Search for: All records

This research paper investigates differences between course design heuristics that have been identified from three distinct data sources: course design team meetings, educator interviews, and course design papers. The study of heuristics used by experts in a discipline can have several practical benefits. They can (1) be employed as tools to scaffold expert behavior among novices, (2) be translated into processes to make challenging tasks more efficient, and (3) provide deeper insights into the nature of a domain, task, or discipline. While the study of heuristics remains robust across domains, they have demonstrated differences in format and have been identified through a variety of data types. The purpose of this study is to unpack differences in heuristics independently identified through different data types in order to better understand the role these types of data can play in understanding of heuristics for course design, especially as related to engineering courses. We utilized thematic analysis to explore the patterns of differences between heuristics identified from the three settings in three related, but distinct studies. Datasets includes audio-recordings from a four-month team course redesign process, five approximately hour-long educator interviews, and 183 peer-reviewed course design papers. We identified four themes representing differences across the datasets: (1) differences in volume/frequency of heuristics, (2) differences in breadth, specificity, and conceptualizations evidenced by categories of heuristics, (3) individual heuristic specificity, and (4) locus of clarity in heuristic examples. These results inform a set of four considerations for selecting data sources for studies of heuristics within engineering course design and other domains. 

Design thinking is a robust framework for creatively and effectively identifying and solving important human problems. While design thinking is commonly associated with fields like industrial design, it can be applied to many problem types. For example, several recent examples demonstrate the applicability of design thinking to the design and development of educational materials, courses, and systems. These results suggest that design thinking could be used as a framework to (re)design and develop effective engineering courses. The goal of this project is to understand how nine educators from different backgrounds did or did not use design thinking to redesign a sophomore-level electrical and computer engineering course. The primary source of data was 21 transcribed audio recordings of design meetings and is supplemented with interviews, reflections, and course artifacts. Thematic analysis revealed 10 themes that represent connections and disconnections between the process used and a common five-stage design thinking process (empathize, define, ideate, prototype, and test). These themes demonstrate some of the opportunities and challenges related to design thinking within an engineering course design setting. In particular, they suggest that engineering course design is a relevant context for design thinking, but one to which design thinking methods do not always naturally translated. Future work should focus on better understanding unique applications of design thinking within engineering course design and methods that might to support more designerly behaviors among engineering educators. 

Heuristics are cognitive strategies used to efficiently achieve an outcome and are used in the daily practice of many disciplines. Understanding the heuristics used by experts can help researchers and practitioners to better understand an activity and develop systems to support the efficacy and development of novices. While heuristics have been well-documented in psychology, industrial design, and engineering disciplines, they are not as thoroughly understood in the field of instructional design, or engineering course design in particular. This study sought to address that gap by using thematic analysis to identify and group the heuristics used by nine educators redesigning a second-year embedded systems course for electrical, computer, and software engineering students. We collected a variety of data, including audio recordings and written notes from team meetings, design artifacts (including final course materials), interviews with team members, and semi-weekly reflections from the course instructor, to explore heuristics from multiple lenses. We identified 22 heuristics, which were further grouped into 6 categories. The paper describes these heuristics and provides concrete examples of how they were used in practice. These findings indicate the prevalence of heuristics for engineering course design and suggests that additional heuristics can be identified across different educational settings. 

Today's engineers' needs are evolving rapidly as the information and technologies that compete for their attentions. At the same time, our institutions and systems are stretched to their limits to keep up with the changing demands of the times. There is, especially, a need to sustain reflective integration of social and technical knowledge into the future generations of engineering, to make engineers more humane, in order for them to generate technological solutions that are more human-centric. Addressing such needs requires new approaches to teaching and designing engineering courses. Any advancement in the education sector from here forward requires a new thinking paradigm that can be applied in large-scale systematic reform of education: design thinking. This paper outlines means to use design thinking as the foundational methodology for transforming a traditional electrical and computer engineering department into an agile department where design thinking, systems thinking, professional skills and inclusion are promoted, and collaborative, inquiry-driven processes are stimulated to create and sustain new ways of thinking, interacting, teaching, learning and working. 

Electrical and computer engineering technologies have evolved into dynamic, complex systems that profoundly change the world we live in. Designing these systems requires not only technical knowledge and skills but also new ways of thinking and the development of social, professional and ethical responsibility. A large electrical and computer engineering department at a Midwestern public university is transforming to a more agile, less traditional organization to better respond to student, industry and society needs. This is being done through new structures for faculty collaboration and facilitated through departmental change processes. Ironically, an impetus behind this effort was a failed attempt at department-wide curricular reform. This failure led to the recognition of the need for more systemic change, and a project emerged from over two years of efforts. The project uses a cross-functional, collaborative instructional model for course design and professional formation, called X-teams. X-teams are reshaping the core technical ECE curricula in the sophomore and junior years through pedagogical approaches that (a) promote design thinking, systems thinking, professional skills such as leadership, and inclusion; (b) contextualize course concepts; and (c) stimulate creative, socio-technical-minded development of ECE technologies. An X-team is comprised of ECE faculty members including the primary instructor, an engineering education and/or design faculty member, an industry practitioner, context experts, instructional specialists (as needed to support the process of teaching, including effective inquiry and inclusive teaching) and student teaching assistants. X-teams use an iterative design thinking process and reflection to explore pedagogical strategies. X-teams are also serving as change agents for the rest of the department through communities of practice referred to as Y-circles. Y-circles, comprised of X-team members, faculty, staff, and students, engage in a process of discovery and inquiry to bridge the engineering education research-to-practice gap. Research studies are being conducted to answer questions to understand (1) how educators involved in X-teams use design thinking to create new pedagogical solutions; (2) how the middle years affect student professional ECE identity development as design thinkers; (3) how ECE students overcome barriers, make choices, and persist along their educational and career paths; and (4) the effects of department structures, policies, and procedures on faculty attitudes, motivation and actions. This paper will present the efforts that led up to the project, including failures and opportunities. It will summarize the project, describe related work, and present early progress implementing new approaches.