@article {28583, title = {Assessing a novel problem-based learning approach with game elements in a business analytics course}, journal = {Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education}, year = {2021}, author = {Tiffany Bayley and David Wheatley and Ada Hurst} } @article {26273, title = {Design at hackathons: New opportunities for design research}, journal = {Design Science}, volume = {7}, year = {2021}, author = {Meagan Flus and Ada Hurst} } @article {28551, title = {Exploring tutor-student interactions in a novel virtual design studio}, journal = {Design Studies}, volume = {75}, year = {2021}, author = {Oscar G. Nespoli and Ada Hurst and John S. Gero} } @article {26222, title = {Protocol analysis in engineering design education research: observations, limitations, and opportunities}, journal = {Studies in Engineering Education}, volume = {1}, year = {2021}, month = {2020}, pages = {14-30}, url = {http://doi.org/10.21061/see.27}, author = {Gregory Litster and Ada Hurst} } @proceedings {24997, title = {The Emergence of the Project Manager Role in Student Design Teams: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study}, journal = {2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Experience}, year = {2020}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/35314}, author = {Meagan Flus and Ada Hurst} } @article {22020, title = {An Exploratory Study of Teamwork Processes and Perceived Team Effectiveness in Engineering Capstone Design Teams}, journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education}, volume = {36}, year = {2020}, month = {2020}, pages = {436-449}, author = {Mehrnaz Mostafapour and Ada Hurst} } @proceedings {24998, title = {Operationalizing Jonassen\’s Design Theory of Problem Solving: An Instrument to Characterize Educational Design Activities}, journal = {2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Experience}, year = {2020}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/35011}, author = {Ada Hurst and Gregory Litster and Chris Rennick} } @article {17757, title = {Reflective Inquiry in Design Reviews: The Role of Question-Asking During Exchanges of Peer Feedback}, journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education}, volume = {36}, year = {2020}, month = {2020}, pages = {614-622}, address = {Claremont, CA}, abstract = {

Design reviews are common educational practice in domains engaged in project-based learning approaches. This is the {\textquoteleft}learning space{\textquoteright} where students meet with instructors, their peers and other stakeholders to discuss the progress of their work. A number of research studies have looked into various phenomena taking place during design reviews. In this study, we adopt an inquiry-driven framework to investigate how questions might facilitate critical and creative thinking processes during problem framing and idea shaping. We are particularly interested in how question-asking influences the quality of the feedback exchanged between peers working in different teams during design review meetings. Building on previous work, specifically in design research, we extend previous contributions not only on the role of questions as influencing the design thinking process, but also on their perceived value (by the respondents) and thus their general benefit for constructing valuable feedback in design reviews.

