This paper is based on the premises that the purpose of engineering education is to graduate engineers who can design, and that design thinking is complex. The paper begins by briefly reviewing the history and role of design in the engineering curriculum. Several dimensions of design thinking are then detailed, explaining why design is hard to learn and harder still to teach, and outlining the research available on how well design thinking skills are learned. The currently most-favored pedagogical model for teaching design, project-based learning (PBL), is explored next, along with available assessment data on its success. Two contexts for PBL are emphasized: first-year cornerstone courses and globally dispersed PBL courses. Finally, the paper lists some of the open research questions that must be answered to identify the best pedagogical practices of improving design learning, after which it closes by making recommendations for research aimed at enhancing design learning.Keywords: design thinking, project-based learning, cornerstone courses, classroom as laboratory I. INTRODUCTIONDesign is widely considered to be the central or distinguishing activity of engineering [1]. It has also long been said that engineering programs should graduate engineers who can design effective solutions to meet social needs [2]. Despite these facts, the role of design in engineering education remains largely as stated by Evans et al. in 1990: "The subject [of design] seems to occupy the top drawer of a Pandora's box of controversial curriculum matters, a box often opened only as accreditation time approaches. Even 'design' faculty-those often segregated from 'analysis' faculty by the courses they teach-have trouble articulating this elusive creature called design" [3]. Design faculty across the country and across a range of educational institutions still feel that the leaders of engineering departments and schools are unable or unwilling to recognize the intellectual complexities and resources demanded to support good design education [4].Historically, engineering curricula have been based largely on an "engineering science" model over the last five decades, in which engineering is taught only after a solid basis in science and mathematics. (The "engineering science" model is sometimes unfairly characterized as the "Grinter model," an attribution that ignores many other recommendations in the Grinter report [5], some of which are being independently revived today.) The first two years of the curriculum-which in many respects have changed little since the late 1950s [6]-are devoted primarily to the basic sciences, which served as the foundation for two years of "engineering sciences" or "analysis" where students apply scientific principles to technological problems. The resulting engineering graduates were perceived by industry and academia as being unable to practice in industry because of the change of focus from the practical (including drawing and shop) to the theoretical [7]. What is now routinely identified as the capst...

Records from the Multiple‐Institution Database for Investigating Engineering Longitudinal Development indicate that engineering students are typical of students in other majors with respect to: persistence in major; persistence by gender and ethnicity; racial/ethnic distribution; and grade distribution. Data from the National Survey of Student Engagement show that this similarity extends to engagement outcomes including course challenge, faculty interaction, satisfaction with institution, and overall satisfaction. Engineering differs from other majors most notably by a dearth of female students and a low rate of migration into the major. Noting the similarity of students of engineering and other majors with respect to persistence and engagement, we propose that engagement is a precursor to persistence. We explore this hypothesis using data from the Academic Pathways Study of the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education. Further exploration reveals that although persistence and engagement do not vary as much as expected by discipline, there is significant institutional variation, and we assert a need to address persistence and engagement at the institutional level and throughout higher education. Finally, our findings highlight the potential of making the study of engineering more attractive to qualified students. Our findings suggest that a two‐pronged approach holds the greatest potential for increasing the number of students graduating with engineering degrees: identify programming that retains the students who come to college committed to an engineering major, and develop programming and policies that allow other students to migrate in. There is already considerable discourse on persistence, so our findings suggest that more research focus is needed on the pathways into engineering, including pathways from other majors.

PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)This paper presents the outcomes of the longitudinal administration of the Persistence in Engineering survey. The goal was to identify correlates of persistence in undergraduate engineering education and professional engineering practice. DESIGN/METHODThe survey was administered seven times over four years to a cohort of students who had expressed interest in studying engineering. At the end of the study, the participants were categorized as persisters or non-persisters. Repeated measures analysis of variance was used, in conjunction with other approaches, to test for differences between the groups. RESULTSPersisters and non-persisters did not differ significantly according to the majority of the constructs. Nevertheless, parental and high school mentor influences as a motivation to study engineering, as well as confidence in math and science skills, were identified as correlates of persistence. Intention to complete an engineering major was also a correlate of persistence; it appears to decline sharply at least two semesters prior to students leaving engineering. The findings also suggest that there might be differences among non-persisters when they are further grouped by when they leave engineering. CONCLUSIONSFacilitating higher levels of mentor involvement before college might increase student motivation to study engineering, and also constitute a mechanism for fostering confidence in math and science skills. Since the intention to complete an engineering degree decreases well before students act, there may be opportunities for institutions to develop targeted interventions for students, and help them make informed decisions.

No abstract

No abstract