Journal of Engineering Education最新文献

{"title":"Leveraging a comprehensive systems thinking framework to analyze engineer complex problem-solving approaches","authors":"Kelley E. Dugan,&nbsp;Erika A. Mosyjowski,&nbsp;Shanna R. Daly,&nbsp;Lisa R. Lattuca","doi":"10.1002/jee.20565","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20565","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To prepare engineers who can address complex sociotechnical problems, a deep understanding of engineers' complex problem-solving approaches is needed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study operationalizes comprehensive systems thinking as an analysis framework that attends to aspects of engineering work and relationships among those aspects. Leveraging this framework to analyze engineers' complex problem-solving approaches enables attention to social and technical dimensions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We interviewed 46 engineers about their specific complex problem-solving experiences. To explore a range of perspectives, we purposely sampled participants with varying academic, professional, and personal backgrounds and experiences. Data analysis focused on operationalizing comprehensive systems thinking; we first developed a set of aspects that captured the variety of considerations that participants discussed in their descriptions of solving a complex problem. We then inductively developed a scoring guide to differentiate response quality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The scoring approach differentiated the quality of consideration based on a combination of the number of details provided, the degree of specificity, and analytical depth. While most participants discussed the consideration of a wide range of aspects of engineering work, they discussed far fewer possible relationships between these aspects. Contextual aspects of engineering work were consistently the least commonly identified and least likely to be considered in relation to other aspects of a given problem.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our differentiation of various complex problem-solving approaches can guide the development of educational interventions and tools, ultimately facilitating more comprehensive consideration of aspects—and in particular relationships among aspects—and setting up engineers to be more successful at developing appropriate solutions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 1","pages":"53-74"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20565","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135868127","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Sketching assessment in engineering education: A systematic literature review","authors":"Hillary E. Merzdorf,&nbsp;Donna Jaison,&nbsp;Morgan B. Weaver,&nbsp;Julie Linsey,&nbsp;Tracy Hammond,&nbsp;Kerrie A. Douglas","doi":"10.1002/jee.20560","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20560","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sketching exists in many disciplines and varies in how it is assessed, making it challenging to define fundamental sketching skills and the characteristics of a high-quality sketch. For instructors to apply effective strategies for teaching and assessing engineering sketching, a clear summary of the constructs, metrics, and objectives for sketching assessment across engineering education and related disciplines is needed.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This systematic literature review explores sketching assessment definitions and approaches across engineering education research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methodology/Approach</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We collected 671 papers from five major engineering and education databases at all skill levels for reported sketching constructs and metrics, cognition, and learning contexts. Based on the selection criteria, we eliminated all but 41 papers, on which we performed content analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Findings/Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Engineering, design, and art emerged as three major disciplines in the papers reviewed. We found that sketching assessment most often employs metrics on accuracy, perspective, line quality, annotations, and aesthetics. Most collected studies examined beginners in undergraduate engineering design sketching or drawing ability tests. Cognitive skills included perceiving the sketch subject, creatively sketching ideas, using metacognition to monitor the sketching process, and using sketching for communication.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Implications</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sketching assessment varies by engineering discipline and relies on many types of feedback and scoring metrics. Cognitive theory can inform instructional activities as a foundation for sketching skills. There is a need for robust evidence of high-quality assessment practices in sketching instruction. Assessment experts can apply their knowledge toward improving sketching assessment development, implementation, and validation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"872-893"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20560","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135888980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"A systematic literature review of reciprocity in engineering service-learning/community engagement","authors":"David A. Delaine,&nbsp;Sarah Redick,&nbsp;Dhinesh Radhakrishnan,&nbsp;Amena Shermadou,&nbsp;Mandy McCormick Smith,&nbsp;Rohit Kandakatla,&nbsp;Linjue Wang,&nbsp;Claudio Freitas,&nbsp;Casey L. Dalton,&nbsp;Lina Dee Dostilio,&nbsp;Jennifer DeBoer","doi":"10.1002/jee.20561","DOIUrl":"10.1002/jee.20561","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Scholars agree that reciprocity is a cornerstone of service-learning and community engagement (SLCE); however, engagement with this concept varies widely in practice and across disciplines. To enhance the potential of SLCE to fulfill its promise for societal impact, engineering education must understand how reciprocity is achieved, recognize barriers that inhibit its progress, and identify strategies for how it can be strengthened.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We performed this review to understand the ways reciprocity is articulated in the engineering SLCE literature. Drawing from these articulations, we examined the extent of engagement with reciprocity toward providing insights into the design and assessment of SLCE efforts for reciprocity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Scope/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We performed a systematic literature review on engineering SLCE at institutes of higher education. Following an established approach to identify and synthesize articles, we developed deductive codes by distilling three well-articulated orientations of reciprocity. We then analyzed the operationalization of reciprocity in the literature.