Investigating the Impact of Using a CAD Simulation Tool on Students’ Learning of Design Thinking

Engineering design thinking is hard to teach and still harder to learn by novices primarily due to the undetermined nature of engineering problems that often results in multiple solutions. In this paper, we investigate the effect of teaching engineering design thinking to freshmen students by using a computer-aided Design (CAD) simulation software. We present a framework for characterizing different levels of engineering design thinking displayed by students who interacted with the CAD simulation software in the context of a collaborative assignment. This framework describes the presence of four levels of engineering design thinking—beginning designer, adept beginning designer, informed designer, adept informed designer. We present the characteristics associated with each of these four levels as they pertain to four engineering design strategies that students pursued in this study—understanding the design challenge, building knowledge, weighing options and making tradeoffs, and reflecting on the process. Students demonstrated significant improvements in two strategies—understanding the design challenge and building knowledge. We discuss the affordances of the CAD simulation tool along with the learning environment that potentially helped students move towards Adept informed designers while pursuing these design strategies.

[1]  D. Schoen,et al.  The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action , 1985 .

[2]  John Sweller,et al.  Cognitive Load Theory: Instructional Implications of the Interaction between Information Structures and Cognitive Architecture , 2004 .

[3]  L.J. Leifer,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[4]  Sheri Sheppard,et al.  Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field. Book Highlights. , 2008 .

[5]  Annemarie S. Palincsar,et al.  Motivating Project-Based Learning: Sustaining the Doing, Supporting the Learning , 1991 .

[6]  William R. Shadish,et al.  Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. , 1998 .

[7]  Kees Dorst,et al.  The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application , 2011 .

[8]  N. Cross.  Designerly ways of knowing , 2006 .

[9]  Stavros N. Demetriadis,et al.  Research Approaches in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning , 2013, Int. J. e Collab..

[10]  David Radcliffe,et al.  Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design , 2009, Comput. Aided Des..

[11]  David F. Feldon,et al.  Promoting Conceptual Change for Complex Systems Understanding: Outcomes of an Agent-Based Participatory Simulation , 2016 .

[12]  Amy Pallant,et al.  Fostering Students' Epistemologies of Models via Authentic Model-Based Tasks , 2004 .

[13]  Jonathan C. Hilpert,et al.  Collaborative Learning in Engineering Students: Gender and Achievement , 2011 .

[14]  Camilo Vieira,et al.  Using Learning Analytics to Characterize Student Experimentation Strategies in the Context of Engineering Design , 2016 .

[15]  Eugenia Etkina,et al.  Review of a First-Year Engineering Design Course , 2014 .

[16]  CHARLES XIE,et al.  Time series analysis method for assessing engineering design processes using a CAD tool , 2014 .

[17]  Robin Adams,et al.  An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations , 2015, International Journal of STEM Education.

[18]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Design {Thinking | Communicating: A Sociogenetic Approach to Reflective Practice in Collaborative Design , 2017 .

[19]  J. Ramos,et al.  Making probabilistic methods real, relevant, and interesting using MATLAB , 1999, FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.

[20]  Stefano Oss,et al.  Computers With Wings: Flight Simulation and Personalized Landscapes , 2005 .

[21]  Senay Purzer,et al.  Assessing idea fluency through the student design process , 2015, 2015 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE).

[22]  Wolff‐Michael Roth,et al.  The development of science process skills in authentic contexts , 1993 .

[23]  Hugh F. Cline,et al.  Classroom Dynamics: The Impact of a Technology-Based Curriculum Innovation on Teaching and Learning , 1996 .

[24]  Pedro Ignacio Álvarez Peñín,et al.  Can Interactive Web-based CAD Tools Improve the Learning of Engineering Drawing? A Case Study , 2014 .

[25]  Cindy E. Hmelo-Silver,et al.  Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment , 2009 .

[26]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes , 1999 .

[27]  J. Krajcik,et al.  Project-based learning , 2014 .

[28]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[29]  P. Mayring.  Qualitative Content Analysis , 2000 .

[30]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Doing with Understanding: Lessons from Research on Problem- and Project-Based Learning , 1998 .

[31]  Sean Brophy,et al.  Instructors' Intended Learning Outcomes for Using Computational Simulations as Learning Tools , 2012 .

[32]  Alejandra J. Magana,et al.  Investigating the Impact of an Educational CAD Modeling Tool on Student Design Thinking , 2016 .

[33]  Robin Adams,et al.  The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix , 2012 .

[34]  Carol L. Smith,et al.  Conceptually enhanced simulations: A computer tool for science teaching , 1993 .

[35]  Brenda Capobianco,et al.  Shedding Light on Engineering Design. , 2013 .

[36]  Paul Horwitz,et al.  Designing and using open-ended software to promote conceptual change , 1994 .

[37]  Amy Pallant,et al.  Reasoning with Atomic-Scale Molecular Dynamic Models , 2004 .

[38]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[39]  Janice D. Gobert,et al.  Introduction to the Issue , 2004 .

[40]  Kees Dorst,et al.  Briefing and reframing: A situated practice , 2011 .

[41]  Tomasz Arciszewski,et al.  Design Fixation: A Cloak of Many Colors , 2014 .

[42]  C. Hsiung,et al.  The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning , 2012 .

[43]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-up study , 2005 .

[44]  Karl T. Ulrich,et al.  Product Design and Development , 1995 .

[45]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Engineering Design Methods: Strategies for Product Design , 1994 .

[46]  Julie E. Mills,et al.  Engineering Education, Is Problem-Based or Project-Based Learning the Answer , 2003 .

[47]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Inventors, Copycats, and Everyone Else: The Emergence of Shared Resources and Practices As Defining Aspects of Classroom Communities. , 1995 .