Use of Active Learning and the Design Thinking Process to Drive Creative Sustainable Engineering Design Solutions

In a Design for the Environment upper-level undergraduate engineering course, the design thinking process for creative problem solving as well as a host of in-class, active-learning design sessions were implemented, with the objective of enhancing the creativity of design solutions to real-world sustainability challenges. The literature indicates the need for enhanced engineering curricula that fosters students’ creative skills, since development of this skillset, and divergent thinking skills in particular, are often missing from engineering courses. The instructor implemented this approach during the fall 2017 after attending Stanford’s d.school Teaching and Learning Studio, a workshop that engages higher education instructors in the design thinking process and supports them in developing associated active learning exercises. Design thinking is a five-stage process that guides students in empathizing with the user’s needs, defining the problem, brainstorming solutions, creating simple solution prototypes, and testing the prototypes, iteratively ideating, prototyping, and testing to reach the best solution. This paper describes the development of the course enhancements to infuse design thinking throughout, including new inclass design activities. This paper also describes the associated assessment plan for evaluating students’ creativity and execution of the design thinking process, perceptions of the active learning and their own creativity, practice of sustainability in their design solutions, oral presentation skills, and other developmental outcomes related to their engineering careers. Some initial results are presented, including the very preliminary result that the use of design thinking may be associated with increased performance on the semester-long design solutions, including a boost in novelty. The course enhancements included new group, in-class design exercises related to the sustainability concepts of toxicity and risk, life cycle assessment, systems thinking, and design for disassembly, which were added to modules on biomimicry and design for the developing world from the previous year. The instructor promoted the use of various maker spaces within the engineering school for prototyping of solutions. The design sessions were preceded by primers on the content areas, which were also conducted using active-learning techniques such as think-pair-share. The assessment analyst utilized the COPUS observation protocol to observe the classroom and quantify the degree of active learning and other interactive practices. The assessment plan consists of a host of methods, including 1) pre, midterm, and post-course surveys, 2) an end-of-term focus group, 3) a project presentation with a panel of judges, and 4) midterm and end-of-term student written reflections on their application of the design thinking process. The post-course survey included questions from the StRIP (Student Response to Instructional Practices) survey, a new rigorously-developed survey for measuring students’ perspectives on and responses to active learning. Rubrics and measurement matrices from the literature were adapted to guide assessment of the students’ presentations and design solutions, including the Oral Communications VALUE rubric, Watson et al.’s sustainable design rubric, Nagel et al.’s design process rubric, and the creativity-measurement rubrics and matrices of Genco et al. and Moss. 1. Background and Relevant Literature Design for the Environment is a class of approximately 30 undergraduate engineering students and is comprised of juniors and seniors from all disciplines. The class size is maintained at a maximum of 30, in part so the school’s maker spaces can be utilized for in-class activities and prototyping. The course covers fundamental concepts, including sustainability design frameworks, the design process and the role of innovation, life cycle assessment, and toxicity and risk, as well as focused case studies on topics such as energy, water, agriculture, and nanotechnology. Significant enhancements were made to the course in the fall 2017 semester. Modifications were motivated by (i) student feedback that highlighted the success of three active-learning modules and the demand for more hands-on innovation and design activities and (ii) the instructor’s experience at Stanford’s d-school Teaching and Learning Studio during the summer of 2017. Formative feedback was collected from a student focus group at the end of the fall 2016 semester. When students were asked during the focus group what would aid their learning process in the course, they overwhelming responded with more in-class activities in the Makerspace. Specific student comments included, “more time spent in the Makerspace lab doing hands-on activities,” “more interactive lectures, as they are fun and good for the learning process,” “incorporation of more small design challenges in mixed groups,” and “more examples of current products to help show what we’re learning.” A student stated, “I loved the group activities, especially in the Makerspace lab! It allowed us to try things out, which was helpful and engaging. It was helpful because we were able to apply the design process by gathering needed information, work in groups, brainstorm, etc.” Another student stated, “Presenting information through multiple mediums like videos, readings, discussions, and Power Point slides made the information more interesting and memorable rather than all through lecturing.” In addition, students were asked during the focus group to compare and contrast their understanding of two groups of concepts covered in the class. Group 1 included the topics of innovation and the design process, Biomimicry, and design for the developing world, all of which involved an integrated content and active-learning module. Group 2 included the topics of toxicity and risk, life cycle assessment, and waste management and design for disassembly, which included content modules only. Students were not primed with the information distinguishing these two groups (i.e., inclusion or not of an active learning component). The majority of respondents reported having a better understanding of the group 1 topics, noting that they enjoyed the activities and videos associated with the topics in group 1 that reinforced the lecture content. Regarding group 2, one student described that “lecture was ‘it’ on these topics,” and many reported difficulties in paying attention to the slides for the full class time. Another student explained, “With the group 1 topics, we did more activities in the Makerspace lab and during class. All topics had activities. The group 2 topics were covered through the homework assignments; however, we did not have good examples to follow for this. I would have liked an in-class activity on design for disassembly.” Another student had similar comments “The life cycle assessment readings were detailed and dry. An LCA in-class activity would be better than the readings.” Similar comments were made for toxicity and risk, with students requesting more examples to replace some of the readings and lecture. Integration of the design thinking process to the course was intended to serve as a mechanism for enhancing student learning and creativity in the course, and it also aligned with the students’ comments during the focus group. The design thinking process is a five-stage, iterative needsdriven process consisting of the steps of empathizing with the customer, defining the problem, ideating or brainstorming solutions, low-resolution prototyping, and testing of the prototype (Hasso Plattner Institute of Design at Stanford). Designers typically iterate on the latter steps to improve upon the solution. Design thinking is therefore a human-centered approach to innovation that integrates human and societal needs with technological and economic feasibility (Design Thinking Thoughts by Tim Brown). Design thinking has become a learning model to develop creativity and innovation in students and to teach creative problem solving with the goal of enhancing creative confidence (Royalty et al., 2014). With this addition of design thinking to the course in 2017, active learning was incorporated to a greater degree throughout the course, in particular during class time. After mini-lectures, students participated in group-based design sessions and subsequent class discussions in support of developing creative solutions to sustainability design problems using the design thinking process. The theory and experimental research on active learning has established its benefits and effectiveness in regards to problem solving and skills application, conceptual gains, in-class engagement, and exam performance (Chi, 2009; Hake, 1998, Freeman et al., 2014; Wieman, 2014). In addition to the desirability of active learning, the literature also indicates the need for enhanced engineering curricula that fosters students’ creative skills, since development of this skillset, and divergent thinking skills in particular, is often missing from engineering courses (Daly et al., 2014). To assess students’ creative skills, we defined creativity as a combination of novelty/originality as well as usefulness/value/feasibility. Multiple other researchers working in the area of education or design, including engineering education, apply this same definition for creativity or innovation, or acknowledge its commonality (Oman et al., 2013; Genco et al., 2012; Chulvi et al., 2012; Sarkar & Chakrabarti, 2011; Moss, 1966). However, some consider a third dimension for creativity – that of wholeness, which involves aesthetics and elegance (O’Quin & Besemer, 1989; Mishra et al., 2013; Henriksen et al., 2015). Although we could appreciate this third dimension, it was not a specific requirement for our students’ designs, and so novelty and usefulness were the final requirements for our students’ designs of their sustainable solutions. The importa