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The literature demonstrated varying degrees of reciprocity. Minimally reciprocal efforts centered university stakeholders. In contrast, highly reciprocal partnerships explicitly addressed the nature of engagement with communities. Findings provide insights into the breadth of practice within reciprocity present in engineering SLCE. Further, analysis suggests that our codes and levels of reciprocity can function as a framework that supports the design and evaluation of reciprocity in SLCE efforts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our review suggests that to enact more equitable SLCE, researchers and practitioners must intentionally conceptualize reciprocity, translate it into practice, and make visible the ways in which reciprocity is enacted within their SLCE efforts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"113 4","pages":"838-871"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9,"publicationDate":"2023-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20561","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135888150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"JEE Strategic Plan, 2023–2028: A new era for the Journal of Engineering Education","authors":"Joyce B. Main,&nbsp;David B. Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20562","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"845-847"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50136438","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Special report: The research topics addressed and research methods applied in the Journal of Engineering Education (1993–2022)","authors":"Andrew Katz,&nbsp;Joyce B. Main,&nbsp;Alexander Struck Jannini,&nbsp;David Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20559","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20559","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"852-860"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50128327","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Understanding professional skills in engineering education: A phenomenographic study of faculty conceptions","authors":"Una Beagon,&nbsp;Brian Bowe","doi":"10.1002/jee.20556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20556","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Globalization and socially complex problems will greatly affect the way engineers work in the future. Therefore, efforts to transform engineering education must focus on professional skills and engagement of faculty as key change agents.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypotheses</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>For engineering programs to address the needs of society, graduates must have the skills to tackle future challenges. Transformation will only be successful if faculty fully engage in all curriculum design aspects; however, little is known about how faculty view professional skills. This understanding is critical if we wish to support and encourage their participation in the transformation effort. This novel study reveals the qualitatively different ways faculty conceptualize professional skills.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Phenomenography was selected as the most appropriate method to showcase the variations in faculty conceptions. The study selected 19 interview participants from 273 responses to an online survey.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Faculty revealed their conceptions of professional skills in six ways: communication skills, technical skills, enabling skills, a combination of skills, interpersonal behaviors, and acting professionally.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings revealed a tension between technical and nontechnical skills. The study highlights that engineering education must focus on behaviors and interactions between people rather than technical skills alone. Further, there was a gendered difference in conceptions between women and men with women more likely to consider professional skills to be inclusive of behavioral aspects. The findings can help create future strategies for engineering education and can be used as a reflective tool for engineering faculty in efforts to transform engineering education.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1109-1144"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20556","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50123217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers instructors experience in adopting active learning: Instrument development","authors":"Laura J. Carroll,&nbsp;David Reeping,&nbsp;Cynthia J. Finelli,&nbsp;Michael J. Prince,&nbsp;Jenefer Husman,&nbsp;Matthew Graham,&nbsp;Maura J. Borrego","doi":"10.1002/jee.20557","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20557","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Despite well-documented benefits, instructor adoption of active learning has been limited in engineering education. Studies have identified barriers to instructors’ adoption of active learning, but there is no well-tested instrument to measure instructors perceptions of these barriers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We developed and tested an instrument to measure instructors’ perceptions of barriers to adopting active learning and identify the constructs that coherently categorize those barriers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We used a five-phase process to develop an instrument to measure instructors’ perceived barriers to adopting active learning. In Phase 1, we built upon the Faculty Instructional Barriers and Identity Survey (FIBIS) to create a draft instrument. In Phases 2 and 3, we conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) on an initial 45-item instrument and a refined 21-item instrument, respectively. We conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in Phases 4 and 5 to test the factor structure identified in Phases 2 and 3.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our final instrument consists of 17 items and four factors: (1) student preparation and engagement; (2) instructional support; (3) instructor comfort and confidence; and (4) institutional environment/rewards. Instructor responses indicated that time considerations do not emerge as a standalone factor.