nach oben

International Journal of Technology and Design Education

Erschienen in:

29.07.2023

Changes to stakeholder engagement approaches throughout a capstone engineering design course

verfasst von: Ibrahim Mohedas, Shanna R. Daly, Robert P. Loweth, Kathleen H. Sienko

Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Ausgabe 2/2024

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Stakeholder engagement activities are essential for guiding designers’ decision-making throughout their design processes. In capstone courses, engineering student designers practice engaging with stakeholders in preparation for their professional careers. However, understandings of (1) how engineering students engage stakeholders to inform design decisions and (2) the factors that lead students to change their engagement approaches over a single project are limited. Our study investigated capstone design teams’ interactions with stakeholders at early, middle, and end stages of the capstone course by analyzing interview transcripts and design reports to develop narratives of interactions for seven teams. Comparisons among teams across their capstone course revealed fundamental differences in what drove students toward or away from stakeholder engagement. Our findings highlighted several factors related to design team characteristics and project context that can inform future design pedagogy as well as the development of curricular design projects that provide effective environments for students to practice more human-centered design approaches.

Vorheriger Artikel The influence of an engineering design-based STEM course on pre-service science teachers’ understanding of STEM disciplines and engineering design process

Nächster Artikel Course experiences that promote and inhibit human-centered design

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Agarwal, R., & Tanniru, M. R. (1990). Knowledge acquisition using structured interviewing: An empirical investigation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 7(1), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.2307/40397939CrossRef

Agid, S., & Chin, E. (2019). Making and negotiating value: Design and collaboration with community led groups. CoDesign, 15(1), 75–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2018.1563191CrossRef

Aguirre, M., Agudelo, N., & Romm, J. (2017). Design facilitation as emerging practice: Analyzing how designers support multi-stakeholder co-creation. She Ji: THe Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(3), 198–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2017.11.003CrossRef

Alexandersson, M., & Limberg, L. (2003). Constructing meaning through information artefacts. The New Review of Information Behavior Research, 4(1), 17–30.CrossRef

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), 359–379.CrossRef

Bano, M., Zowghi, D., Ferrari, A., Spoletini, P., & Donati, B. (2019). Teaching requirements elicitation interviews: An empirical study of learning from mistakes. Requirements Engineering, 24(3), 259–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-019-00313-0CrossRef

Cech, E. A. (2014). Culture of disengagement in engineering education? Science, Technology, & Human Values, 39(1), 42–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243913504305CrossRef

Coleman, R., Clarkson, J., Dong, H., & Cassim, J. (Eds.). (2016). Design for inclusivity: A practical guide to accessible. Routledge.

Crabtree, A., Rouncefield, M., & Tolmie, P. (2012). Doing design ethnography. Springer.CrossRef

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2016). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage publications.

Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.xCrossRef

Dannels, D. P. (2000). Learning to be professional: Technical classroom discourse, practice, and professional identity construction. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 14(1), 5–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/105065190001400101CrossRef

Deininger, M., Daly, S. R., Sienko, K. H., & Lee, J. C. (2017). Novice designers’ use of prototypes in engineering design. Design Studies, 51, 25–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.04.002CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Dieter, G., & Schmidt, L. (2012). Engineering design. McGraw-Hill Education.

Dorst, K. (2015). Frame innovation: Create new thinking by design. MIT Press.CrossRef

Guanes, G., Wang, L., Delaine, D. A., & Dringenberg, E. (2022). Empathic approaches in engineering capstone design projects: Student beliefs and reported behaviour. European Journal of Engineering Education, 47(3), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2021.1927989ADSCrossRef

Hatamura, Y. (Ed.). (2006). Decision-making in engineering design: Theory and practice (K. Iino, Trans.). Springer.

