Using Hands‐On Design Challenges in a Product Development Master's Degree Program

Abstract

A design challenge has been developed as the first experience in a new Master's degree program in product development, offered by a consortium of schools: the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Rochester Institute of Technology, and the University of Detroit Mercy. The program admits experienced technical specialists who have been identified by their employers as future leaders of product development. The program begins with a brief, intense design challenge that exposes the students to a multi‐disciplinary problem and initiates reflection on systems architecture and organizational processes. The unique requirements of hands‐on design challenges for graduate education in product development are discussed from a constructionist viewpoint. Implementation details of the design challenge are presented and the results from the first two years are analyzed. Students in the program rate the design challenge as a very good introduction to the program and agree that the exercise provides material for discussion of system architecture and organizational processes.

The paper beam: hands-on design for team work experience of freshman in engineering

“…Researchers in published research found that access to real time services over the Internet to remote and distributed laboratory facilities to complement and enhance traditional and on-line courses in control engineering education, enabled students in hands-on studies in a flexible environment (Gillet et al 2001). Also, exposure of students in a multi-disciplinary problem and initiating reflection on systems architecture and organizational processes, requires the hands-on design in product development, which is rated by the students as a good introduction to the Masters' degree program in product development (Frey et al 2000). Short demonstrations of basic fluid mechanics principles were developed to use in 50 minute seminar sessions, provided undergraduate students with visual, active learning opportunities, while student attendance at the seminars increased (Kresta 1998).…”

Putting Diversity in Perspective: A Critical Cultural Historical Context for Representation in Engineering

“…They also shape pedagogical choices, where specific courses are developed to meet needs for industrial competitiveness (Dutson, Todd, Magleby, & Sorensen, 1997;Todd, Sorensen, & Magleby, 1993). One industry-based Council on Competitiveness once concluded with pronouncements for education such as: "We can only obtain a long-term competitive advantage by learning faster than the rest of the world" and "Product development is the next competitive battle ground" (Frey, Smith, & Bellinger, 2000). Re-thinking Engineering Education (Crawley, Malmqvist, Östlund, & Brodeur, 2014), a prominent agenda-setting document, seems also to use language which elides industrial competitiveness and authenticity with pedagogical structured competition "Courses based on competitions have aspects of designbuild-compete."…”

9.7 Overview of a CONOPS for an SE Education Community

“…Although academic centers are striving to create more realistic learning Communities (Axelband et al 1999), (Frey, et al 1999), (Kurstedt et al 1999), (Lang and Levin 1999) we believe that structural and cultural limits in academia will preclude universities and related laboratories from being sufficiently responsive. However, we also believe that adequate progress can be made by systemizing and harmonizing the variety of learning opportunities that already exist or will, perforce, exist.…”