The benefits of model building in teaching engineering design

Design Studies

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 288-309

  Lemons, Gay ^a   Carberry, Adam ^a   Swan, Chris ^a   Jarvin, Linda ^a   Rogers, Chris ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

design cognition; design education; engineering design; engineering education; protocol analysis

Indexed keywords

CONCEPTUAL MODEL; CREATIVE THINKING; DESIGN COGNITION; DESIGN EDUCATION; DESIGN STRATEGIES; DESIGN TASKS; ENGINEERING DESIGN; ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES; METACOGNITIVES; PROTOCOL ANALYSIS; VERBAL PROTOCOL ANALYSIS;

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN; COGNITIVE SYSTEMS; COLLEGE BUILDINGS; EDUCATION COMPUTING; ENGINEERING; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; MODEL BUILDINGS; PRODUCT DESIGN; SPACECRAFT; STUDENTS;

STRUCTURAL DESIGN;

EID: 77950596326     PISSN: 0142694X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.destud.2010.02.001     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Atman C., and Bursic K. Verbal protocol analysis as a method to document engineering student design processes. Journal of Engineering Education 87 1 (1998) 121-131
2. Atman C., Cardella M., Turns J., and Adams R. Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: An in-depth follow up study. Design Studies 26 4 (2005) 325-357
3. Atman C., Chimka J., Bursic K., and Nachtmann H. A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies 20 2 (1999) 131-152
4. Atman C., and Turns J. Studying engineering design learning: Four verbal protocol studies. In: Eastman C., McCracken W., and Newstetter W. (Eds). Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (2001), Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK 37-60
5. Bales, J., & Consi, T. (2003) Smart rockets: A hands-on introduction to interdisciplinary engineering, in American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition Nashville, TN.
6. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control (1997), W.H. Freeman, New York
7. Bursic K., and Atman C. Information gathering: a critical step for quality in the design process. Quality Management Journal 4 4 (1997) 60-75
8. Christiaans H., and Dorst K. Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: a protocol study. Design Theory and Methodology 42 (1992) 131-137
9. Creswell J. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions (1997), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
10. Cross N. Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In: Eastman C., McCracken M., and Newstetter W. (Eds). Design knowing and learning (2001), Elsevier, New York 79-103
11. Dewey J. Education and experience (1938), Simon and Schuster, New York, NY
12. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (1995). Protocol analysis as a research technique for analyzing design activity, in ASME Design Engineering Technical Conference, Boston, MA.
13. Ellis G., Rudnitsky A., and Scordilis G. Finding meaning in the classroom: learner-centered approaches that engage students in engineering. International Journal of Engineering Education 21 6 (2005) 1148-1158
14. Ennis C., and Gyeszly S. Protocol analysis of the engineering systems design process. Research in Engineering Design 3 1 (1991) 15-22
15. Ericsson K., and Simon H. Verbal reports as data. Psychological Review 8 3 (1980) 215-251
16. Ericsson K., and Simon H. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (1993), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
17. Ericsson K., and Smith J. Prospects and limits of the empirical study of expertise: an introduction. In: Ericsson K., and Smith J. (Eds). Toward a general theory of experts (1991), Cambridge University Press, New York, NY 1-38
18. Felder R., and Silverman L. Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education 78 7 (1988) 674-681
19. Helbling, J., & Traub, L. (2008). Impact of rapid prototyping facilities on engineering student outcomes. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition, Pittsburg, PA.
20. Ho, N., & Ryan, R. (2009). Designing a sequence of design courses to improve student performance and retention at a minority institution. American Society of Engineering Education Conference and Exposition Austin, TX.
21. Kolb D. Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development (1984), Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ
22. Kolb D., and Fry R. Toward an applied theory of experiential learning. In: Cooper C. (Ed). Theory of group process (1975), John Wiley, London, UK
23. Kruger C., and Cross N. Solution driven versus problem driven design: strategies and outcomes. Design Studies 27 5 (2006) 527-548
24. Lemons G. When the horse drinks: enhancing everyday creativity using elements of improvisation. Creativity Research Journal 17 1 (2005) 25-36
25. Malicky, D., Kohl, J., & Huang, M. (2007). Integrating a machine shop class into the mechanical engineering curriculum: experiential and inductive learning. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI.
26. Mullins C., Atman C., and Shuman L. Freshman engineers' performance when solving design problems. IEEE Transitions on Education 42 4 (1999) 281-287
27. O'Neill, R., Geiger, C., Csavina, K., & Orndoff, C. (2007). Making statics dynamic! Combining lecture and laboratory into an interdisciplinary, problem-based, active learning environment. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI.
28. Pahl G. Resume of 12 years interdisciplinary empirical studies of engineering design in Germany. Design Studies 20 5 (1999) 481-494
29. Patton M. Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2002), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA
30. Piaget J. Psychology and epistemology: Towards a theory of knowledge (1972), Penguin, Hammondsworth, UK
31. Radcliffe D., and Lee T. Design methods used by undergraduate engineering Students. Design Studies 10 4 (1989) 199-207
32. Schumucker, D. (1998). Models, models, models: the use of physical models to enhance the structural engineering experience. American Society for Engineering Education Conference and Exposition Seattle, WA.
33. Stauffer L., and Ullman D. A comparison of the results of empirical studies into the mechanical design process. Design Studies 9 2 (1988) 107-114
34. Zerbe Enns C. Integrating separate and connected knowing: The Experiential learning model. The Teaching of Psychology 20 1 (1993) 7-13
35. Zimring C., and Craig D. Defining design between domains: an argument for design research á la carte. In: Eastman C., McCracken M., and Newstetter W. (Eds). Design knowing and learning (2001), Elsevier, New York 125-146