2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

In accredited mechanical engineering undergraduate programs, there is often a gap in the structure and educational outcomes between Freshman/Sophomore-year design projects and Senior/Capstone design projects. In the former category, projects are usually highly structured and uniform in scope across the class, and roles on the team and subgoals are typically specified to the students. In contrast, Senior/Capstone projects range in scope and complexity from team to team depending on the sponsor, team size and composition can vary, and subgoals must be generated and managed by the students themselves. Increasing complexity and ambiguity are essential for simulating a more “real-world” design experience; however, they can create conditions for behaviors and situations that are detrimental to the growth of individual team members.
To combat this, we examine methods for promoting an individual team member’s skill development, confidence, and goal attainment while contributing positively to their team’s cohesion and product. We include three data sources: timely surveys of students’ goals, progress towards those goals, and how they align with their perceived contributions to the team; team checklists updated in real time to include specific tasks, ownership, status, and any assistance required; and students’ reflective documentation of shared knowledge, skills, and mental models. A mixed methods approach is used to compare quantitative and qualitative results from these student data. These data are complemented by routine peer assessments (CATME) and validated self-efficacy and task choice instruments developed previously by our team. Combined, these instruments are used to track student and team growth in the context of team dynamics and decision-making processes.
The setting for this study is a unique, Junior-level two-semester Machine Design course sequence, presented previously, that features a year-long industry sponsored design project. These courses are centered on principles of Situated Learning within a Community of Practice (e.g., practicing engineers in the manufacturing industry) and built around individual and team milestones to provide all students with mastery experiences and opportunities for task choice and self-growth. The project scope, building an automated monoblock pill bottle filling station, is broad enough to require large teams of 9-10 students, thus giving students more opportunities to practice team management, division of labor, and task interdependence while simulating an industry setting.
Our interest in promoting these changes is based on previous studies by our team that have examined the complex interplay between prior student experiences, perceived self-efficacy, and student task choice and/or team task delegation in engineering design project settings. For example, the roles taken on previous teams can dictate the role a team member is expected to play under the dictum of maximizing their contributions to the overall success of the team. The assessment tools, project scope, and pedagogical strategies described in this paper may be of interest to other educators seeking to promote and reward positive interdependence and trust on student design teams rather than enabling pigeonholing and social loafing. This shift means students benefit more from team design projects in the development of their engineering skills and identities.