OUTCOME COMPARISON FRAMEWORK FOR DESIGN COURSES IN ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

Team-based design courses focused on products for people with disabilities have become relatively common, in part because of training grants such as the NSF Research to Aid Persons with Disabilities course grants. An output from these courses is an annual description of courses and projects but has yet to be complied into a "best practices guide," though it could be helpful for instructors. To meet this need, we conducted a study to generate best practices for assistive technology product development courses and how to use these courses to teach students the fundamentals of innovation. A full list of recommendations is comprised in the manuscript and include identifying a client through a reliable clinical partner; allowing for transparency between the instructors, the client, and the team(s); establishing multi-disciplinary teams; using a process-oriented vs. solution-oriented product development model; using a project management software to facilitate and archive communication and outputs; facilitating client interaction through frequent communication; seeking to develop professional role confidence to inspire students' commitment to engineering and (where applicable) rehabilitation field; publishing student designs on repositories; incorporating both formal and informal education opportunities related to design; and encouraging students to submit their designs to local or national entrepreneurship competitions.

This paper presents the impact that theDesign Engineering and Design (DE&I) program offeredin 2013 has had in the Faculty of Engineering at theUniversity of Victoria. Through this program a pool ofnineteen graduate students were trained as DesignTeaching Assistants (DTAs). The purpose of this programis to train DTAs in engineering design principles andpedagogical skills for mentoring students working ondesign projects. During the year DTAs continued theirtraining by attending seminars presented by guestspeakers. To date, eight DTAs have been appointed toeither assist as qualified Teaching Assistant in alreadyestablished engineering design courses (two DTAs), or todevelop new design projects in courses that are primarilyengineering science (six DTAs). The latter was supportedby the course instructor and the coordinators of thisprogram. The paper describes the development andmanagement of these design projects, their impact onundergraduate students, and the personal experiencegained by the DTAs. Also, the paper presents a review ofthe 2013 DE&I program including a new strategy for theupcoming 2014 DE&I workshops that will focus more onthe development and execution of design projects of theDTAs.

The introductory design course in Mechanical and Industrial Engineering at Ryerson University combines Human Factors (HF) and Design. Due to its unique character, we have developed custom courseware. In recent years the instructors have noticed four specific shortcomings in students’ abilities to incorporate HF into their designs. We are developing new courseware that focuses on embedding HF considerations into the requirements specification stage. The courseware incorporates a novel combination of Hierarchical Task Analysis (a well-known method) with Usage Scenarios (a method of Salustri’s invention, based on the work of Stone and Wood). We further alter the courseware in several other ways to minimize the amount of documentation that students need to provide, while still capturing their decision-making process well enough to allow appropriate assessments. A plan for implementing and assessing the proposed work is also presented. Keywords: engineering design, human factors, hierarchical task analysis, courseware, user experience

When data for a completely randomised design are categorical rather than continuous, the Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel suite of tests may be applied, albeit that there is only one stratum. In introductory design courses this design, and the randomised block design, are usually the first designs introduced. Using the completely randomised design instead of the randomised block design ignores blocks (strata) and results in expressions for the tests statistics that are simpler than if the usual general test statistics are applied. Based on models given here, the usual Cochran–Mantel–Haenszel tests for the completely randomised design are shown to be Wald-type tests.

