Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:51:17.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 11 - Engineering Design Education

Research, Practice, and Examples that Link the Two

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2015

By
Cynthia J. Atman ,
Ozgur Eris ,
Janet McDonnell ,
Monica E. Cardella  and
Jim L. Borgford-Parnell
Edited by
Aditya Johri  and
Barbara M. Olds
Cynthia J. Atman
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Ozgur Eris
Affiliation:
Delft University of Technology
Janet McDonnell
Affiliation:
University of the Arts London
Monica E. Cardella
Affiliation:
Purdue University
Jim L. Borgford-Parnell
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Aditya Johri
Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds
Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Designing is a key component of professional practice in many fields of human endeavor (e.g., architecture, engineering, industrial design, art, and literature). For engineers, designing integrates engineering knowledge, skill, and vision in the pursuit of innovations to solve problems and enable modern life.

With this understanding, engineering educators have, for several decades, been infusing their programs with design curricula and pedagogical experiences in order to enhance the design competencies of engineering graduates. Paralleling the development of these curricula and experiences, a growing body of research has been providing a scholarly basis for engineering design education.

The goal of this chapter is to acquaint readers with engineering design education research and practice. To situate engineering design education in the larger context, we first present a brief history of research on design processes across several fields and then move to a more specific description of research on engineering design processes. We then focus on research that investigates effective ways to teach and assess the design process and review curricular structures and pedagogies that are commonly used in undergraduate engineering programs.

Type
Chapter
Information
Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 201 - 226
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2014

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

Accreditation Board for Engineering Technology (ABET). Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2013–2014. Retrieved from
Adams, R. S., & Fralick, B. (2010). Work in progress – A conceptions of design instrument as an assessment tool. Paper presented at the Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agrawal, A., Borgford-Parnell, J., & Atman, C. J. (2011). Citations on engineering design education (2003–2011) CELT-11–11. Seattle: University of Washington (contact [email protected]).Google Scholar
Akin, Ö. (1986). Psychology of architectural design. London: Pion.Google Scholar
Alexander, C. (1964). Notes on the synthesis of form. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How learning works. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis as a method to document engineering student design processes. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(2), 121–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atman, C. J., Kilgore, D. E., & McKenna, A. (2008, July). Characterizing design learning: A mixed-methods study of engineering designers’ use of language. Journal of Engineering Education, 309–326.
Atman, C. J., Turns, J. E., Borgford-Parnell, J., & Yasuhara, K. (2012). The CELT model: Linking engineering education research and practice at the Center for Engineering Learning & TeachingCELT Technical Report CELT 12–01. Seattle, WA: University of Washington (contact [email protected]).Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P., Goldschmidt, G., & Meijer, M. (2010). How does cognitive conflict in design teams support the development of creative ideas?Creativity and Innovation Management, 19(2), 119–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, R., & Szabo, Z. (2006). Assessing engineering design process knowledge. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 508.Google Scholar
Baillie, C., Feinblatt, E., Thamae, T., & Berrington, E. (2010). Needs and feasibility: A guide for engineers in community projects – The case of waste for life. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool.Google Scholar
Ball, L. (1990). Cognitive processes in engineering design. Plymouth, U.K.: Polytechnic South West.Google Scholar
Ball, L., Evans, J., & Dennis, I. (1994). Cognitive processes in engineering design: A longitudinal study. Ergonomics, 37, 1753–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bansford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.Google Scholar
Barrows, H. S. (1986). A taxonomy of problem-based learning methods. Medical Education, 20(6), 481–486.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baya, V., & Leifer, L. (1996). Understanding information management in conceptual design. In Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.), Analyzing design activity (pp. 151–168). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Becker, K., Mentzer, N., & Park, K. (2012). High school student engineering design thinking and performance. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education conference, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. New York, NY: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Borgford-Parnell, J., Deibel, K., & Atman, C. J. (2010). From engineering design research to engineering pedagogy: Bringing research results directly to the students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 748–759.Google Scholar
