TY - JOUR
T1 - Encouraging engineering design teams to engage in expert iterative practices with tools to support coaching in problem-based learning
AU - Rees Lewis, Daniel George
AU - Carlson, Spencer E.
AU - Riesbeck, Christopher K
AU - Gerber, Elizabeth M.
AU - Easterday, Matthew Wayne
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank Bruce Sherin, Haoqi Zhang, Leesha Maliakal, Jamie Gorson, and the Delta Lab for feedback on earlier drafts and conceptualizations of this paper. This work was supported through funding by the National Science Foundation (IIS‐1530833 and IIS‐1530837), the Spencer Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. Pepper Fellowship. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or other funding bodies. Research reported in this publication was also supported, in part, by the US National Institutes of Health's National Institute of Aging, Grant Number P30AG059988. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Insitute of Health. This work extends an earlier and less well‐developed conference paper presented at the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (Rees Lewis et al., 2018 ).
Publisher Copyright:
© 2023 American Society for Engineering Education.
PY - 2023/10
Y1 - 2023/10
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - coaching
KW - design practice
KW - design process
KW - iteration
KW - metacognition
KW - problem-based learning
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85169826660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85169826660&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/jee.20554
DO - 10.1002/jee.20554
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85169826660
SN - 1069-4730
VL - 112
SP - 1012
EP - 1031
JO - Journal of Engineering Education
JF - Journal of Engineering Education
IS - 4
ER -