No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
EVALUATING REFLECTIVE BEHAVIOR IN ENGINEERING DESIGN RETROSPECTIVES: AN INITIAL CODING SCHEME
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 June 2023
Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Considering transformation processes within organizations, reflection is an enabler for learning and adaption of engineering processes, methods, and tools. Moreover, reflection as a core element of agile engineering approaches. However, a sound understanding of reflection behaviors of engineers or engineering teams is lacking. In this paper we proposed a structured reflection procedure including different dimensions to reflect on. To analyse reflection behavior of engineers and engineering teams we propose a coding scheme comprising of nine behaviors. The coding scheme allows to evaluate the reflection behavior in real time and give feedbacks to improve the quality of reflection. The proposed coding scheme is initially tested within a workshop with industry partners.
Keywords
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Creative Commons
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.- Copyright
- The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Ammersdörfer, T., Tartler, D., Kauffeld, S. and Inkerman, D. (2022), “Reflection Canvas – An Approach to Structure Reflection Activities in Engineering Design”, in Proceedings of NordDesign 2022, Copenhagen, Denmark, 16-18 August. https://doi.org/10.35199/NORDDESIGN2022.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atzberger, A. and Paetzold, K. (2019), “Current Challenges of Agile Hardware Development: What are Still the Pain Points Nowadays?”, in Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED2019), Vol. 1, pp. 2209–2218. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.227Google Scholar
Badke-Schaub, P. and Frankenberger, E. (2004), “Produktentwicklung: normativ und empirisch”, in Management Kritischer Situationen: Produktentwicklung erfolgreich gestalten, VDI-Buch, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 27–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18702-5_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R. and Gottman, J.M. (Eds.) (1997), Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis, 2. ed., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, S.M. and West, M.A. (1998), “Reflexivity, effectiveness, and mental health in BBC-TV production teams”, in Small Group Research, 29(5), pp. 583–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daudelin, M.W. (1996), “Learning from experience through reflection”, in Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 24, Issue 3, Vol. 24, pp. 36–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0090-2616(96)90004-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology”, in MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13, pp. 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Decius, J., Schaper, N. and Seifert, A. (2019), “Informal workplace learning: Development and validation of a measure”, in Human Resource Development Quarterly, 30(4), pp. 495–535. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dumitrescu, R., Albers, A., Riedel, O., Stark, R. and Gausemeier, J. (2021), Engineering in Deutschland – Status quo in Wirtschaft und Wissenschaft: Ein Beitrag zum Advanced Systems Engineering, Paderborn.Google Scholar
Ellis, S., Carette, B., Anseel, F. and Lievens, F. (2014), “Systematic Reflection: Implications for Learning from Failures and Success”, in Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23 (1), pp. 67–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413504106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inkermann, D., Gürtler, M. and Seegrün, A. (2020), “RECAP – A framework to support structured reflection in engineering projects”, in Proceedings of International Design Conference (DESIGN2020), Vol. 1, pp. 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jobst, B., Thoring, K. and Badke-Schaub, P. (2020), “Introducing a tool to support reflection through sketching and prototyping during the design process”, in Proceedings of International Design Conference (DESIGN2020), Vol. 1, pp. 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsd.2020.263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, M.F. and Leifer, L.J. (2011), “A method to study affective dynamics and performance in engineering design teams”, in DS 68-7: Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED2011), Vol. 7: Human Behaviour in Design, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15-19 August 2011, pp. 244–253.Google Scholar
Kalk, K., Luik, P., Taimalu, M. and Täht, K. (2014), “Validity and reliability of two instruments to measure reflection: A confirmatory study”, TRAMES: A Journal of the Humanities & Social Sciences, No. 18(2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2006), Kompetenzen messen, bewerten, entwickeln: Ein prozessanalytischer Ansatz für Gruppen, Zugl.: Kassel, Univ., Habil.-Schr., 2005, Betriebswirtschaftliche Abhandlungen, N.F., 128, Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. (2007), “Jammern oder Lösungsexploration: Eine sequenzanalytische Betrachtung des Interaktionsprozesses in betrieblichen Gruppen bei der Bewältigung von Optimierungsaufgaben”, Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2012), “Meetings Matter: Effects of Team Meetings on Team and Organizational Success”, in Small Group Research, 43(2), pp. 130–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496411429599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Meinecke, A.L. (2018), “The Advanced Interaction Analysis for Teams (act4teams) Coding Scheme”, in Brauner, E., Boos, M., & Kolbe, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Group Interaction Analysis (Cambridge Handbooks in Psychology), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316286302.022Google Scholar