}, author = {Carlos Cardoso and Ada Hurst and Oscar Nespoli} } @proceedings {25814, title = {Work in Progress: Improving Engineering Students\’ Need-finding Abilities}, journal = {2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference }, year = {2020}, url = {https://peer.asee.org/35649}, author = {Meagan Flus and Chris Rennick and Ada Hurst} } @article {15107, title = {Comparing instructor and student verbal feedback in design reviews of a capstone design course: Differences in topic and function}, journal = {International Journal of Engineering Education}, volume = {35}, year = {2019}, month = {2019}, pages = {221-231}, abstract = {Recent implementations of design review meetings in engineering design courses encourage student peers to provide feedback, in addition to the course instructor and industry client. The purpose of this investigation was to compare feedback provided by students and course instructors and to determine how student peers{\textquoteright} feedback related to their own performance in the design course. We collected verbal feedback comments provided by the instructor and student peers in twelve design review meetings of a management engineering capstone design course. A total of 553 comments were coded along two dimensions: topic (design, project management, or communication) and function (comprehension, evaluation, or recommendation). Comments falling in the comprehension function were also further coded using an existing question-type typology. A comparison of instructor and student feedback revealed that the instructor provided not only more feedback than individual students, but also distributed it better across the different topics and functions. Specifically, the instructor provides more feedback in the topics of design, communication and project management and is more likely to provide direct assessments and recommendations to student teams. Stronger student teams (i.e., those with better design outcomes) generally provide more feedback to their peers. Findings can help instructors promote better feedback-giving for themselves and students alike.}, author = {Ada Hurst and Oscar G. Nespoli} } @proceedings {16573, title = {A Comparison of Design Activity of Academics and Practitioners Using the FBS Ontology: A Case Study}, journal = {Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design}, volume = {1}, year = {2019}, pages = {1323-1332}, publisher = {The Design Society}, address = {Delft, The Netherlands}, abstract = {Academics teach engineering design based on design theory and best practices, practitioners teach design based on their experience. Is there a difference between them? There appears to be little prior work in comparing the design processes of design academics and practitioners. This paper presents a case study in which the design activity of a team of academics was compared to that of a team of practitioners. The participants{\textquoteright} verbalizations during team discussions were coded using the Function-Behaviour-Structure (FBS) ontology. A qualitative comparison reveals that the team of practitioners constructs the design space earlier and generally spends more time in the solution space than the team of academics. Further, the team of practitioners has a significant number of direct transitions from function (F) to structure (S), while no such transitions are observed for the team of academics. Given that this is a single case study, the results cannot be used as the basis for any generalizations on how academics and practitioners compare. This is a successful proof of methodologies that lay the foundation for a series of hypotheses to be tested in a future study.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.138}, author = {Ada Hurst and Oscar G. Nespoli and Sarah Abdellahi and John S. Gero} } @proceedings {16574, title = {A \“lattice\” approach to design education: Bringing real and integrated design experience to the classroom through Engineering Design Days}, journal = {International Conference on Engineering Design}, volume = {1}, year = {2019}, pages = {429-438}, publisher = {The Design Society}, address = {Delft, The Netherlands}, abstract = {While design is fundamental to engineering practice, modern training in engineering design has almost exclusively moved to the classroom, providing students little exposure to holistic, real-world design experiences that are well-integrated with the rest of the academic curriculum. In this paper, we perform a short review of how the model of engineering education in Canada has evolved over the last two centuries, identify the current deficiencies in teaching design in engineering curricula, and review how Chairs in Design Engineering at various Canadian engineering schools have tackled this identified need. We then describe in detail how this problem is being addressed at the University of Waterloo through Engineering Design Days. This approach is presented as a design {\textquotedblleft}lattice{\textquotedblright} around which other curriculum threads (math, natural sciences, engineering science, design etc.) can grow in an integrated way. Different Design Days examples from various engineering programs are described to illustrate the general structure. We conclude by assessing the program{\textquoteright}s impact and identifying opportunities for future development and assessment of the program{\textquoteright}s effectiveness.}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1017/dsi.2019.46}, author = {Ada Hurst and Chris Rennick and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {13476, title = {Building engineering professional and teamwork skills: a workshop on giving and receiving feedback}, journal = {Proceedings of ASEE{\textquoteright}s 125th Annual Conference \& Exposition}, year = {2018}, publisher = {ASEE}, address = {Salt Lake City, UT}, author = {Erin Jobidon and Maria Barichello and Rania Al-Hammoud and Mehrnaz Mostafapour and Chris Rennick and Ada Hurst and Jason Grove} } @proceedings {13475, title = {Conflict in Capstone Design Teams: Sources, Management, and the Role of the Instructor}, journal = {Proceedings of the 2018 Capstone Conference}, year = {2018}, address = {Rochester, NY}, abstract = {

Team conflict can severely impact capstone design teams{\textquoteright} effectiveness and project outcomes. While previous studies have identified common sources of conflict in capstone design project teams, they have mostly relied on instructors accounts of these conflicts. In this paper we present the results of a comprehensive survey of students in the capstone courses of eleven engineering disciplines at a Canadian university. Twenty-two percent of respondents reported having experienced significant conflict in their teams, typically resulting from role ambiguity, ineffective communication, relationship conflict, ineffective project management, and poor team membership behavior. Of those, seventy-six percent reported that team conflict(s) were eventually resolved. Unresolved conflicts were due to teams{\textquoteright} passive approach to conflict management, such as not trying to resolve the conflict or not requesting the intervention of the course instructor until very late in the course. Only twenty-six percent of students in conflict-ridden teams reported having notified the instructor; of those, seventy-two percent were satisfied with the instructor{\textquoteright}s intervention. Those that did not notify the instructor were worried about the impact that {\textquotedblleft}reporting{\textquotedblright} a teammate would have on him/her and team{\textquoteright}s future relationship with that teammate. Capstone instructors can constructively assist capstone teams to identify and manage conflict by providing both structured training and need-based interventions.\ \ \  \ 

