Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T16:11:05.569Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Matching pedagogical intent with engineering design process models for precollege education

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 July 2010

Derrick Tate ,
John Chandler ,
A. Dean Fontenot  and
Susan Talkmitt
Derrick Tate
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
John Chandler
Affiliation:
T-STEM Center and Center for Engineering Outreach, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
A. Dean Fontenot
Affiliation:
T-STEM Center and Center for Engineering Outreach, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
Susan Talkmitt
Affiliation:
T-STEM Center and Center for the Integration of Science and Education Research, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public perception of engineering recognizes its importance to national and international competitiveness, economy, quality of life, security, and other fundamental areas of impact; but uncertainty about engineering among the general public remains. Federal funding trends for education underscore many of the concerns regarding teaching and learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics subjects in primary through grade 12 (P-12) education. Conflicting perspectives on the essential attributes that comprise the engineering design process results in a lack of coherent criteria against which teachers and administrators can measure the validity of a resource, or assess its strengths and weaknesses, or grasp incongruities among competing process models. The literature suggests two basic approaches for representing engineering design: a phase-based, life cycle-oriented approach; and an activity-based, cognitive approach. Although these approaches serve various teaching and functional goals in undergraduate and graduate engineering education, as well as in practice, they tend to exacerbate the gaps in P-12 engineering efforts, where appropriate learning objectives that connect meaningfully to engineering are poorly articulated or understood. In this article, we examine some fundamental problems that must be resolved if preengineering is to enter the P-12 curriculum with meaningful standards and is to be connected through learning outcomes, shared understanding of engineering design, and other vestiges to vertically link P-12 engineering with higher education and the practice of engineering. We also examine historical aspects, various pedagogies, and current issues pertaining to undergraduate and graduate engineering programs. As a case study, we hope to shed light on various kinds of interventions and outreach efforts to inform these efforts or at least provide some insight into major factors that shape and define the environment and cultures of the two institutions (including epistemic perspectives, institutional objectives, and political constraints) that are very different and can compromise collaborative efforts between the institutions of P-12 and higher education.