Boyer, E. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Endowment for the Ad-vancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
Brereton, M., Cannon, D., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (1996). Collaboration in design teams: How social interaction shapes a product. In Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.), Analyzing design activity (pp. 319–342). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84–92.Google ScholarPubMed
Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Carberry, A. R., & McKenna, A. F. (2011). Analyzing engineering student conceptions of modeling in design. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.Google Scholar
Cardella, M. E. (2006). Engineering mathematics: An investigation of students’ mathematical thinking from a cognitive engineering perspective. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington.Google Scholar
Cardella, M. E., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. S. (2006). Mapping between design activities and external representations for engineering student designers. Design Studies, 27(1), 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardella, M. E., Hoffman, S. R., Ohland, M. W., & Pawley, A. L. (2010). Sustaining sustainable design through “normalized sustainability” in a first-year engineering course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 366–377.Google Scholar
Carvalho, L., Dong, A., & Maton, K. (2009). Legitimating design: A sociology of knowledge account of the field. Design Studies, 30(5), 483–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catalano, G. D. (2004). Senior capstone design and ethics: A bridge to the professional world. Science and Engineering Ethics, 10, 409–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In , S. R. K. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 47–60). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Coyle, E. J., Jamieson, L. H., & Oakes, W. C. (2005). EPICS: Engineering projects in community service. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 139–150.Google Scholar
Crawley, E. F., Malmquist, J., Ostlund, S., & Brodeur, D. (2007). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Crismond, D., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, N. (1984). Developments in design methodology. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. London: Springer.Google Scholar
Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1996). Analysing design activity. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Cross, N., & Cross, A. (1996). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. In Cross, N., Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (Eds.), Analyzing design activity (pp. 291–318). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Daly, S. (2008). Design across disciplines, Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Daly, S., Mann, L., & Adams, R. S. (2008). A new direction for engineering education research: Unique phenomenographic results that impact big picture understandings. Paper presented at the Australasian Association for Engineering Education, Yeppoon, Queensland, Australia.Google Scholar
Darke, J. (1979). The primary generator and the design process. Design Studies, 1(1), 36–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, D. C., Gerlick, R., Trevisan, M. S., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Establishing inter-rater agreement for TIDEE's teamwork and professional development assessments. Paper presented at the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
DeShon, R. P., Kozlowski, S. W. J., Schmidt, A. M., Milner, K. R., & Wiechmann, D. (2004). A multiple-goal, multilevel model of feedback effects on the regulation of individual and team performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 1035–1056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, G., & Lucena, J. (2003). When students resist: Ethnography of a senior design experience in engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 19(1), 168–176.Google Scholar
Du, X., de Graaff, E., & Kolmos, A. (Eds.). (2009). Research on PBL practice in engineering education. Boston, MA: Sense.
Dubberly, H. (2004). How do you design? A compendium of models. San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from
Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorenson, C. D. (1997, January). A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 17–28.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dym, C. L., & Little, L. (2009). Engineering design: A project-based introduction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Ehrenfeld, J. R. (2008). Sustainability by design. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Eliot, M., & Turns, J. (2011). Constructing professional portfolios: Sense-making and professional identity development for engineering undergraduates. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 630–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eris, O. (2004). Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Garzca, L., Palou, E., Lopez-Malo, A., & Garibay, J. M. (2009). Ethnography of a first-year design experience in the introduction to engineering design course. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Gerber, E., McKenna, A., Hirsch, P., & Yarnoff, C. (2010). Learning to waste and wasting to learn? How to use cradle to cradle principles to improve the teaching of design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 28(2), 314–323.Google Scholar
Gero, J. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11, 26–36.Google Scholar
