Improving the Student Experience in First Year Engineering Design Courses

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.

Due to its focus in project-based learning, design educators must provide individual coaching and mentoring of student teams as they progress through their design efforts. In order to increase the quantity and quality of design mentoring, the authors have implemented the use of Wiki websites as a medium for providing formative assessment for student design teams enrolled in a sophomore-level Mechanical Engineering design course. Wiki websites, which allow for easy creation and editing of interlinked webpages, were created for each design team in order to provide a virtual space for the creation, compilation, and editing of their design project report submissions. With access to each team’s Wiki site, the mentor is able to observe each team’s product design process unfold and provide feedback using an embedded commenting system. The public presentation of design reports also affords the facilitation of a peer-review of student work. In this paper the authors present details of the implementation of a Wiki for preliminary assessment data for this tool. Results show that the students found the tool and the associated activities to be easy to use, helpful in developing better design reports and a contributing factor to their development of critical and analytical thinking skills. In addition, students who used the tool reported receiving more meaningful formative feedback from the instructor and reported giving more formative feedback to their peers when compared to other sections of the class that were not using the Wiki.

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.

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.

<abstract> <bold>Abstract.</bold> For four years (eight academic semesters), the Ohio AgrAbility Program and the University of Dayton Engineering Innovation course (EGR 103) have partnered to provide students with an open-ended engineering design project related to the mission of AgrAbility. This partnership allowed students to identify and solve a variety of problems within agricultural systems, and yielded creative, practical design solutions and prototypes. The partnership and prototypes were shown and demonstrated for farmers at key agricultural workshops/events and highlighted in a ThinkTV® video on agricultural engineering sponsored by the Dayton, Ohio STEM Center. This poster highlights the partnership and the quality, novel, and affordable ($50 or less) design solutions generated by first-year students in the course. Examples include an adaptive crutch tool, ergonomic shovel, watering device for persons with cognitive limitations, compression garments and gloves for arthritis sufferers, safety harness for grain silos, and various assistive devices for farmers in wheelchairs. These design solutions address a host of prevention, safety, and assistive needs. In addition to design solutions, the partnership provides an enhanced experiential learning design experience for students. EGR 103 is a project-based first-year engineering design course, which requires students to work in teams on service-learning design projects, and collaborate on design activities and technical reports to solve open-ended problems using engineering design. Multidisciplinary engineering design teams are given guidance and key deadlines, but the teams primarily work independently on projects and must diligently exercise project management. Realistic, relevant engineering problems and productive client interactions are essential components of the Engineering Innovation course that enhance the design and learning experience. Ohio AgrAbility staff and clients help fulfill these objectives by working with course instructors to craft pertinent problem statements, serving as clients that provide meaningful interaction and feedback, arranging site visits/tours for design teams, and donating materials so students can design and test realistic prototypes.

Professional skills are often emphasized in a capstone engineering design course, especially in relation to addressing ABET Engineering Criteria. Learning of these skills is typically a product of the project management approach followed by design teams. The principles behind agile development and the features of the Scrum methodology match up well with the expected outcomes of a major engineering design experience and preparation needed by students for engineering practice. This paper presents a case study on design team use of an agile process for the successful development and release on the Google Play store of an Android app for a client during the span of a two-semester senior design course in electrical and computer engineering. The agile project management used in the case study was found to be beneficial to all involved (students, mentors, and clients). It emphasizes behaviors that lead to greater satisfaction and higher quality results with the senior design experience. Student learning opportunities related to professional skills are examined. This work adds to emerging literature promoting agile development as a model for capstone projects.

In the context of teaching design, engineers often have a strong preference for problem-based learning because the skills they are trying to teach are intrinsic to the solving of design problems. The proliferation of problem-based learning (PBL) in capstone and now cornerstone engineering design courses is well supported by industry and faculty and the trend has been towards seeing more PBL in engineering design courses. This paper explores the basic selection of engineering design problems and presents a fairly simple dilemma: the skills that are required to solve a problem are not necessarily the skills that are taught by the problem if the problem is truly open-ended. This paper presents the idea of using engineering problems that are carefully constructed simulacra of real-world problems with built in scaffolding to create PBL experiences for students that are educationally complete and meaningful. This paper presents examples from two courses developed at the University of Manitoba based on this approach, outcomes of and responses to the course layout, and ideas for how this model can be extended to other courses or programs.

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.

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.

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.

Collaboration is highly emphasized in engineering design education. While it offers various advantages in fostering learning and professional development, it is imperative to acknowledge the adverse factors that can disrupt collaborative efforts. A key challenge in student teamwork is perceived contribution inequity, which often leads to frustration during collaboration and strains peer relationships. While effective team collaboration has been widely studied, little research has empirically delved into perceived contribution fairness or contribution equity from the lens of team diversity in engineering design. This study aims to investigate the complex relationship between team diversity (in terms of differences in gender composition and self-perceptions about one’s ability and interests) and contribution equity in student teams. Data were collected from 26 teams in a sophomore-level engineering design course across two semesters. Findings suggest that gender-diverse teams and teams with aligned design interests and teamwork preferences were more likely to exhibit higher levels of contribution equality. In contrast, variations in self-perceived engineering design self-efficacy (EDSE) and creative self-efficacy (CSE) showed no clear association with contribution fairness. These results highlight the importance of a strategic approach to team formation in which diversity dimensions are considered to promote equitable collaboration in engineering design education.

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.

In undergraduate engineering programs, recent emphasis has been placed on a more holistic, interdisciplinary approach to engineering education. Some programs now teach product design within the context of the market, extending the curriculum to topics outside of scientific labs and computational analysis. However, it is unknown to what extent engineering students already understand the systems and contextual factors associated with product design, and also what characteristics or experiences have led students to these ways of thinking. This study analyzes survey and concept map data collected from 154 students in a third-year engineering design course. The aim is to understand how student backgrounds and experiences influence their mental models of product design. Data were gathered from surveys on student backgrounds and experiences, along with concept maps that were generated by the students at the beginning of a product design course. The concept maps were analyzed in a quantitative manner for structural and thematic elements. The findings show that several background attributes influence student conceptions of product design. Academic major appeared to have the largest impact on a variety of variables. Additionally, prior work experience, enrollment in a master’s program, and the presence of an engineering role model at home all showed significant impacts on design conceptions. By analyzing and understanding how the unique backgrounds of students lead to differences in thought, educators can adjust their curricula to more effectively teach design concepts to students of various backgrounds and experiences.