The Impact of Documenting Design Thinking, the Engineering Design Process Canvas, and Project Communication on Design Self-Efficacy of First-Year Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This complete evidence-based practice paper describes a study of three design interventions and a survey conducted of first-year engineering students at New York University to understand the impact on their design self-efficacy. The research question addressed in this study is whether there is an impact of documenting the design thinking process, the engineering design process, and project communication on students' level of self-efficacy to solve engineering design problems. And if so, to what extent did students find value in using the documentation activities for enhancing their engineering design capabilities? The aim of this study is to identify the best strategies for improving first-year students' design skills that will help them succeed in future design projects. Many tools have been developed to improve engineering design skills of first year students like design thinking exercises, the Engineering Design Canvas, and strategies for communicating ideas. The evidence-based practice described in this study consists of in-class exercises for each of these tools which include 1) an IDEO design thinking worksheet at the beginning of the project, 2) the Engineering Design Canvas at the middle of the project, and 3) the Heitmeier Catechism design communication strategies at the end of the project.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".