Gero, J. S. (1996). Creativity, emergence and evolution in design. Knowledge-Based Systems, 9(7), 435–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldschmidt, G. (2003). Cognitive economy in design reasoning. In Lindemann, U. (Ed.), Human behavior in design (pp. 53–62). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, G., & Smrcek, L. (2006). On the developing role of physical models in engineering design education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31(2), 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadgraft, R. G., Carew, A. L., Sardine, A., Blundell, T., & Blundell, D. (2008). Teaching and assessing systems thinking in engineering. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Davos, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Hatamura, Y. (2006). Decision-making in engineering design: Theory and practice. London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P., & Weil, B. (2011). Teaching innovative design reasoning: How C-K theory can help to overcome fixation effect. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 25(1), 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hazelrigg, G. A. (1998). A framework for decision-based engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 120(4), 653–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heywood, J. (2005). Engineering education: Research and development in curriculum and instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, P. L., & McKenna, A. F. (2008). Using reflections to promote teamwork understanding in engineering design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(2), 377–385.Google Scholar
Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, S., & Wilbarger, J. (2005). 2005 National survey of engineering capstone design courses. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2006 American Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Hsu, M. C., Cardella, M., Purzer, Ş., & Diaz, N. M. (2010). Assessing elementary teachers’ perceptions of engineering and familiarity with design, engineering and technology: Implications on teacher professional development. Paper presented at the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
Hubka, V. (1982). Principles of engineering design (Eder, W. E., Trans.). Guildford, U.K.: Butterworth Scientific.Google Scholar
Hyman, B., Khanna, S., Lin, Y., & Borgford-Parnell, J. (2011). A case study of using capstone design as basis for curriculum-wide project based learning. Paper presented at the ASME 2011 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exhibition, Denver, CO.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Active learning: Cooperation in the college classroom. Edna, MN: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, J. C. (1970). Design methods: Seeds of human futures. Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Jones, J. C. (1991). Designing designing. London: Architecture Design and Technology Press.Google Scholar
Jones, T. R., Cardella, M. E., & Purzer, Ş. (2012). Using and comparing paper and media to improve student reflection in science and design courses. Paper presented at the National Association of Research on Science Teaching Annual International Conference, Indianapolis, IN.Google Scholar
Kan, J., & Gero, J. (2009). Using the FBS ontology to capture semantic design information in design protocol studies. In McDonell, J. & Lloyd, P. (Eds.), About: Designing – analysing design meetings (pp. 213–229). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Kilgore, D. E., Atman, C. J., Yasuhara, K., Barker, T., & Morozov, A. (2007, October). Considering context: A study of first-year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 321–334.
Kilgore, D. E., Jocuns, A., Yasuhara, K., & Atman, C. J. (2010). From beginning to end: How engineering students think and talk about sustainability across the life cycle. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 305–313.Google Scholar
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Taylor & Francis.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laeser, M., Moskal, B. M., Knecht, R., & Lasich, D. (2003). Engineering design: Examining the impact of gender and the team's gender composition. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 49–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, A. (2010). Sustainable design: A new paradigm for engineering education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 252–259.Google Scholar
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, B. (1980). How designers think. London & Westfield, NJ: Architectural Press; Eastview Editions.Google Scholar
Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (completely rev. 3rd ed.). Oxford and Boston: Architectural Press.Google Scholar
Le Dantec, C. A. (2010). Situating design as social creation and cultural cognition. CoDesign, 6(4), 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, B., Somerville, M., Eris, O., & Tatar, N. (2010). Taking one for the team: Goal orientation and gender-correlated task division. Paper presented at the ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
Little, P., & Cardenas, M. (2001). Use of “studio” methods in the introductory engineering design curriculum. Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloyd, P. (2000). Storytelling and the development of discourse in the engineering design process. Design Studies, 21(4), 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luxhoj, J. T., & Hansen, P. H. K. (1996). Engineering curriculum reform at Aalborg University. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(3), 183–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centered design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 55(4), 587–634.Google Scholar
