Contextual Constraining of Student Design Practices

Abstract

BackgroundEngineering design is of significant interest to engineering educators. As yet, how the higher education context shapes student outcomes in engineering design courses remains underexplored. Since design courses are the primary way students are taught the critical topic of design, it is important to understand how the institutional and organizational contexts shape student outcomes and how we could improve design projects, given the context.PurposeWe sought to answer two questions: What aspects of the design education process are salient, or important, for students? How do these salient aspects affect their design practices?Design/MethodWe used a qualitative case study approach to address the research questions because of our emphasis on understanding process‐related aspects of design work and developing an interpretive understanding from the students’ perspective.ResultsUsing a nested structuration framework, we show that the context of design practices shaped students’ outcomes by constraining their approach to the project and by providing a framework for their design process. We provide recommendations for design educators to help students overcome impediments to achieving learning objectives for design activities. Our research questions the efficacy of teaching engineering design when a design problem lacks a context beyond the classroom.ConclusionsThe institutional and organizational contexts influence student design practices. Engineering educators should carefully consider the potential effects of the design projects they implement within a higher education context.

How do students negotiate groupwork? The influence of group norm exercises and group development norms

“…Our most important methodological implications concern how to evaluate group development interventions in engineering education, including not only group norm exercises, but also, for instance, group formation practices and exercises focused on evaluating group member performance. While previous research has observed groupwork up-close and over time (Goncher & Johri, 2015;Kaygan, 2023), most research on group development interventions-perhaps unsurprisingly-follow an intervention research logic, evaluating activities and support structures mainly through quantitative pre-and post-measures of group dynamics and group performance (Aaron et al, 2014;Murzi et al, 2020;Pertegal-Felices et al, 2019). We believe this to be an important research approach, especially when isolating design elements and properly controlling for confounding variables.…”

“…Group development can be viewed both as (i) a project that students and teachers sometimes engage in to improve group functioning, and (ii) a process of change and, potentially, improvement in group functioning over time, not necessarily being the product of purposeful effort. Literature on group development suggests that group norms is partly a product of inputs to group processes, including, for instance, individual group member characteristics and group composition (Parker et al, 2019;Pieterse & Thompson, 2010;Sahin, 2011), as well as social context, including, for instance, institutional practices and broader cultural values (Goncher & Johri, 2015;Tonso, 1996Tonso, , 2006. However, because students are not passive or disinterested when it comes to what is expected of group members, group norms do not develop deterministically from these inputs (Quan et al, 2015).…”