Studying the Development of Design Thinking of Undergraduate Engineering Students in Singapore: Qualitative Reflection Analysis (Research)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract This study contributes new knowledge to engineering education research by exploring the development of Singaporean students' decision-making and justification over time when partaking in a 13-week undergraduate engineering course on industrial design with the explicit task of self-reflection at set points during the course completion. With the rising relevance of authentic learning in the classrooms, it is becoming more pertinent to teach engineering students the skill of problem scoping (i.e., determining the nature and boundaries of a problem) to succeed in future work in both industrial and academic environments. Based on Stanford University's Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test (EDIPT) design thinking model, the effectiveness of asking students guided questions to reflect on their approach to problem scoping was analyzed while tackling complex engineering problems provided by industry partners. The overarching research question is: to what extent is the EDIPT framework relevant in Singapore? A qualitative approach and deductive analyses were employed to elicit and explain the findings, which were then mapped to the aspects of the EDIPT. Ten participants were randomly selected from a cohort of third-year undergraduate students enrolled in an engineering course from a research-focused university in the Southeast Asia region. During this period, students were organized by university faculty and their industrial mentors into design teams of six or seven to ideate, prototype, and evaluate solutions to real-life industrial problems. The students' key ideas and corresponding direct statements were collected from five self-reflections. These reflections focused on their individual and team responses and were mapped to the five EDIPT aspects. Findings showed that the student usage of the EDIPT thinking framework increased over the weeks and that the EDIPT was a robust lens to evaluate the effectiveness of the selected reflection questions. Through these analyses, key EDIPT ideas related to problem scoping skills of engineering students within the Singaporean context were identified, showcasing the relevance of the EDIPT model in Asia. Educational and theoretical implications were discussed.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».