Premium
Design thinking among first‐year and senior engineering students: A cross‐sectional, national study measuring perceived ability
Author(s) -
Coleman Emma,
Shealy Tripp,
Grohs Jacob,
Godwin Allison
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
journal of engineering education
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.896
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 2168-9830
pISSN - 1069-4730
DOI - 10.1002/jee.20298
Subject(s) - experimentalism , sample (material) , psychology , scale (ratio) , exploratory factor analysis , confirmatory factor analysis , engineering education , design thinking , critical thinking , mathematics education , engineering , structural equation modeling , computer science , psychometrics , engineering management , mechanical engineering , clinical psychology , philosophy , chemistry , physics , epistemology , chromatography , quantum mechanics , machine learning
Background Prior researchers developed an instrument to measure perceived design thinking ability of first‐year students interested in engineering, and they validated the instrument through exploratory factor analysis. Purpose/Hypothesis Our study uses the previously developed instrument to evaluate perceived design thinking ability of senior engineering students. We make a cross‐sectional comparison of this measure on a national scale. Design/Method We surveyed a national sample of senior engineering students in 2018 and conducted a cross‐sectional comparison with results from a 2012 national sample of first‐year students who were interested in declaring an engineering major. Two‐way analysis of variance tests compared average design thinking scores across sample groups. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to improve the design thinking instrument. Results First‐year students who intended to declare an engineering major score significantly higher (2.80) on the design thinking scale than senior engineering students (2.59) with a medium effect size of 0.4. The senior engineering sample performs significantly worse on the feedback seeking and experimentalism instrument items, but significantly better on the integrative thinking and collaboration items. We found no significant differences in perceived design thinking ability among engineering disciplines among senior students. Conclusions Feedback seeking and experimentalism are traits that engineering educators should develop in their students to improve perceived design thinking ability. Incorporation of user‐centered design and divergent thinking in the engineering classroom are recommended as avenues to foster feedback seeking and experimentalism. We also offer recommendations to improve the design thinking instrument for future research.