Grant Recipients
Oscar Nespoli, Mechanical and Mechatronics Engineering
Ada Hurst, Management Sciences
(Project Timeline: January 2022 - December 2022)
Description
- This project analyzes empirical data from architecture design sessions that were tutored by an academic or a practitioner during a five week-long engineering design project.
Question Investigated
- Do academics and practitioners tutor engineering design differently?
Findings
- Academic tutors ask questions at a significantly higher rate than practitioner tutors, suggesting a more question-centred tutoring style.
- We also found that proportionally more of practitioner tutors’ questions are generative in nature, while the academic tutors employ more convergent thinking in their questioning.
- There are no differences in the topics (and frequencies) of detected topics, suggesting that the “content” of the tutoring did not differ between the two types of tutors.
Dissemination and Impact
- Findings were shared with colleagues and students in engineering design courses.
- Applicants are hopeful to present a paper on this research at the International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED23) in July of 2023.
- The paper will further be submitted to an engineering design journal in 2023.
Implications
- This project's research will be incorporated in engineering lecture material.
- Allowed applicants to reach an interdisciplinary scope of undergraduate students.
References
Attoe, W., & Mugerauer (1991). Excellent Studio Teaching in Architecture., Studies in Higher Education, Vol. 16, No. 1.
Cennamo K., & Brandt, C. (2012). The “Right Kind of Telling”: KNowledge Building in the Academic Design Studio. Education Tech Research Dev., Vol 60, pp. 839-858.
Engineers Canada (2020). Canadian Engineering Accreditation Board 2020 Accreditation Criteria and Procedures. https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/accreditation/2021-2022-cycle/accreditation-criteria-procedures-2020.pdf
Cho, J. Y., (2013). Customization and Autonomy: Characteristics of the Ideal Design Studio Instructor in Design Education. ARCHITECTURAL RESEARCH, Vol. 15, No. 3 (September 2013), pp. 123-132.
Crowther, P. (2013). Understanding the signature pedagogy of the design studio and the opportunities for its technological enhancement. Journal of Learning Design, 6(3), 18-28.
Eris, O. (2004). Effective inquiry for innovative engineering design (Vol. 10). Springer Science & Business Media.
Günther, J., & Ehrlenspiel, K. (1999). Comparing Designers from Practice and Designers with Systematic Design Education,, Design Studies, Vol. 20, pp. 439-451.
Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise. Routledge.
Milovanovic, J., & Gero, J. (2018, May). Exploration of cognitive design behaviour during design critiques. In 15th International Design Conference (DESIGN 2018) (pp. 2099-2110).
Moore, K.D. (2001). The Scientist, The Social Activist, The Practitioner and The Cleric: Pedagogical Exploration Towards a Pedagogy of Practice., Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, Vol. 18, No. 1, (Spring 2001).
Roy, J., Wilson, C., Erdiaw-Kwasie, A., & Stupard, C. (2020). Engineering and Technology by the Numbers 2019. American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Washington, D.C.
Tavakoli, M. S. (2000),Total Design Studio, Paper presented at 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis, Missouri. 10.18260/1-2--8779
Thompson, B.E. (2002). Studio Pedagogy for Engineering Design., Int. J. Engng Ed., Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 29-49.
Schõn, D.A. (1984). The Architectural Studio as an Exemplar of Education for Reflection-in-Action., JAE Vol. 38, No. 1.
Schõn, D.A. (1985). The Design Studio An Exploration of its Traditions and Potentials, RIBA Publications Limited, London, England.
Vrcelj, Z. & Attard, M. M. (2007). Design Studios in Civil Engineering Education. Connected 2007 International Conference on Design Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 9-12 July 2007.