skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Title: Interdisciplinary Teamwork Challenges in a Design Competition Team
Communication and collaboration are key components of engineering work (Trevelyan, 2014), and teamwork, including interdisciplinary teamwork, is increasingly seen as an important component of engineering education programs (Borrego, Karlin, McNair, & Beddoes, 2013; Male, Bush, & Chapman, 2010, 2011; Paretti, Cross, & Matusovich, 2014; Purzer, 2011). Employers and education researchers alike advocate teamwork as a means of developing skills that engineering graduates need (Purzer, 2011), and accreditation bodies consider the ability to both lead and function on teams as an important outcome for engineering graduates (Engineers Australia, 2017). However, “despite the clear emphasis on teamwork in engineering and the increasing use of student team projects, our understanding of how best to cultivate and assess these learning outcomes in engineering students is sorely underdeveloped (McGourty et al., 2002; Shuman, Besterfield-Sacre, & McGourty, 2005)” (Borrego et al., 2013, p. 473). In order to contribute to the current conversation on interdisciplinary teamwork in engineering education, and to advance understandings of how best to cultivate teamwork learning outcomes, this paper discusses the most common teamwork challenges and presents boundary negotiating artifacts as a conceptual framework for addressing them. Drawing on data from long-term ethnographic observations of a design competition project, and the challenges students experienced, we utilise findings from a systematic literature review and the conceptual framework of boundary negotiating artifacts to present a case study of how boundary negotiating artifacts can support important teamwork constructs.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1929726
PAR ID:
10137275
Author(s) / Creator(s):
;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Australasian Association for Engineering Education Annual Conference
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. In this work-in-progress paper, we apply the ecosystems metaphor to develop a model to address the ways a technology-based tool, the Concept Warehouse (Koretsky et al., 2014), propagates in diverse settings and to how students use the tool in their learning. The ecosystem model goes beyond previous research using the Diffusion of Innovations framework (Rogers, 2005). While Diffusion of Innovations has been applied to educational innovations in engineering education (Borrego et al., 2010), physics education (Henderson and Dancy, 2008), and medical education (Rogers, 2002), it does not adequately account for the ways in which instructional and learning practices are socially situated within specific educational ecosystems, nor how those systems influence the ways in which practices are taken up by individuals and groups. 
    more » « less
  2. In this work-in-progress paper, we apply the ecosystems metaphor to develop a model to address the ways a technology-based tool, the Concept Warehouse (Koretsky et al., 2014), propagates in diverse settings and to how students use the tool in their learning. The ecosystem model goes beyond previous research using the Diffusion of Innovations framework (Rogers, 2005). While Diffusion of Innovations has been applied to educational innovations in engineering education (Borrego et al., 2010), physics education (Henderson and Dancy, 2008), and medical education (Rogers, 2002), it does not adequately account for the ways in which instructional and learning practices are socially situated within specific educational ecosystems, nor how those systems influence the ways in which practices are taken up by individuals and groups. 
    more » « less
  3. This paper summarizes five critical aspects of problem-solving competency for engineers in medicine, including the balance of depth and breadth, research capability, ideation skills, teamwork, and communication skills. Furthermore, the paper outlines the imperatives for enhancing undergraduate engineering education to cultivate problem-solving competency. An interdisciplinary approach to education in medical engineering can cultivate students to develop a holistic view of the field and equip them with a broad range of skills for problem-solving. 
    more » « less
  4. To address the complex threats to Earth's life-sustaining systems, students need to learn core concepts and practices from various disciplines, including mathematics, civics, science, and, increasingly, computer science (NRC, 2012; United Nations, 2021). Schools must therefore equip students to navigate and integrate these disciplines to tackle real-world problems. Over the past two decades, STEM educators have advocated for an interdisciplinary approach, challenging traditional barriers between subjects and emphasizing contextualized real-world issues (Hoachlander & Yanofsky, 2011; Vasquez et al., 2013; Ortiz-Revilla et al., 2020; Honey et al., 2014; Takeuchi et al., 2020). Despite extensive evidence supporting integrated approaches to STEM education, subject boundaries remain, with disciplines often taught separately and computer science and computational thinking (CS & CT) not consistently included in elementary and middle school curricula. In today's digital age, CS and CT are crucial for a well-rounded education and for addressing sustainability challenges (ESSA, 2015; NGSS Lead States, 2013; NRC, 2012). While there's consensus on the importance of introducing computational concepts and practices to elementary and middle school students, integrating them into existing curricula poses significant challenges, including how to effectively support teachers to deliver inquiry instruction confidently and competently (Ryoo, 2019). Existing frameworks and tools for teaching CS and CT often focus on maintaining fidelity to canonical concepts and formalized taxonomies rather than on practical applications (Grover & Pea, 2013; Kafai et al., 2020; Wilkerson et al., 2020). This focus can lead teachers to learn terminology without fully understanding its relevance or application in different contexts. In response, some researchers suggest using a learning sciences perspective to consider “how the complexity of everyday spaces of learning shapes what counts, and what should be counted, as ‘computational thinking’” (Wilkerson et al., 2020, p. 265). These scholars emphasize the importance of drawing on learners’ everyday experiences and problems to make computational practices more meaningful and contextually relevant for both teachers and their students. Thus, this paper aims to address the following question: How can we design learning experiences for in-service teachers that support (1) their authentic engagement with computational concepts, practices, and tools and (2) more effective integration within classroom contexts? In the limited space of this proposal, we primarily address part 1. 
    more » « less
  5. Interdisciplinary teams must figure out ways to navigate team members’ differing disciplinary backgrounds and successfully communicate with one another. This can prove challenging because disciplines comprise unique cultures, goals, perspectives, epistemologies, methodologies, and languages.1 Consequently, communication is among the most frequently cited challenges to interdisciplinary collaboration, and developing communication skills is widely recognized as an important facet of teamwork.2 Yet, “Newcomers often underestimate the challenges of interdisciplinary work and, as a rule, do not spend sufficient time to allow them to overcome difference and create common ground, which in turn leads to frustration, unresolved conflicts, and...discontinued work.”3 Thus, it is important that teams establish common ground in terms of shared language, concepts, and goals.4 Boundary negotiating artifacts (BNAs) are one way in which interdisciplinary teams can establish common ground and facilitate communication between team members. BNAs are artifacts and inscriptions that coordinate perspectives and align different communities of practice so that they can collaboratively solve design problems.5 They facilitate transmission of information across disciplinary boundaries, allow team members to learn from other disciplines, create shared understanding of a design problem, and communicate important information. The concept of BNAs emerged out of boundary object traditions in the field of Science and Technology Studies, and is an attempt to overcome limitations of the original concept. More specifically, BNAs add nuance and depth to studies of the complex, non-routine projects which designers increasingly face as they work to address societal challenges. Focusing on the daily micro-level practices of designers reveals communication processes and facets of design work that otherwise remain unseen and are not revealed through either normative descriptions of design work or through interviews alone. Boundary negotiating artifacts provide a framework to study just such daily micropractices and inscriptions. We suggest that boundary negotiating artifacts are a timely and essential concept for multiple stakeholders in academia and the workplace. This paper presents a theoretical exploration of BNAs and their roles in design teams, supported by an empirical example from a long-term ethnographic study. The three-fold aim of this paper is to present BNAs as: 1) a theoretical and methodological tool for other researchers, 2) a pedagogical tool for faculty members, and 3) a conceptual tool for team members themselves. 
    more » « less