Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 871 de 957
required students to modify the current camera design to achieve new functionality (e.g.,
three different shutter speeds). Design problems are the most complex and ill-structured
kinds of problems (Jonassen, 2000). The results showed that the DAA activity had
advantages over lecture in terms of recall and transfer. Students who did the DAA activity
scored significantly higher than those who had the lecture on the system decomposition
questions, t (315) equal variances not assumed = 3.09, p = 0.002 (M ± SD = 3.19 ± 0.31 and
3.09 ± 0.27 for DAA First and Lecture First respectively). On the variant design questions,
62% of DAA First students vs. 30% of Lecture First students, noticed and adapted the
appropriate mechanism in the Fujifilm camera to achieve new functionality, χ2 (1, N =
325) = 46.557, p < .001. On the camera doctor questions, students that did the DAA activity
were able to generate significantly more plausible hypotheses about the reason for the
camera malfunction, t (323) = 2.026, p = .044 (M ± SD = 1.26 ± 0.90 and 1.06 ± 0.87 for
DAA First and Lecture First respectively).
Significance of Findings and Future research Plans
The results of the previously described experiments raise a number of points with respect
to learning and transfer. Firstly, it is important to note that the DAA activity lead to greater
transfer as observed in the initial study, without the added cost of additional instruction or
basic understanding. In fact, this study showed that DAA resulted in higher scores on
system decomposition questions, which measured factual recall. Secondly, it is impressive
that students with one exposure to one camera were able to notice and adapt its features
to develop a new design and diagnose defects in a camera after viewing flawed
photographs. In other literature on transfer, it often takes multiple exposures for students
to notice a key feature (e.g., Gick and Holyoak, 1983). In studies of Innovation activity,
multiple contrasting cases were provided to help students be able to adapt their
knowledge (e.g. Sears, 2006). In this sense, being able to adapt knowledge after one
exposure is impressive and reveals a potential key advantage of the DAA process (iteration
of observation and follow-up probing). The third point reveals a challenge: both studies
involved a camera, a tangible and predominantly mechanical device, as the artefact under
investigation; would the observed benefits remain true for other types of engineering
artefacts? The DAA framework has already begun to show promise at cultivating student’s
adaptive expertise in engineering, i.e., ability to apply knowledge effectively to novel
problems. These early findings push for further examination to test the generalizability of
the claims. New types of engineering artefacts, beyond those that are predominantly
mechanical and/or, tangible, need to be assessed.
References
Barr, R. E., Schmidt, P. S., Krueger, T. J., & Twu, C. Y. (2000). An introduction to engineering
through an integrated reverse engineering and design graphics project. Journal of
Engineering Education, 89(4), 413-418.
Beaudoin, D. L., & Ollis, D. F. (1995). A product and process engineering laboratory for
freshmen. Journal of Engineering Education, 84, 279-284.
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011