}, author = {Ada Hurst and Mehrnaz Mostafapour} } @proceedings {13474, title = {Facilitating need finding and problem formulation during cooperative workterms through virtual instruction - Pilot implementation results.}, journal = { DS92: Proceedings of the DESIGN 2018 15th International Design Conference}, year = {2018}, pages = {2473-2484}, publisher = {Design Society}, address = {Dubrovnik, Croatia}, abstract = {

This project aimed to teach, facilitate the learning of, and assess need finding and problem formulation skills while students were immersed in an authentic practice environment during their coop work terms. An interdisciplinary team of engineering students was placed in a manufacturing facility where they were asked to need find and propose significant problems to solve while they were taught design methods remotely. Students reported that they learned more deeply than in a classroom environment because they were able to be in constant engagement with the problems they were trying to solve.

}, author = {Oscar Nespoli and Ada Hurst and Jim Russel} } @article {13470, title = {Teaching Line Balancing through Active and Blended Learning}, journal = {Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education}, volume = {16}, year = {2018}, pages = {82-103}, abstract = {The design of balanced assembly lines, especially when considering workforce, material, and cycle time factors, is an important managerial decision-making activity in manufacturing firms. Numerous active learning activities are available to assist instructors in teaching assembly line balancing to students. While effective in improving student engagement, they require considerable planning and expense on the part of instructors, and they may be difficult to implement in inflexible teaching spaces and lecture-oriented curricula. We present a new approach to teaching line balancing using online videos depicting an assembly process. Students design an assembly line by determining themselves how to separate and time tasks, rather than by modifying an existing configuration. To save valuable classroom time, students complete a portion of the activity outside of class. This blended learning approach allows for all students to be engaged in the activity, both in and out of class. Furthermore, a controlled study showed that compared to the traditional lecture format, it better equips students to address less tangible aspects of line balancing, such as ergonomic and workforce factors, material handling considerations, and changing cycle time. With the online content for this activity completely developed and available, other instructors can easily implement this approach within their courses.}, author = {Tiffany Bayley and Ada Hurst} } @proceedings {13528, title = {A Team Health Self-Assessment Tool and Workshop for Capstone Design Teams}, journal = {Proceedings of the 2018 Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference (CEEA18), Vancouver, British Columbia}, year = {2018}, url = {https://ojs.library.queensu.ca/index.php/PCEEA/article/view/12969}, author = {Ada Hurst and Maria Barichello and Erin Jobidon and Rania Al-Hammoud} } @proceedings {13477, title = {Practicing What we Preach: A Multi-Disciplinary Team Teaching Multi-Disciplinary Teamwork}, journal = {Proceedings of ASEE{\textquoteright}s 124th Annual Conference \& Exposition}, year = {2017}, publisher = {ASEE}, address = {Columbus, OH}, abstract = {The Faculty of Engineering at the University of Waterloo has identified teamwork as a skill that requires immediate attention [1]. A multi-disciplinary team was assembled to address this challenge. The team is made up of members of existing faculty and support groups from across campus: representatives from a student support unit, a teaching support unit, the First Year Engineering office, engineering faculty, and graduate students. In the beginning, the team struggled with how to leverage the unique and diverse skills and perspectives which initially brought them together. This lack of cohesion around teamwork practices ultimately led to inconsistent success and reception of the first learning modules. While the learning curve for the individuals involved was steep, this challenge led the team to reflect on their teamwork skills to {\textquoteleft}practice what they preach.{\textquoteright} In this paper, the team members address what they{\textquoteright}ve learned about assembling, and working effectively in, multi-disciplinary teams. This paper discusses the formation of the team and initiative (applying the Institutional Entrepreneurship paradigm [2]); the reception of the created modules, from the students, instructors, and team{\textquoteright}s perspective; and highlights the immense value and challenges that exist in working within multi-disciplinary teams. The paper will also address overcoming some of the challenges around an extra-departmental group developing learning modules from the ground-up within a university environment.}, author = {Ada Hurst and Mehrnaz Mostafapour and Rania Al-Hammoud and Andrea Prier and Erin Jobidon and Carol Hulls and Chris Rennick and Jason Grove and Eugene Li and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {13529, title = {Teamwork for Engineering Students: Improving Skills Through Experiential Teaching Modules}, journal = {Proceedings of the 2017 Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference (CEEA17), Toronto, Ontario}, year = {2017}, url = {https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.9414}, author = {Rania Al-Hammoud and Ada Hurst and Andrea Prier and Mehrnaz Mostafapour and Chris Rennick and Carol Hulls and Erin Jobidon and Eugene Li and Jason Grove and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {13522, title = {Project Management in Capstone Design Courses: Student Choices of Current Technologies}, journal = {Proceedings of the 2016 Capstone Design Conference, Columbus, Ohio}, year = {2016}, author = {Ada Hurst and Anjida Sripongworakul} } @proceedings {13520, title = {Student Perceptions of Value of Peer and Instructor Feedback in Capstone Design Review Meetings.}, journal = {Proceedings of the 2016 Capstone Design Conference, Columbus, Ohio. }, year = {2016}, author = {Ada Hurst and Oscar Nespoli} } @proceedings {13512, title = {Towards a Multi-Disciplinary Teamwork Training Series for Undergraduate Engineering Students: Development and Assessment of Two First-Year Workshops.}, journal = {Proceedings of ASEE{\textquoteright}s 123rd Annual Conference \& Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana}, year = {2016}, author = {Ada Hurst and Erin Jobidon and Andrea Prier and Taghi Khaniyev and Chris Rennick and Rania Al-Hammoud and Carol Hulls and Jason Grove and Samar Mohamed and Stephanie Johnson and Sanjeev Bedi} } @proceedings {13513, title = {A Two-Dimensional Typology for Characterizing Student Peer and Instructor Feedback in Capstone Design Project Courses.}, journal = {Proceedings of ASEE{\textquoteright}s 123rd Annual Conference \& Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana}, year = {2016}, author = {Ada Hurst and Oscar G. Nespoli} } @proceedings {13530, title = {An Experiential Learning Activity to Promote Skill Development in First Year Engineering Students}, journal = {roceedings of the 2015 Canadian Engineering Education Association Conference (CEEA15), Hamilton, Ontario}, year = {2015}, author = {William Bishop and Ada Hurst and Benny Mantin and Sanjeev Bedi} } @article {6448, title = {Peer Review in Capstone Design Courses: An Implementation Using Progress Update Meetings}, journal = { International Journal of Engineering Education}, volume = {31}, year = {2015}, pages = {1799-1809}, abstract = {

