Giving and responding to feedback through visualisations in design critiques

Tolbert, DeLean; Buzzanell, Patrice M.; Zoltowski, Carla B.; Cummings, Antonette T.; Cardella, Monica E.

doi:10.1080/15710882.2015.1135244

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the practices outlined here not only address the six content domains identified by Pérez et al (2012) (technology, arrangements, motivation, execution, meetings, and management), but also extend that work beyond course logistics to highlight the ways in which capstone faculty prepare students for professional work by creating environments that simulate work as well as through role modeling, exposure, and employability practices geared explicitly toward students' post-graduation roles. At the same time, the taxonomy complements the richly detailed accounts of design review coaching sessions such as those provided by Tolbert et al (2016) and Daly and Yilmaz (2016) by situating that coaching within the capstone experience as a whole. The coaching practices identified through our interviews encompass and extend the discursive practices identified in these earlier studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…At the same time, the taxonomy complements the richly detailed accounts of design review coaching sessions such as those provided by Tolbert et al () and Daly and Yilmaz () by situating that coaching within the capstone experience as a whole. The coaching practices identified through our interviews encompass and extend the discursive practices identified in these earlier studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…For example, Adams, Forin, Chua, and Radcliffe () used cognitive apprenticeship and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to analyze the complexity of instructors' engagement with students around design decisions. Tolbert, Buzzanell, Zoltowski, Cummings, and Cardella () provided a detailed account of instructor feedback patterns and student responses related to the ambiguity of design, while Yilmaz and Daly () explored instructor feedback relative to students' convergent and divergent thinking. Such studies offer important accounts of the ways instructor discourse shapes student learning in the context of design reviews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Characterizing capstone design teaching: A functional taxonomy

Pembridge

Paretti

2019

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Capstone design courses represent a critical juncture in students' development at the transition from school to work. However, few studies have systematically explored teaching in this context, leaving a significant gap in our ability to concretely describe faculty practices in ways that support subsequent explorations of the relationships between teaching practices and learning outcomes. Purpose/Hypothesis The aim of this study was to develop a comprehensive description of the pedagogical practices used by capstone design faculty from a functional perspective and provide researchers with a framework for subsequent work. Design/Method This study used qualitative methods to analyze interviews with 42 capstone faculty; the participants represent a stratified purposeful sample of respondents to a national survey. Analysis focused on descriptive coding, beginning with a priori codes, to define broad functions, supplemented with emergent coding to identify concrete practices used in the capstone context. Results The study resulted in a model of capstone design teaching that includes nine functions (challenge, protect, coach, promote employability, provide exposure, provide role models, accept and confirm, counsel, and build rapport) and 28 associated practices. Conclusions Capstone faculty use a range of practices designed not only to coach students through the engineering design process but also to more broadly prepare students for workplace practice and build their identity as engineering professionals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Characterizing capstone design teaching: A functional taxonomy

Pembridge

Paretti

2019

J of Engineering Edu

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nonhumans have been relatively under-researched in the discipline of participatory design (Palmas and Busch 2015; Tolbert et al 2016). Where there has been some research on the role of nonhumans in participatory design, the focus tends to be more on the equipment and materials used as design tools, for example: pencils, paper, buttons, textiles, moss, weeds, computer modeling or other media (Akama 2015; Binder et al 2015;Brandt et al 2013;Craft 2013;Lindstrom and Stahl 2012;Müller 2007;Sanders 2000;Schoffelen et al 2015).…”

Section: Nonhuman Participation Definedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonhumans in participatory design

Rice

2017

CoDesign

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines the role that nonhumans play in participatory design. Research and practice concerned with participatory design mostly focuses on human participants, however nonhumans also participate in the design process and can play a significant role in shaping the process. This article focuses on how nonhumans participate in the design process. An empirical case-study is used to illustrate how humans and nonhumans assemble to form networks in order to effect a design. Nonhumans increase the level of participation in a design process. The case-study reveals how nonhumans help to maintain, destroy or strengthen networks by substituting, mediating and communicating with humans and often, in doing so, making human actors more or less visible in the process. Nonhumans play a part in configuring the social. Revealing the presence and roles of nonhumans is an important means through which to increase the democracy within the design process.

show abstract

“…The Focus domain was customised based on Dannels's (2011) and Dannels and Martin's (2008) coding schemes for conversational feedback after it had been piloted for use in the context of engineering design review conversations (Tolbert et al 2016). The Substance domain was taken from our previous analysis of students ' and educators' feedback (Marbouti, Cardella, and Diefes-Dux 2015).…”

Section: Coding Scheme and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Written feedback provided by first-year engineering students, undergraduate teaching assistants, and educators on design project work

Marbouti

Mendoza-Garcia

Diefes‐Dux

et al. 2017

European Journal of Engineering Education

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Feedback is an important part of design education. To better understand how feedback is provided to students on their engineering design work, we characterised and compared first-year engineering students', undergraduate teaching assistants', and educators' written feedback on sample student design work. We created a coding scheme including two domains: Substance and Focus of feedback. Educators made more and longer comments than undergraduate teaching assistants, and undergraduate teaching assistants made more and longer comments than first-year students. The first-year students focused on giving specific directions in their feedback while educators and undergraduate teaching assistants asked thought-provoking questions. Students tended to make more comments about the ways that their peers had communicated their design work while educators and undergraduate teaching assistants made more comments about the design ideas presented in the sample work. This study offers implications for practice for supporting educators, undergraduate teaching assistants, and firstyear engineering students to be able to provide feedback on design work. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Giving and responding to feedback through visualisations in design critiques

Cited by 9 publications

References 25 publications

Characterizing capstone design teaching: A functional taxonomy

Characterizing capstone design teaching: A functional taxonomy

Nonhumans in participatory design

Written feedback provided by first-year engineering students, undergraduate teaching assistants, and educators on design project work

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About