Search for: All records

This work in progress (WIP) research paper describes student use of representations in engineering design. While iterative design is not unique to engineering, it is one of the most common methods that engineers use to address socio-technical problems. The use of representations is common across design methodologies. Representations are used in design to serve as external manifestations of internal thought processes that make abstract concepts tangible, enhance communication by providing a common language, enable iteration by serving as a low-effort way to explore ideas, encourage more empathetic design by capturing users' perspectives, visualize the problem space, and promote divergent thinking by providing different ways to visualize ideas. While representations are a key aspect of design, the effective use of representations is a learned process which is affected by other factors in students' education. This study sought to understand how students' perceptions of the role of representations in design changed over the course of a one-semester design course. Small student teams created representations in a three-stage process-problem exploration, convergence to possible solutions, and prototype generation-that captured their evolving understanding of a socio-technical issue and response to it. The authors hypothesize that using effective representations can help develop skills in convergence in undergraduate students; one of engineering's contributions to convergent problem solving is design. More specifically, this research looked at students' use of design representations to develop convergent understanding of ill-defined socio-technical problems. The research questions focus on how students use representations to structure sociotechnical design problems and how argumentation of their chosen solution path changed over time. To answer these questions this study analyzed student artifacts in a third-year design course supported by insights on the process of representation formation obtained from student journals on the design process and a self-reflective electronic portfolio of student work. Based on their prior experiences in engineering science classes, students initially viewed design representations as time-bound (e.g. homework) problems rather than as persistent tools used to build understanding. Over time their use of representations shifted to better capture and share understanding of the larger context in which projects were embedded. The representations themselves became valued reflections on their own level of understanding of complex problems, serving as a self-reflective surface for the status of the larger design problem. 

Over the last several years the Electrical and Computer Engineering (ECE) program at Bucknell University has established a four-year ‘design thread’ in the curriculum. This six-course sequence utilizes a representational approach, having students frame design challenges through diagrams and drawings before starting to implement solutions. The representations students create provide eight lenses on the design process; several of these lenses capture elements of societal implications and social justice. Within the design course sequence, the third-year particularly emphasizes the larger societal and human contexts of design. A challenge in the third-year course has been having engineering students who are acculturated to quantitative and linear methods of problem solving shift their perspectives to address complex societal topics. In the social sciences such topics are usually described textually with rich qualitative descriptions. In an attempt to engage engineering students, the authors have utilized graphical design representations rather than textual descriptions into the course. Such representations better align with engineering epistemology, potentially making the large body of work in the social sciences more accessible to students. This paper reports on how a particular representation, the system map, has third-year students explore systemic structures and practices that impact design decisions and processes. Students use system maps to identify ways design projects can impact on society in ways that have both positive and potentially negative consequences. Qualitative analysis of student artifacts over five course iterations was used in an action research approach to refine how to effectively integrate system map representations that capture societal issues and address issues of justice. Action research is an iterative methodology that utilizes evidence to improve practice, in this case the improving students’ facility with, and conceptions of, the societal impact of engineering work. This practice-focused paper reports on how system maps can be used in engineering and what supporting practices, e.g. interviews and research, make their use more effective. Ways to utilize system maps specifically, and representations more generally, to connect technical aspects of engineering design to social justice topics and issues are 

The purpose of this WIP research paper is to briefly consider the basis of higher education’s current grading system and to discuss an implemented grading structure based on a human development framework which was part of a cultural shift within the department. The letter-grade marking system is relatively new compared to the institution of higher education and brings with it a secondary effect of an “A” ranking conveying significant value and meaning to the interpreter. Students (and faculty) bring their own interpretation of what it means to be an ‘A’ student and connect this to their personal identity. The shift to letter-based grades coincided with influx of capital into American universities and an industry need for more research. Providing such letter-based sortings is often a required part of the instructional contract with most university structures. Grading systems at their best may provide helpful developmental feedback to learners and reward valued behaviors, but they are also punitive and contribute to shame and feelings of alienation or un-belonging. Grading itself is a strong voice of the faculty. While a curriculum guides the overall experience of students, grades themselves are the “coin of the realm” in terms of directly conveying students what faculty value. These weightings of various activities and what work is and is not graded tacitly tell students where faculty expect students to spend their time and effort. Who can be an engineer is then restricted to those who show aptitude in predefined outcomes and can successfully navigate the grading structures given to them. We ask if it is possible to grade across a curriculum in a way that increases opportunities for student agency and can convey to students the multi-faceted nature of being an engineer. While technical skills and knowledge are important, they are only one aspect of being an engineer. We introduce an attempted grading structure that includes six factors of engineering development used across each assignment within a first year engineering course. This change informed ongoing efforts to align grading approaches that place value on student agency in student development and informed an educational model based on the Capability Approach. 

This paper is based on a series of semi-structured, qualitative interviews that were conducted with students, by an undergraduate student and lead author of this paper, that focused on their experiences with educational technologies and online teaching pedagogy in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. As U.S. educators scrambled to adapt to online course delivery modes as a result of the first wave of the pandemic in the spring 2020 semester, those in the educational technology and online learning community saw the potential of this movement to vastly accelerate the implementation of online systems in higher education. A shift that may have taken 20 years to accomplish was implemented in two waves, first with the immediate forced shift to online learning in March 2020; and second, a less immediate shift to hybrid and online instruction designed to accommodate the different geographic variation in COVID-19 intensity, along with varied political and institutional ecologies surrounding online versus in-person instruction for the 2020-2021 academic year. With all of the rapid changes that were occurring during the spring of 2020, we wanted to investigate how students experienced and perceived faculty use of technology during this particular moment in time. This study documents this transition through the eyes of undergraduate students, and demonstrates the varied ways in which faculty navigated the transition to online learning. According to our interviewees, some faculty were thoughtful and competent and provided a supportive environment that paid attention to a students’ capacity for online learning, rather than maintaining traditional instructional practices. Others relied on practices from in-person instruction that were familiar, but appeared to be nervous in the new online teaching environment. Then there were those who seemed occupied by other concerns, where a focus on effective undergraduate teaching remained limited to begin with, and their approach to online instruction was driven by convenience. Our qualitative data clearly reveals that the ways in which faculty conducted their online courses directly impacted student learning experiences. In this study, we set out to document both the faculty instructional strategies in a hybrid/online environment and student accounts of those choices and their resulting experiences. While we continue to analyze this unique data set on this moment of transition in engineering education, we hope that this paper will also lead to policy recommendations regarding faculty adaptations to online instruction in general. We include some initial thoughts and recommendations below.