Hui, J. S., Gerber, E. M., & Dow, S. P. (2014). Crowd-based design activities: Helping students connect with users online. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on designing interactive systems, p. 875–884. https://doi.org/10.1145/2598510.2598538

Kim, E., Purzer, Ş., Visas-Valencia, C., Payne, L. B., & Kong, N. (2020). Problem reframing and empathy manifestation in the innovation process. In Proceedings of the 2020 ASEE annual conference & exposition. 2020 ASEE annual conference & exposition.

Kouprie, M., & Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: Stepping into and out of the user’s life. Journal of Engineering Design, 20(5), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544820902875033CrossRef

Krippendorff, K. (2007). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. CRC Press.

Lai, J., Honda, T., & Yang, M. C. (2010). A study of the role of user-centered design methods in design team projects. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 24(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060410000211CrossRef

Lehoux, P., Hivon, M., Williams-Jones, B., & Urbach, D. (2011). The worlds and modalities of engagement of design participants: A qualitative case study of three medical innovations. Design Studies, 32(4), 313–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.001CrossRef

Leydens, J. A., Moskal, B. M., & Pavelich, M. J. (2004). Qualitative methods used in the assessment of engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(1), 65–72. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2004.tb00789.xCrossRef

Limberg, L. (1999). Experiencing Information seeking and learning: A study of the interaction between two phenomena. Information Research, 5(1), 5–1.

Loweth, R. P., Daly, S. R., Sienko, K. H., Hortop, A., & Strehl, E. A. (2019). Student designers’ interactions with users in capstone design projects: A comparison across teams. In Proceedings of the 126th ASEE annual conference & exposition. 126th ASEE annual conference & exposition, Tampa, FL. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--33291

Loweth, R. P., Daly, S. R., Hortop, A., Strehl, E. A., & Sienko, K. H. (2020). An in-depth investigation of student information gathering meetings with stakeholders and domain experts. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(1), 533–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09595-wCrossRef

Loweth, R. P., Daly, S. R., Liu, J., & Sienko, K. H. (2020). Assessing needs in a cross-cultural design project: Student perspectives and challenges. International Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 712–731.

Loweth, R. P., Daly, S. R., Sienko, K. H., Hortop, A., & Strehl, E. A. (2020). Novice designers’ approaches to justifying user requirements and engineering specifications. In: Proceedings of the ASME 2020 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (IDETC/CIE2020), DETC2020-22163. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2020-22163

Loweth, R. P., Daly, S. R., Hortop, A., Strehl, E. A., & Sienko, K. H. (2021). A comparative analysis of information gathering meetings conducted by novice design teams across multiple design project stages. Journal of Mechanical Design, 143(9), 092301. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049970CrossRef

Loweth, R. P., Daly, S. R., Paborsky, L., Hoffman, S. L., & Skerlos, S. J. (2021). “You could take ‘social’ out of engineering and be just fine:” An exploration of engineering students’ beliefs about the social aspects of engineering work. In Proceedings of the 2021 ASEE annual conference & exposition. 2021 ASEE annual conference & exposition, virtual. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--36539

Luck, R. (2007). Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies, 28(3), 217–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.002CrossRef

Luck, R. (2018). Inclusive design and making in practice: Bringing bodily experience into closer contact with making. Design Studies, 54, 96–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.11.003CrossRef

Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: Standards, challenges, and guidelines. The Lancet, 358(9280), 483–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)05627-6CrossRef

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

Mazzurco, A., & Daniel, S. (2020). Socio-technical thinking of students and practitioners in the context of humanitarian engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(2), 243–261. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20307CrossRef

Mazzurco, A., Leydens, J. A., & Jesiek, B. K. (2018). Passive, consultative, and coconstructive methods: A framework to facilitate community participation in design for development. Journal of Mechanical Design, 140(12), 121401. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4041171CrossRef

Mohedas, I., Daly, S. R., & Sienko, K. H. (2014a). Design ethnography in capstone design: Investigating student use and perceptions. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(4), 880–900.