Many students from structurally disadvantaged groups who are interested in a career in engineering choose an engineering technology (ET) college major over one in engineering. The need to identify the reasons for the over-representation of African American (AA) students in particular in ET, and to better understand the extent to which the apparent popularity of ET results from systemic racism and restricted access to engineering frame this project. The central goal of this project is to gain insight into the racial equity implications of the ET pathway- informed by the voices and experiences of African American ET students, technologists, and engineers. According to data from the ASEE [1], the enrollment in both bachelor's and master's programs in ET has been increasing over the past ten years. Despite this, many in academia, K-12 education, and industry are not familiar with ET and the differences and similarities between technologists (graduates of 4-year bachelors programs in ET), engineers, and technicians. The 2016 report "Engineering Technology Education in the United States" published by the National Academies Press examined many aspects of the status, role, and needs of ET education [2]. The percentage of students earning 4-year ET degrees who are AA is almost three times that of students earning 4-year degrees in engineering who are AA [2]. ASEE annual data shows that there is a significantly higher percentage of AA students enrolled in four-year ET programs than in engineering programs at many of the institutions that offer ABET accredited programs in both engineering and ET [1]. The NAE report recommended that agencies consider funding research 'to better understand the reasons for the preference for ET over engineering of African American students'. Indeed, issues associated with African American students' career pathways within STEM and the choice of ET versus engineering remain largely underexplored in the literature. We conjecture that the factors influencing the choice of ET over engineering for many of these students include systemic issues related to the quality of pre-college mathematics and science preparation, career counseling received (or not received) in high school and college, a preference for a more 'hands-on' curriculum, as well as socioeconomic, institutional, and psychological factors. In addition, hidden stereotypes in the branding and marketing of engineering and ET, and implicit bias in advising may contribute to students' perception that their cultural perspectives are more aligned with ET than with engineering. Here we present preliminary results based on focus group interviews of African American ET students at a predominantly White institution (PWI) where engineering technology is housed within the college of engineering. We also discuss the planned next phases of the research that include focus groups at a large PWI where ET is in its own college which is separate from the college of engineering, as well as a survey which will be informed by the focus group data. This survey will be disseminated to ET students at the two institutions in the study as well as other universities with ABET accredited ET programs. Through this research, we have to gain a better understanding of the factors that influence the decisions of AA students to pursue degrees in ET over engineering and how these relate to systemic racism will contribute to the existing knowledge of how the pipeline to engineering careers and the professoriate might be strengthened. It will help inform strategies and new approaches toward full participation of engineering technologists in engineering. Potential strategies might include the facilitation of pathways from a bachelor's degree in ET to advanced engineering degrees, the engineering professorate, and professional engineering registration, [1] ASEE Editorial Board, "Profiles of engineering and engineering technology colleges," 2018: American Society for Engineering Education, 2018. [2] G. Pearson, R. M. Latanision, and K. G. Frase, Engineering Technology Education in the United States. National Academies Press, 2017.

First year engineering design courses arenow common across Canadian engineering schools.These courses can be challenging to develop and deliver.They are often stuck in the chicken versus egg problem.Can I teach design with no engineering? Can I teachengineering with no design? How does one introducefour years of engineering education and an engineeringcareer in one course? How to do so across many or allengineering disciplines? How to do so in a foundationalmanner? Can it be done in a meaningful way? Can it beengaging and fun? A Teddy Bear Wheel Chair (TBWC)design project is the focal point of Guelph’s first yearengineering design course. The TBWC integratescomputers, mechanics, biomechanics (Teddy Bear style),environment, safety, sustainability, materials, costing,hands-on, perseverance, ethics and DESIGN. The TBWCparticipates in curling, sprinting and scoring goals. Theresult is a challenging and fun competition thatintroduces all of Guelph’s engineering students to theirengineering design careers. This paper and presentationwill share one instructor’s efforts to make all of this work.

Due to the designerly nature of technical and professional communication (TPC), theoretical and methodological efforts to accentuate the link between TPC and design thinking need to consider what the two domains of practice might share. One approach to meet this need is to view the teaching of the design process in light of the rhetorical approach to genre as social action. Drawing from rhetorical genre theory, the authors articulate the design process as a kind of embodied genre composed of bodily actions and orientations to tools, texts, and environments. Using observational fieldnotes from an engineering design course, the authors report how a repertoire of embodied routines is demonstrated for students as a genre and later employed in their design work. The study uses rhetorical genre theory as a way of conceiving design thinking for TPC classroom’s and beyond.

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.

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.

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.