Tolerance for ambiguity: An investigation on its effect on student design performance

Design is a common activity for most disciplines in engineering. Therefore, introductory engineering courses are developed to include design activities as the main driver for the curriculum. Despite this fact, however, it can not be concluded that the implementation of design teaching is done in a way conducive to student learning. While there could be several reasons for this, this paper specifically investigates the effect of tolerance for ambiguity on student design performance. An analysis of the data collected for this investigation reveals the beneficial effects of higher tolerance for ambiguity on increased efficacy, satisfaction, and conflict resolution in the context of an open-ended, team-based, industry-sponsored engineering design project.

[1]  Audeen Fentiman,et al.  Teaching Students to Document a Design Project and Present the Results , 1995 .

[2]  R. Hogarth,et al.  Decision Making under Ambiguity , 1986 .

[3]  David L. McLain,et al.  The Mstat-I: A New Measure of an Individual'S Tolerance for Ambiguity , 1993 .

[4]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Modeling Ambiguity in Decisions Under Uncertainty , 1988 .

[5]  B. Shwom,et al.  Enriching Freshman Design Through Collaboration With Professional Designers , 2002 .

[6]  C. Gibson.  Do they do what they Believe they can? Group Efficacy and Group Effectiveness Across Tasks and Cultures , 1999 .

[7]  S. Sheppard,et al.  Freshman engineering design experiences and organizational framework , 1997 .

[8]  Daniel P. Siewiorek,et al.  Integration of design education, research and practice at Carnegie Mellon University: a multi-disciplinary course in wearable computer design , 1995, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1995 25th Annual Conference. Engineering Education for the 21st Century.

[9]  Billy V. Koen,et al.  Toward a Strategy for Teaching Engineering Design , 1994 .

[10]  S. Scott Moor,et al.  Addressing Common Problems in Engineering Design Projects: A Project Management Approach , 2001 .

[11]  Sven G. Bilen,et al.  Effect of gender orientation of the design task on design team performance: A preliminary study , 2003 .

[12]  Adrian Furnham,et al.  Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the concept, its measurement and applications , 1995 .

[13]  Sven G. Bilen,et al.  GENDER ORIENTATION OF THE DESIGN TASK: PRODUCT DOMAIN AND FAMILIARITY ISSUES , 2003 .

[14]  C. O. Ruud,et al.  Developing and conducting an industry based capstone design course , 1997, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change.

[15]  T. E. Shannon,et al.  Industry-sponsored student design teams in engineering at the University of Tennessee , 1997, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change.

[16]  J. L. Ray.  Industry-academic partnerships for successful capstone projects , 2003, 33rd Annual Frontiers in Education, 2003. FIE 2003..

[17]  C. Atman,et al.  Gender and Ethnicity Differences in Freshmen Engineering Student Attitudes: A Cross‐Institutional Study * , 2001 .

[18]  Amy E. Randel,et al.  Understanding Group Efficacy , 2000 .

[19]  A. F. Conn,et al.  An industry-sponsored capstone design course , 1993, Proceedings of IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference - FIE '93.

[20]  D. L. Dekker,et al.  Issues when using company sponsored projects to provide a design experience for students , 1997, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1997 27th Annual Conference. Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change.

[21]  Barbara M. Moskal,et al.  Engineering Design: Using A Scoring Rubric To Compare The Products Of Teams That Differ In Gender Composition , 2002 .

[22]  Nikos J Mourtos,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of an introductory engineering course for freshmen , 2002, 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education.

[23]  David L. Darmofal,et al.  Problem-Based Learning in Aerospace Engineering Education , 2002 .

[24]  David Malicky,et al.  A Literature Review On The Underrepresentation Of Women In Undergraduate Engineering: Ability, Self Efficacy, And The "Chilly Climate" , 2003 .

[25]  A. Bandura.  Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. , 1977, Psychology Review.

[26]  Gül E. Okudan,et al.  Embedding Engineering Management Into Product Design Education , 2002 .

[27]  Gül E. Okudan.  On the gender orientation of the product design task , 2002, 32nd Annual Frontiers in Education.

[28]  Spencer P. Magleby,et al.  Selecting appropriate industrial projects for capstone design programs , 2001 .

[29]  Kara A. Incalcaterra,et al.  A meta-analysis of team-efficacy, potency, and performance: interdependence and level of analysis as moderators of observed relationships. , 2002, The Journal of applied psychology.

[30]  R. J. Coleman,et al.  Fostering university/industry partnerships through sponsored undergraduate design , 1995, Proceedings Frontiers in Education 1995 25th Annual Conference. Engineering Education for the 21st Century.

[31]  A. Kruglanski,et al.  Motivated closing of the mind: "seizing" and "freezing". , 1996, Psychological review.

[32]  Spencer P. Magleby,et al.  Integrated product and process design: a capstone course in mechanical and manufacturing engineering , 1991, Proceedings Frontiers in Education Twenty-First Annual Conference. Engineering Education in a New World Order.

[33]  Marilyn E. Gist,et al.  Self-Efficacy: A Theoretical Analysis of Its Determinants and Malleability , 1992 .

[34]  D. Moore,et al.  Industrial Sponsored Design Projects Addressed by Student Design Teams , 2001 .