Mohedas, I., Daly, S. R., & Sienko, K. H. (2014b). Gathering and synthesizing information during the development of user requirements and engineering specifications. In Proceedings of the 121st ASEE annual conference and exposition. 121st ASEE annual conference and exposition, Indianapolis, IN.

Mohedas, I., Daly, S. R., & Sienko, K. H. (2015). Requirements development: Approaches and behaviors of novice designers. Journal of Mechanical Design, 137(7), 071407. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4030058CrossRef

Mohedas, I., Sienko, K. H., Daly, S. R., & Cravens, G. L. (2020). Students’ perceptions of the value of stakeholder engagement during engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(4), 760–779. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20356CrossRef

Murray, J. K., Studer, J. A., Daly, S. R., McKilligan, S., & Seifert, C. M. (2019). Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(2), 248–275. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20263CrossRef

Niles, S., Contreras, S., Roudbari, S., Kaminsky, J., & Harrison, J. L. (2020). Resisting and assisting engagement with public welfare in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 109(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20323CrossRef

Østergaard, K. L., Simonsen, J., & Karasti, H. (2018). Examining situated design practices: Nurses’ transformations towards genuine participation. Design Studies, 59, 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2017.12.002CrossRef

Rao, V., Kim, E., Kwon, J., Agogino, A. M., & Goucher-Lambert, K. (2021). Framing and tracing human-centered design teams’ method selection: An examination of decision-making strategies. Journal of Mechanical Design, 143(3), 031403. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4049081CrossRef

Sanders, E.B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068CrossRef

Steen, M. (2012). Human-centered design as a fragile encounter. Design Issues, 28(1), 72–80. https://doi.org/10.1162/DESI_a_00125CrossRef

Strickland, C. (2001). Mining for information: Tactics for interviewing. In IPCC 2001. Communication dimensions. Proceedings IEEE international professional communication conference, p. 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2001.971584

Sugar, W. A. (2001). What is so good about user-centered design? Documenting the effect of usability sessions on novice software designers. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(3), 235–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/08886504.2001.10782312CrossRef

Sutcliffe, A., & Sawyer, P. (2013). Requirements elicitation: Towards the unknown unknowns. In Proceedings of the 2013 international requirements engineering conference (RE), p. 92–104. https://doi.org/10.1109/RE.2013.6636709

Svihla, V., Peele-Eady, T., & Gallup, A. (2021). Exploring agency in capstone design problem framing. Studies in Engineering Education, 2(2), 2. https://doi.org/10.21061/see.69CrossRef

Ullman, D. G. (2010). The mechanical design process (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2012). Product design and development (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

van Rijn, H., Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P. J., & Özakar, A. D. (2011). Achieving empathy with users: The effects of different sources of information. CoDesign, 7(2), 65–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2011.609889CrossRef

Wilson, T. D. (1999). Models in information behavior research. Journal of Documentation, 55(3), 249–270.CrossRef

Zhang, T., & Dong, H. (2009). Human-centred design: An emergent conceptual model. Proceedings of Include, 2009(2008), 1–7.

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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00040.xCrossRef

Titel: Changes to stakeholder engagement approaches throughout a capstone engineering design course
verfasst von: Ibrahim Mohedas
Shanna R. Daly
Robert P. Loweth
Kathleen H. Sienko
Publikationsdatum: 29.07.2023
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Ausgabe 2/2024
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09833-x

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2024

“You give a little bit more love to animals than to robots”: primary pupils’ conceptions of ‘programming’ and programmable artefacts

How transparent are quantitative studies in contemporary technology education research? Instrument development and analysis

The influence of an engineering design-based STEM course on pre-service science teachers’ understanding of STEM disciplines and engineering design process

Bringing girls and women into STEM?: Girls’ technological activities and conceptions when participating in an all-girl technology camp

Exploring the metaphoric nature of programming teachers’ reflections on action - a case study with teaching in mind

Self-determined learning in a virtual makerspace: a pathway to improving spatial reasoning for upper primary students

Premium Partner