Mann, L., Dall’Alba, G., & Radcliffe, D. (2007). Using phenomenography to investigate different ways of experiencing sustainable design. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Marples, D. L. (1961). The decisions of engineering design. IRE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-8(2), 55–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marra, R. M., Palmer, B., & Litzinger, T. A. (2000). The effects of a first-year engineering design course on student intellectual development as measured by the Perry Scheme. Journal of Engineering Education, 89(1), 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
McDonnell, J. (1997). Descriptive models for interpreting design. Design Studies, 18(4), 457–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2009). About designing: Analysing design meetings. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
McDonnell, J., Lloyd, P., & Valkenburg, R. C. (2004). Developing design expertise through the construction of video stories. Design Studies, 25, 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKenna, A. F., Colgate, J. E., Carr, S. H., & Olson, G. B. (2006). IDEA: Formalizing the foundation for an engineering design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 671–678.Google Scholar
McKenzie, L. J., Trevisan, M. S., Davis, D. C., & Beyerlein, S. W. (2004). Capstone design courses and assessment: A national study. In Proceedings of the 2004 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Salt Lake City, UT.Google Scholar
McMartin, F., McKenna, A., & Youssefi, K. (2000). Scenario assignments as assessment tools for undergraduate engineering education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mello, N. A. (2000). How can universities provide global perspective for engineers? One institution's solution. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
Melton, R. B., Cardella, M. E., Oakes, W. C., & Zoltowski, C. B. (2012). Development of a design task to assess students’ understanding of human-centered design. Paper presented at the 42nd Annual ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Seattle, WA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). High school students as novice designers. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Michaelsen, L. K., Knight, A. B., & Fink, L. D. (2004). Team-based learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus.Google Scholar
Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education – is problem-based or project-based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education. Retrieved from
Minneman, S. L. (1991). The social construction of a technical reality: Empirical studies of group engineering design practice. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Molhave, A., McDonnell, J., & Atman, C. J. (2011). Seeing and hearing: Elucidating the design process – A workshop at Central Saint Matins College of Art and DesignCELT Technical Report (Vol. CELT – 11–03): University of Washington (contact [email protected]).Google Scholar
Mosborg, S., Adams, R. S., Kim, R., Atman, C. J., Turns, J., & Cardella, M. (2005). Conceptions of the engineering design process: An expert study of advanced practicing professionals. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Conference, Portland, OR.Google Scholar
Neeley, W. L., Sheppard, S. D., & Leifer, L. G. (2006). Design is design is design (or is it?) What we say vs. what we do in engineering education. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
Nefcy, E. J., Gummer, E. S., & Koretsky, M. D. (2012). Characterization of student modeling in an industrially situated virtual laboratory. Paper presented at the 2012 American Society for Engineering Education, Annual Conference and Exposition, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. J., Newstetter, W. C., Kurz-Milcke, E., & Davies, J. (2002). A mixed-method approach to studying distributed cognition in evolving environments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Learning Sciences, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Newstetter, W. C. (1998). Of green monkeys and failed affordances: A case study of a mechanical engineering design course. Research in Engineering Design, 10(2), 118–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newstetter, W. C., & McCracken, W. M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. In Design learning and knowing: Cognition in design education (pp. 63–78). New York, NY: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okudan, G. E., & Mohammed, S. (2006). Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers: Implications for engineering design research, teaching and practice. Design Studies, 27(6), 723–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otto, N. K., & Wood, L. K. (2001). Product design: Techniques in reverse engineering and new product development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Pahl, G. (1997). How and why collaboration with cognitive psychologists began. Paper presented at the Designers: The Key to Successful Product Development, Darmstadt Symposium, Darmstadt, Germany.Google Scholar
Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (1996). Engineering design: A systematic approach. London: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, B., Terenzini, P. T., McKenna, A. F., Harper, B. J., & Merson, D. (2011). Design in context: Where do the engineers of 2020 learn this skill? Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Paretti, M. (2008). Teaching communication in capstone design: The role of the instructor in situated learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(4), 491–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, K., Pieper, J., Mentzer, N., & Becker, K. (2010). Exploring engineering design knowing and thinking as an innovation in STEM learning. Paper presented at the P12 Engineering and Design Education Research Summit, Seaside, OR.Google Scholar
