Encouraging engineering design teams to engage in expert iterative practices with tools to support coaching in problem-based learning

IF 3.9 2区 工程技术 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Daniel G. Rees Lewis, Spencer E. Carlson, Christopher K. Riesbeck, Elizabeth M. Gerber, Matthew W. Easterday
{"title":"Encouraging engineering design teams to engage in expert iterative practices with tools to support coaching in problem-based learning","authors":"Daniel G. Rees Lewis,&nbsp;Spencer E. Carlson,&nbsp;Christopher K. Riesbeck,&nbsp;Elizabeth M. Gerber,&nbsp;Matthew W. Easterday","doi":"10.1002/jee.20554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>To create design solutions experienced engineering designers engage in expert iterative practice. Researchers find that students struggle to learn this critical engineering design practice, particularly when tackling real-world engineering design problems.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\n \n <p>To improve our ability to teach iteration, this study contributes (i) a new teaching approach to improve student teams' expert iterative practices, and (ii) provides support to existing frameworks—chiefly the Design Risk Framework—that predict the key metacognitive processes we should support to help students to engage in expert iterative practices in real-world engineering design.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Design/Method</h3>\n \n <p>In a 3-year design-based research study, we developed a novel approach to teaching students to take on real-world engineering design projects with real clients, users, and contexts to engage in expert iterative practices.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Study 1 confirms that student teams struggle to engage in expert iterative practices, even when supported by problem-based learning (PBL) coaching. Study 2 tests our novel approach, Planning-to-Iterate, which uses (i) templates, (ii) guiding questions to help students to define problem and solution elements, and (iii) risk checklists to help student teams to identify risks. We found that student teams using Planning-to-Iterate engaged in more expert iterative practices while receiving less PBL coaching.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>This work empirically tests a design argument—a theory for a novel teaching approach—that augments PBL coaching and helps students to identify risks and engage in expert iterative practices in engineering design projects.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1012-1031"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Engineering Education","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jee.20554","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

To create design solutions experienced engineering designers engage in expert iterative practice. Researchers find that students struggle to learn this critical engineering design practice, particularly when tackling real-world engineering design problems.

Purpose/Hypothesis

To improve our ability to teach iteration, this study contributes (i) a new teaching approach to improve student teams' expert iterative practices, and (ii) provides support to existing frameworks—chiefly the Design Risk Framework—that predict the key metacognitive processes we should support to help students to engage in expert iterative practices in real-world engineering design.

Design/Method

In a 3-year design-based research study, we developed a novel approach to teaching students to take on real-world engineering design projects with real clients, users, and contexts to engage in expert iterative practices.

Results

Study 1 confirms that student teams struggle to engage in expert iterative practices, even when supported by problem-based learning (PBL) coaching. Study 2 tests our novel approach, Planning-to-Iterate, which uses (i) templates, (ii) guiding questions to help students to define problem and solution elements, and (iii) risk checklists to help student teams to identify risks. We found that student teams using Planning-to-Iterate engaged in more expert iterative practices while receiving less PBL coaching.

Conclusions

This work empirically tests a design argument—a theory for a novel teaching approach—that augments PBL coaching and helps students to identify risks and engage in expert iterative practices in engineering design projects.

鼓励工程设计团队使用工具参与专家迭代实践,以支持基于问题的学习辅导
背景创建设计解决方案经验丰富的工程设计师参与专家迭代实践。研究人员发现,学生们很难学习这一关键的工程设计实践,尤其是在解决现实世界中的工程设计问题时。目的/假设为了提高我们教授迭代的能力,本研究有助于(i)一种新的教学方法来改进学生团队的专家迭代实践,以及(ii)为现有框架——主要是设计风险框架——提供支持,这些框架预测了我们应该支持的关键元认知过程,以帮助学生在现实世界的工程设计中参与专家迭代实践。设计/方法在一项为期三年的基于设计的研究中,我们开发了一种新颖的方法,教学生与真实的客户、用户和环境一起进行真实世界的工程设计项目,以参与专家的迭代实践。结果研究1证实,即使在基于问题的学习(PBL)辅导的支持下,学生团队也很难参与专家迭代实践。研究2测试了我们的新方法“迭代计划”,该方法使用(i)模板,(ii)指导问题,帮助学生定义问题和解决方案元素,以及(iii)风险清单,帮助学生团队识别风险。我们发现,使用“计划迭代”的学生团队参与了更多的专家迭代实践,而接受的PBL辅导较少。结论这项工作实证检验了一种设计论点——一种新颖教学方法的理论——它加强了PBL辅导,帮助学生识别风险,并参与工程设计项目中的专家迭代实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Engineering Education
Journal of Engineering Education 工程技术-工程:综合
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
11.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Engineering Education (JEE) serves to cultivate, disseminate, and archive scholarly research in engineering education.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信