Kauffeld, S. and Meinecke, A.L. (2018), “The history of group interaction research”, in Brauner, E., Boos, M., and Kolbe, M. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of group interaction analysis, NY: Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 20–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S. and Meyers, R.A. (2009), “Complaint and solution-oriented circles: Interaction patterns in work group discussions”, in European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 18, pp. 267–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320701693209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kauffeld, S., Tiscar-Lorenzo, G., Montasem, K. and Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2009), “act4teams®: Die nächste Generation der Teamentwicklung”, in Handbuch Kompetenzentwicklung, pp. 191–215.Google Scholar
Kelloway, E.K. and Barling, J. (2000), “Knowledge work as organizational behavior”, in International journal of management reviews, 2(3), pp. 287–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Killeavy, M. and Moloney, A. (2010), “Reflection in a social space: Can blogging support reflective practice for beginning teachers?”, in Teaching and teacher education, 26(4), pp. 1070–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klünder, J., Prenner, N., Windmann, A.K., Stess, M., Nolting, M., Kortum, F., Handke, L., Schneider, K. and Kauffeld, S. (2020), “Do you just discuss or do you solve? meeting analysis in a software project at early stages”, in Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 42nd International Conference on Software Engineering Workshops, pp. 557–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knipfer, K., Kump, B., Wessel, D. and Cress, U. (2013), “Reflection as a catalyst for organisational learning”, in Studies in continuing education, 35(1), pp. 30–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Konradt, U., Otte, K.-P., Schippers, M.C. and Steenfatt, C. (2016), “Reflexivity in Teams: A Review and New Perspectives”, in The Journal of Psychology, 150(2), pp. 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1050977CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koo, T.K. and Li, M.Y. (2016), “A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research”, in Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), pp. 155–163.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kröll, M. (2020), “Innovations, agile management methods and personnel development”, in International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics, Springer, Cham, pp. 299–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Allen, J.A. (2014), “How fun are your meetings? Investigating the relationship between humor patterns in team interactions and team performance”, in Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 99, pp. 1278–1287. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., Allen, J.A. and Meinecke, A.L. (2014), “Observing culture: Differences in U.S.-American and German team meeting behaviors”, in Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Vol. 17, pp. 252–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430213497066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. and Kauffeld, S. (2010), “The downside of communication: Complaining cycles in group discussions”, in Schuman, S. (Ed.), The handbook, CA: Jossey-Bass/Wiley, San Francisco, pp. 33–54.Google Scholar
Maaranen, K. and Krokfors, L. (2007), “Time to think? Primary school teacher students reflecting on their MA thesis research processes”, in Reflective Practice, 8(3), 359–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mlekus, L., Bentler, D., Paruzel, A., Kato-Beiderwieden, A.L. and Maier, G.W. (2020), “How to raise technology acceptance: user experience characteristics as technology-inherent determinants”, in Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Organisationspsychologie (GIO), 51(3), pp. 273–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otte, K.P., Konradt, U., Garbers, Y. and Schippers, M.C. (2017), “Development and validation of the REMINT: a reflection measure for individuals and teams”, in European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(2), pp. 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reymen, I. M. M. J. and Hammer, D.K. (2002), “Structured reflection for improving design processes”, in DS 30: Proceedings of DESIGN 2002, the 7th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, pp. 887–892.Google Scholar
Schippers, M.C., Hartog, D.N. and Koopman, P.L. (2007), “Reflexivity in teams: A measure and correlates”, in Applied psychology, 56(2), pp. 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. (1987), Educating the Reflective Practitioner, Towards a New Design for Teaching and Learning in the Professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Taherdoost, H. (2018), “A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and theories”, in Procedia manufacturing, Vol. 22, pp. 960–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weixelbaum, I. (2016), Mit Teamreflexion zum Teamerfolg: Analyse, Modellierung und gezielte Förderung kollektiver Reflexionsprozesse, Schriften aus der Fakultät Humanwissenschaften der Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg.Google Scholar
West, M.A. (2000), “Reflexivity, revolution, and innovation in work teams”, in Beyerlein, M.M., Johnson, D., & Beyerlein, S.T. (Eds.), Product development teams, Vol. 150, CT: JAI Press, Stanford, pp. 1–29.Google Scholar
You have
Access
Open access