first attempt at including word processing in an introductory engineering course. Student comments were generally favorable and they appreciated the exposure to microcomputers. The shareware program that was distributed to each student worked well, but the necessity for each student to purchase the full documentation became evident. Finally, the classical lecture style of presentation was not adequate and will be replaced by smaller computer lab sessions and hands‐on experience.

In 1990, the A. James Clark School of Engineering at the University of Maryland at College Park initiated a reevaluation of the introductory design course in order to increase design in the classroom and to recruit, retain, and graduate more women and underrepresented minorities. The resulting course, ENES 100, has been highly successful. A High School Teacher-in-Residence program was initiated in 1995. Sue Schwartz, a Physics teacher from Montgomery County's Paint Branch High School began a residency at the School of Engineering to learn and be a partner in the first year Introduction to Engineering Design course. Throughout the two semesters she actively participated in 4 sections of the course and interacted with all aspects of the freshman program. A major outcome of the interaction was a well defined, detailed, year-long high school curriculum in engineering design. That curriculum has had a pilot test throughout the 1996-97 academic year. The high school curriculum in engineering design and the results of the pilot study is the focus of the presentation.

James Madison University has established a School of Engineering commencing in fall 2008. Students will earn Bachelor of Science degrees in Engineering. The curriculum features a broad base of humanities coursework to accompany the traditional math, science, and engineering courses. The curriculum also features integrated business courses, a six semester sequence of engineering design courses, and a sustainability focus. The engineering program is designed to meet ABET criteria and prepare students for the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam. The introductory course is designed to be representative of the program content, teaching techniques, assessment techniques, and culture. As such the introductory course will contain material related to social context as well as engineering practice. This paper discusses the content and culture aspects of the introductory course.

To adequately prepare engineering students for their professional career, educational institutions offer projects in which students collaboratively solve engineering design problems. It is known from research these projects can lead to a variety of learning outcomes and student experiences. However, studies that provide insights in the influence of different features of an educational design are rare. In the current study we use Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as analytical framework to understand how different elements of an educational design affect students’ experience. Additionally, we use the notion of contradictions to identify opportunities for structural course improvement. Focus groups were conducted with 12 Master students in Aerospace Engineering, that participated in a collaborative engineering design course. During the course, students applied Systems Engineering (SE) and Concurrent Engineering (CE) and worked in the Collaborative Design Laboratory (CDL), which is a state-of-the-art facility that holds a variety of industry relevant tools. It was found that students valued the guidance of their coach and experts, co-located collaboration and the freedom to structure their own process. However, they perceived challenges with regard to adoption of tools in the CDL, sharing their progress with their supervisor, coordination of collaborative efforts and scheduling issues. An analysis using CHAT revealed what contradictions caused these challenges. Finally, recommendations are given on how course structure can be structurally improved.