Keywords

Engineering Design ProcessPrimary Through Grade 12 EngineeringScience, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
AI EDAM , Volume 24 , Issue 3: Design Pedagogy: Representations and Processes , August 2010 , pp. 379 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adventure Engineering. (2004). The Engineering Design Process Related to Scientific Inquiry. Golden, CO: Colorado School of Mines, Division of Engineering. Accessed at http://www.adventureengineering.org/edp/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ahmed, S., Wallace, K.M., & Blessing, L.T.M. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design task. Research in Engineering Design 14, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Altshuller, G.S. (1984). Creativity as an Exact Science. New York: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. (1994). A process-based approach to computer-supported engineering design. PhD Thesis. University of Twente.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M. (1995). Comparison of design models proposed in prescriptive literature. Proc. COST A3 and A4 Workshops: The Role of Design in the Shaping of Technology, pp. 187–212.Google Scholar
Blessing, L.T.M., Chakrabarti, A., & Wallace, K.M. (1998). An overview of descriptive studies in relation to a general design research methodology. In Designers: The Key to Successful Product Development (Frankenberger, E., Badke-Schaub, P., & Birkhofer, H., Eds.). London: Springer.Google Scholar
Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing Engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Busch-Vishniac, I.J., & Jarosz, J.P. (2004). Can diversity in the undergraduate engineering population be enhanced through curricular change? Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering 10 (3), 255–282.Google Scholar
Caldenfors, D. (1998). Top-down reasoning in design synthesis and evaluation. Licentiate Thesis. Linköping University, Department of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausing, D. (1994). Total Quality Development. New York: ASME Press.Google Scholar
Committee on K 12 Engineering Education. (2009). Engineering in K 12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council.Google Scholar
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century. (2007). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1993). Science and design methodology: a review. Research in Engineering Design 5, 63–69.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (1994). Engineering Design Methods. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: an overview. Design Studies 25, 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Devon, R. (2004). EDSGN 497 H: Global Approaches to Engineering Design. Mont Alto, PA: Penn State University. Accessed at http://www.cede.psu.edu/~rdevon/EDSGN497H.htmGoogle Scholar
Dixon, J.R. (1987). On research methodology towards a scientific theory of engineering design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing 1 (3), 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dorst, K. (2007). Creating design expertise [keynote]. Proc. ConnectED 2007 Int. Conf., Design Education.Google Scholar
Dwarakanath, S., Blessing, L., & Wallace, K. (1996). Descriptive studies: a starting point for research in engineering design. In Advances in Mechanical Engineering (Mruthyunjaya, T.S., Ed.), pp. 341–361. New Delhi: Narosa Publishing House.Google Scholar
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D., & Leifer, L.J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education 94 (1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engardio, P., & Einhorn, B. (2005). Outsourcing innovation. Business Week.Google Scholar
Evbuomwan, N.F.O., Sivaloganathan, S., & Jebb, A. (1996). A survey of design philosophies, models, methods and systems. Journal of Engineering Manufacture 210 (B4), 301–320.Google Scholar
Finger, S., & Dixon, J.R. (1989). A review of research in mechanical engineering design. Part I and Part II. Research in Engineering Design 1, 51–67, 121–137.Google Scholar
Frank, M., Lavy, I., & Elata, D. (2003). Implementing the project-based learning approach in an academic engineering course. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 13, 273–288.Google Scholar
Grasso, D., & Martinelli, D. (2007). Holistic engineering. Chronicle of Higher Education 53(28), B8.Google Scholar
Hastings, D. (2005). ESD Strategic Plan (2005). Cambridge, MA: MIT, Engineering Systems Division.Google Scholar
Horváth, I. (2004). A treatise on order in engineering design research. Research in Engineering Design 15, 155–181.Google Scholar
Hubka, V., & Eder, W.E. (1992). Engineering Design. Zürich: Heurista.Google Scholar
Infinity Project. (2009). Infinity Curriculum. Accessed at http://www.infinity-project.org/infinity/infinity_curr.html on October 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Jones, J.C. (1962). A method of systematic design. In Conference on Design Methods (Jones, J.C., & Thornley, D.G., Eds.), pp. 53–73. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Judson, H.F. (2005/2006). The great Chinese experiment. Technology Review 108 (11), 52–61.Google Scholar
Kline, R.R. (2000). The paradox of “engineering science”—a Cold War debate about education in the U.S. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 19 (3), 19–25.Google Scholar
Leadbeater, C., & Wilsdon, J. (2007). The Atlas of Ideas: How Asian Innovation Can Benefit Us All. London: Demos.Google Scholar
Lloyd, P., McDonnell, J., & Cross, N. (2007). Analysing design behaviour: the design thinking research symposia series. Proc. Int. Association of Societies of Design Research (IASDR07), Hong Kong.Google Scholar
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Curriculum Framework. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.Google Scholar
National Academy of Engineering. (2004 a). Educating the Engineer of 2020. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Academy of Engineering. (2004 b). The Engineer of 2020. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Academy of Engineering. (2008). Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving the Public Understanding of Engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before It's Too Late: A Report to the Nation. Washington, DC: National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century.Google Scholar
National Science Board. (2007). Moving Forward to Improve Engineering Education, Report No. NSB-07-122. Arlington, VA: National Science Board.Google Scholar
National Science Foundation. (2008). Report on the NSF Workshop on Interdisciplinary Graduate Design Programs. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1988). Engineering Design. New York: Springer–Verlag.Google Scholar
Planning Committee for the Convocation on Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Two Years Later. (2009). Rising Above the Gathering Storm Two Years Later. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Project Lead The Way. (2009). Project Lead the Way: Engineering Curriculum: High School. Accessed at http://www.pltw.org/engineering/Curriculum/Curriculum-high-school.cfm on October 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Ross, D.T. (1977). Structured analysis (SA): a language for communicating ideas. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE- 3 (1), 16–34.Google Scholar
Ross, D.T. (1985). Applications and extensions of SADT. Computer 18 (4), 25–34.Google Scholar
Sim, S.K., & Duffy, A.H.B. (2003). Towards an ontology of generic engineering design activities. Research in Engineering Design 14, 200–223.Google Scholar
Simon, H.A. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sohlenius, G. (2005). Systemic nature of the industrial innovation process. Contribution to a philosophy of industrial engineering. PhD Thesis. Tampere University of Technology, Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Institute of Production Engineering.Google Scholar
Suh, N.P. (1990). The Principles of Design. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tate, D., & Lu, Y. (2004). Strategies for axiomatic design education. Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Axiomatic Design (ICAD2004).Google Scholar
Tate, D., Maxwell, T., Flueckiger, U.P., Park, K., & Parten, M. (2008). Development of a program in innovative and sustainable design of automotive and building technologies. Proc. ASME Energy Sustainability 2008.Google Scholar
Tate, D., Maxwell, T., Ham, G.F., Blair, R., Stewart, R., Patterson, T., Fontenot, D., & Chandler, J. (2008). Applying principles of axiomatic design to a transdisciplinary academic program to educate skilled workers for all levels of the automotive industry. Proc. 2008 SAE World Congress.Google Scholar
Tate, D., & Nordlund, M. (1995). Synergies between American and European approaches to design. Proc. 1st World Conf. Integrated Design and Process Technology, pp. 103–111.Google Scholar
Tate, D., & Nordlund, M. (1998). A design process roadmap as a general tool for structuring and supporting design activities. SDPS Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science 2 (3), 11–19.Google Scholar
Tate, D., & Nordlund, M. (2001). Research methods for design theory. Proc. ASME DETC’01.Google Scholar
Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics Academies Design Blueprint. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Accessed at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ed_init/thscsic/T-STEMAcademyDesignBlueprintFinal.doc on October 1, 2009.Google Scholar
Torp, L., & Sage, S. (2002). From Problems as Possibilities: Problem-Based Learning for K-16 Education. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
Uchitelle, L. (2006). Goodbye production (and maybe innovation). New York Times.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K.T., & Eppinger, S.D. (2004). Product Design and Development. New York: McGraw–Hill.Google Scholar
von Hippel, E. (2005). Democratizing Innovation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilsdon, J., & Keeley, J. (2007). China: The Next Science Superpower? London: Demos.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.R. (1980). An exploratory study of complexity in axiomatic design. PhD Thesis. Cambridge, MA: MIT, Department of Mechanical Engineering.Google Scholar