Peer review of design progress and artifacts is not very common in engineering design education. Yet, the broader educational literature suggests that the impact of peer (novice) review can be superior to instructor (expert) only review in various ways. This paper describes a systematic implementation of face-to-face peer review in progress update meetings(PUMs) of a management engineering capstone design series of courses. In biweekly PUMs the instructors met jointly with two teams at a time, paired based on topic similarity. Teams took turns presenting to and critiquing each other{\textquoteright}s presentations and design progress. The format was well-received by students and was successful in increasing the diversity and wealth of knowledge teams could draw from during the meetings. A student survey revealed that students perceived that the regular joint PUMs encouraged them to maintain a steady progress in their design projects, facilitated peer-to-peer sharing of ideas, and were instrumental in helping teams improve on how they communicated their designs by providing multiple opportunities for revisions and refinement.

}, url = {https://www.ijee.ie/latestissues/Vol31-6B/08_ijee3109ns.pdf}, author = {Ada Hurst and Oscar Nespoli} } @proceedings {13523, title = {Perceptions of non-CS majors in intro programming: The rise of the conversational programmer}, journal = {2015 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC)}, year = {2015}, publisher = {IEEE }, address = {Atlanta, GA, USA }, author = {Parmit Chilana and Celena Alcock and Shruti Dembla and Anson Ho and Ada Hurst and Brett Armstrong and Philip J. Guo} } @mastersthesis {13532, title = {A Quantitative Model of Perception of Randomness in Structured Space}, year = {2015}, type = {Unpublished Doctoral Thesis}, author = {Ada Hurst} } @proceedings {13524, title = {Joint Progress Update Meetings in Capstone Design Courses: Encouraging Peer Review and Cooperative Learning}, journal = {Proceedings of the 2014 Capstone Conference, Columbus, Ohio. }, year = {2014}, author = {Ada Hurst} } @mastersthesis {13533, title = {Gender Differences in Engineering Education: An Exploratory Study}, year = {2010}, type = {Unpublished Master{\textquoteright}s Thesis}, author = {Ada Zacaj} }