Student Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Engineering Design in Work-Integrated Learning Contexts
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract In traditional engineering education, there is a strong emphasis on theoretical knowledge and classroom-based design experiences. However, this often leaves a critical gap in understanding how students' perceptions and attitudes developed in the classroom translate into real-world engineering design practice. Work Integrated Learning (WIL) is a valuable educational approach for easing engineering novices' transition to the workplace, yet little is known about how students experience design and build engineering design skills and confidence through WIL experiences (cite). This study aims to explore the attitudes and perceptions of novice engineers towards design practice while participating in WIL placements. Our study tracked the experiences of three engineering students over a 4-month paid, co-operative work term. We conducted ten weekly interviews with each student, commencing in the fourth week of their term. We employed an adapted version of the ECHO interview method to collect in-depth contextual descriptions of each participant's experiences, attitudes, and the factors influencing them. We analyzed the interview transcripts using an iterative thematic analysis approach to identify common themes in the students' attitudes and experiences. This analysis identified three main themes in the student responses; the theme that is the focus of this paper – "affective domain" – comprises student responses related to their feelings while designing, including their confidence in their ability to succeed, their frustration and anxieties as they designed, and their attitudes towards adversity, authority, and uncertainty. The results shed light on where students perceived disparities between their classroom-based design experiences and their responses to those differences. These disparities centered on the long-term (i.e., longer than a single academic term), team-based, open-ended design challenges encountered during the design co-op. One important area where the work-term design projects differed from classroom experiences was in the fact that these projects spanned multiple students' employment tenures, necessitating project transitions. As this is not something typically seen in the classroom setting, the students found it challenging to take over established design projects and understand the rationale behind previous designers' decisions. Despite this experience, the students also struggled to consider how their decisions would impact future project team members. The students also expressed that the open-ended and under-specified design problems they encountered during their work terms did not align with their desire to create a "perfect" solution. This contrasted with classroom design problems, where the submission at the end of the term culminated the project and determined their success. The real-world design process, characterized by changing stakeholder demands, iterative cycles, and delays due to external factors, caused frustration and discomfort among the students. However, they also faced challenges with over-constrained problems during their work terms, feeling overwhelmed by the volume of design information and constraints. The students often relied on more experienced designers to make decisions regarding the form and functionality of the design solution, and the structure of the design projects. Additionally, they exhibited a preference for avoiding uncertainty and experimentation with unfamiliar approaches or solutions. Interestingly, despite these challenges, the students indicated that they felt adequately prepared by their previous design experiences for the difficulties they faced in their design projects. This paper will discuss the practical realities of design beyond the classroom as experienced by student designers, including the contextual factors student designers must navigate during the design process. Implications for improving engineering design education will be 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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| 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 ».