This paper presents the results of design cognition studies of two groups of students: high school juniors and seniors who have taken pre-engineering courses and sophomore university students in a mechanical engineering department. Both groups carried out design sessions designing for the same design challenge. Data were collected using the protocol analysis technique through video and audio recordings of design sessions. The students' design cognition was measured by segmenting and coding the transcribed videos using the Function-Behavior-Structure (FBS) ontologically-based design issues and design processes coding scheme that provides a uniform basis for analyzing design protocols. Differences in design cognition were found and tentative explanations provided to account for them.Index Terms -Design cognition, design education, engineering education, protocol analysis. ENGINEERING DESIGN IN EDUCATIONEngineering design has been researched at the postsecondary level through diverse studies [1][2][3][4]. These studies have ranged from design cognition of individuals and teams, service learning, ethnography, mentor programs, to collaboration. Design cognition data has been collected and analyzed using verbal and/or video data [5][6][7][8]. However, few studies have addressed engineering design related to high school students. How undergraduate and high school students employ cognitive processes and strategies within engineering design is not adequately identified or understood. Hence, there is a need for research into engineering design cognition at the K-12 level [9]. Part of that research needs to include how high school students compare to university students. The results from this study have potential implications for university and high schoollevel engineering design education.Engineering design is more than the manipulation of numbers and the solving of scientific equations. The processes employed in engineering design encompass a broad variety of topics and fields of study. Design, among other things is dynamic, recursive and iterative, therefore, it is not easily represented by linear models [10]. Jonassen [11] placed design in a distinct type in his "problem type taxonomy." Design is not only listed as complex and illstructured, but it also requires higher order problem solving skills. Designing is designing, not an example of something else.Design has been studied using verbal protocol analysis from the early 1970s [12] . However, the study of design in engineering using protocol analysis began in earnest in the 1990s with Gero and his colleagues [13] and Atman and her colleagues [6]. Although Hayes [14] claimed that verbal protocols were typically incomplete for capturing all cognition, he also claimed that under controlled conditions there was no evidence that verbal protocols detrimentally distorted or interfered with the participant's thinking while engaged in a task or solving a problem. METHODOLOGYData were collected from two separate sites: a large public university on the East Coast and a public h...
A focus group study was conducted with purposefully sampled student participants solving an engineering design challenge during a one-week engineering summer camp held at a research-intensive university in the southeast. The goal of the study was to further understand the student experience and ascertain the perceived value of an informal learning environment for students engaged in an engineering design challenge. Emergent themes are provided to illustrate the primary challenges related to the engineering design challenge and the aspects of the engineering summer camp that were beneficial to the student participants. It is anticipated that the results of this study will constructively add to the literature on learning and teaching in engineering design across informal and formal learning environments.
Effective for Reviews during the 2015-2016 Accreditation Cycle Definitions While ABET recognizes and supports the prerogative of institutions to adopt and use the terminology of their choice, it is necessary for ABET volunteers and staff to have a consistent understanding of terminology. With that purpose in mind, the Commissions will use the following basic definitions: Program Educational Objectives-Program educational objectives are broad statements that describe what graduates are expected to attain within a few years of graduation. Program educational objectives are based on the needs of the program's constituencies. Student Outcomes-Student outcomes describe what students are expected to know and be able to do by the time of graduation. These relate to the skills, knowledge, and behaviors that students acquire as they progress through the program. Assessment-Assessment is one or more processes that identify, collect, and prepare data to evaluate the attainment of student outcomes. Effective assessment uses relevant direct, indirect, quantitative and qualitative measures as appropriate to the outcome being measured. Appropriate sampling methods may be used as part of an assessment process. Evaluation-Evaluation is one or more processes for interpreting the data and evidence accumulated through assessment processes. Evaluation determines the extent to which student outcomes are being attained. Evaluation results in decisions and actions regarding program improvement. This document contains three sections: The first section includes important definitions used by all ABET commissions. The second section contains the General Criteria for Baccalaureate Level Programs that must be satisfied by all programs accredited by the Engineering Accreditation Commission of ABET and the General Criteria for Masters Level Programs that must be satisfied by those programs seeking advanced level accreditation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.