A Multidimensional Approach to Understanding the Development of Design Skills, Knowledge, and Self-Efficacy

Abstract

is a learning scientist and associate professor at the University of New Mexico in the Organization, Information and Learning Sciences program and in the Chemical and Biological Engineering Department. She served as Co-PI on an NSF RET Grant and a USDA NIFA grant, and is currently co-PI on three NSF-funded projects in engineering and computer science education, including a Revolutionizing Engineering Departments project. She was selected as a National Academy of Education / Spencer Postdoctoral Fellow and a 2018 NSF CAREER awardee in engineering education research. Dr. Svihla studies learning in authentic, real world conditions; this includes a two-strand research program focused on (1) authentic assessment, often aided by interactive technology, and (2) design learning, in which she studies engineers designing devices, scientists designing investigations, teachers designing learning experiences and students designing to learn.

A funds of knowledge approach to developing engineering students' design problem framing skills

“…Second, in authentic practice, problem framing is threaded and iterative, responsive and collaborative. The DST does not shed light on these aspects; elsewhere, we have argued that a suite of measures is needed (Svihla et al, 2020). In addition to considering other measures in tandem, future studies could also contrast individual versus collaborative performance on the DST.…”

“…We have not focused much discussion on design style as the two codes included in this dimension fall very short of serving as a comprehensive measure of design style, largely due to the complexity of what might be counted in this dimension, and is an area that deserves significant scholarly attention, especially in terms of measuring and tracking changes in how students develop and deploy their own judgments and preferences as they also develop as design engineers. Despite these limitations, we recognize and have argued elsewhere that the DST provides valid information for instructors about their design challenges but is just one tool in a larger toolkit (Svihla et al, 2020;L. White et al, 2019).…”

The Educative Design Problem Framework: Relevance, Sociotechnical Complexity, Accessibility, and Nondeterministic High Ceilings

“…Some of the design challenges were co-designed with graduate students who worked in industry, vetted by the department's industry advisory board, or developed with significant input from industry sponsors. Along with shifting to design-focused courses, the faculty collaborated with a learning scientist and attended workshops to develop learner-centered teaching strategies, results of which are reported elsewhere [26][27][28][29][30][31]. Over this timespan, several faculty discarded prior challenges or significantly revised their design challenges, before being pleased with the student outcomes.…”

Insights and Outcomes from a Revolution in a Chemical Engineering Department

“…• a screwdriver • a putty knife • changing the volume on my stereo after the knob broke off • getting into my car after the handle broke We developed a survey using published questions about knowledge of design problem framing, engineering self-efficacy, their identities as engineers, and their persistence intentions [39]. Had we begun this work a few years later, we would have incorporated other items [15,40].…”