Pembridge, J., & Paretti, M. (2010). The current state of capstone design pedagogy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2010 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
Purzer, Ş., Chen, J., & Yaday, A. (2010). Does context matter? Engineering students’ approaches to global vs local problems. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference, Arlington, VA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purzer, Ş., & Hilpert, J. C. (2011). Special session: Cognitive processes critical for ill-defined problem solving: Linking theory, research, and classroom implications. Paper presented at the 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Purzer, Ş. Y. (2011). The relationship between team discourse, self-efficacy, and individual achievement: A sequential mixed-methods study. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, C., Yasar, S., Morrell, D., Henderson, M., Danielson, S., & Cooke, J. (2007a). A pilot study of engineering design teams using protocol analysis. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Roberts, C., Yasar, S., Morrell, D., Henderson, M., Danielson, S., & Cooke, N. (2007b). A pilot study of engineering design teams using protocol analysis. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2007 ASEE Annual Conference, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
Roozenburgh, N., & Eekels, J. (1995). Product design: Fundamentals and methods. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Rowe, P. G. (1987). Design thinking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Safoutin, M. J., Atman, C. J., & Adams, R. S. (2000a). The design attribute frameworkCELT Technical Report 99–01. Seattle, WA: University of Washington (contact [email protected]).Google Scholar
Safoutin, M. J., Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Rutat, T., Kramlich, J. C., & Firidley, J. L. (2000b). A design attribute framework for course planning and learning assessment. IEEE Transactions on Education, 43(2), 188–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Sheppard, S., Macatangay, K., Colby, A., & Sullivan, W. M. (2009). Educating engineers: Designing for the future of the field. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobek, D., II. (2002). Preliminary findings from coding student design journals. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Somerville, M., Anderson, D., Berbeco, H., Bourne, J. R., Crisman, J., Dabby, D., & Zastavker, Y. (2005). The Olin College curriculum: Thinking toward the future. IEEE Transactions on Education, 48(1), 198–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stacey, M., Eckert, C., & Earl, C. (2009). From Ronchamp by sledge: On the pragmatics of object references. In McDonell, J. & Lloyd, P. (Eds.), About: Designing – analysing design meetings (pp. 361–379). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Suh, N. P. (1990). The principles of design. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., Sorenson, C. D., Swan, B. R., & Anthony, D. K. (1995, April). A survey of capstone engineering courses in North America. Journal of Engineering Education, 165–174.
Ullman, G. D. (1992). The mechanical design process. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (1995). Product design and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Vanasupa, L., Burton, R., Stolk, J., Zimmerman, J. B., Leifer, L., & Anastas, P. T. (2010). The systemic correlation between mental modes and sustainable design: Implications for engineering educators. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 428–450.Google Scholar
Visser, W. (1992). Designers activities examined at 3 levels – Organization, strategies and problem-solving processes. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artifacts of designing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Williams, C. B., Gero, J., Lee, Y., & Paretti, M. (2011). Exploring the effect of design education on the design cognition of mechanical engineering students. Paper presented at the ASME 2011 International Design Engineering Technical Conference & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (IDETC/CIE 2011), Washington, DC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, J. M., & Jennings, W. C. (2000). Studio courses: How Information technology is changing the way we teach, on campus and off. Paper presented at the IEEE Conference.CrossRef
Yasar-Purzer, Ş., Henderson, M., McKay, A., Roberts, C., & de Pennington, A. (2008). Comparing the design problem solving processes of product design and engineering student teams in the US and UK. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Conference, Pittsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
Zoltowski, C. B. (2010). Students’ ways of experiencing human-centered design. Ph.D. dissertation, Purdue University.Google Scholar
Zoltowski, C. B., Cardella, M., & Oakes, W. C. (2011b). The development of assessment tools using phenomenography. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering Education Symposium, Madrid, Spain.Google Scholar
Zoltowski, C. B., Cardella, M. E., & Oakes, W. C. (2011a). Phenomenographic study of human-centered design: Educational implications. Paper presented at the 2011 American Society for Engineering Education, Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2012). Students’ ways of experiencing human-centered design. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 28–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×