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our 17-item instrument exhibits a sound factor structure and is reliable, enabling the assessment of perceived barriers to adopting active learning in different contexts. The four factors align with an existing model of instructional change in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Although time is a substantial instructor concern that did not comprise a standalone factor, it is closely related to multiple constructs in our final model.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1079-1108"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20557","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50123216","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"JEE in the 21st century: A brief history of the journal and retrospective of three past editors","authors":"Bill Williams,&nbsp;Alexander Vincent Struck Jannini,&nbsp;Joyce B. Main,&nbsp;David Knight","doi":"10.1002/jee.20558","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20558","url":null,"abstract":"As we celebrate American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE)'s 125th anniversary and the adoption of a new co-editor-in-chief model for the Journal of Engineering Education (JEE), we look back at the history of JEE and the experiences of its past three editors: Jack Lohmann, Michael Loui, and Lisa Benson. By revisiting our past, we can more aptly envision the possibilities for the future of JEE. In our conversations with the past editors, we discussed the challenges each identified when they took on the position, the changes noted during their tenure as editor-in-chief, and the developments that gave them the most satisfaction. This retrospective provides a brief history of JEE and the editors' perspectives and experiences at the helm of the journal. The beginnings of ASEE can be traced back to the 1893 Chicago World's Fair and Exposition. At the time, it was named the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. In 1910, the society began a monthly periodical “devoted to technical education” called the Bulletin of the Society for the Promotion of Engineering Education. The periodical changed names twice over the next 81 years, first to Journal of Engineering Education (1925–1969) and then to Engineering Education (1969–1992). During this time, the periodical served a dual mission for ASEE—the dissemination of society communications and the publication of ideas and innovations in engineering education. The name reverted to Journal of Engineering Education in January 1993. With each passing year, articles appearing in the journal reflected increasing sophistication in the use of scientific and pedagogical protocols and principles in educational innovations. In response to the rising expectations of its reviewers and the increasing scholarly quality of the articles submitted, the journal was repositioned again in January 2003, introducing a more focused mission: “to serve as an archival record of scholarly research in engineering education.” Since then, the JEE has rapidly advanced to become a premier education research journal in engineering. Now published in partnership with a growing community of international engineering education societies and associations, its readership has grown to nearly 200,000 readers per year in 80 countries. These advances were made possible by the stewardship of past editors and the authors and reviewers who have contributed to the journal.","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"848-851"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50145825","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Photovoice: Visualizing the engineering identity experiences of sophomore students","authors":"Jerrod A. Henderson,&nbsp;Brian L. McGowan,&nbsp;Joan Wawire,&nbsp;Le Shorn S. Benjamin,&nbsp;Kristin L. Schaefer,&nbsp;Jeannette D. Alarcón","doi":"10.1002/jee.20555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20555","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Researchers have shown that students leave undergraduate engineering programs during the first 2 years. Justifiably, many studies have tried to tackle engineering student persistence and attrition, especially during the first year, and then developed interventions to address the challenges. Although those interventions have improved freshmen retention in some institutions, less has been published on the impacts of these interventions on the sophomore student experience.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To contribute to the knowledge base about all engineering students, we examined the experiences of sophomore engineering students and explored how these experiences might be related to their identities as engineers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted this study using photovoice, a methodology in which participants submit photographs to describe their experiences and give recommendations on improving their experiences and resolving their concerns. Participants submitted three sets of pictures (at the beginning, middle, and end of the semester) and participated in focus groups to aid in illuminating their experiences. We analyzed data using thematic analysis.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We inductively determined three themes: on the frame, out of focus, and prefigures. These themes illustrate the experiences of sophomore engineering students, enabling us to see what interest, competence, and recognition as engineers looked like from their perspectives.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Participants grappled with the tension between their personal, social, and engineering identities. Photovoice empowered them to author and illustrate that they could exist beyond the murky middle.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1145-1166"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jee.20555","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50134479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20554","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <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>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Purpose/Hypothesis</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <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>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design/Method</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <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>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <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>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <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>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":50206,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Engineering Education","volume":"112 4","pages":"1012-1031"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50132607","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}