2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

This evidence-based practice paper investigates the development of adaptive expertise in first-year engineering students within a “Design for Manufacturing” course. Adaptive expertise, the ability to apply technical knowledge creatively and flexibly to unfamiliar challenges, is increasingly essential for addressing complex, real-world engineering problems. This study focuses on how structured coaching and iterative prototyping facilitate the cultivation of adaptive expertise, aligning with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle and key ABET outcomes.
Motivation: First-year engineering courses are pivotal in equipping students with foundational technical skills and problem-solving abilities. However, traditional engineering education often emphasizes routine expertise, prioritizing efficiency over creativity and adaptability. By integrating structured coaching with hands-on prototyping activities, the "Design for Manufacturing" course seeks to foster adaptive expertise, preparing students to tackle open-ended problems with confidence and ingenuity. This study aims to provide evidence-based insights into the effectiveness of this pedagogical approach, contributing to broader efforts in enhancing first-year engineering education.

Background: Adaptive expertise, as differentiated from routine expertise, requires a balance of efficiency and innovation [1]. Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle [2] offers a valuable framework for fostering this adaptability through iterative processes, emphasizing Concrete Experience, Reflective Observation, Abstract Conceptualization, and Active Experimentation. Prototyping, progressing through conceptual, functional, and production stages, provides a practical mechanism for engaging students in iterative design. Prior studies, such as Larson et al. [3], have demonstrated the potential of project-based learning to develop adaptive expertise in upper-division courses, but limited evidence exists for first-year contexts.

Methods/Assessment: The study takes place in a first-year “Design for Manufacturing” course that emphasizes hands-on learning. Students work in teams to identify design problems, develop concepts, and fabricate prototypes using tools such as 3D printers, CNC/manual mills, and welding equipment. A taxonomy of prototypes guides the process:

1. Conceptual Prototypes: Low-fidelity models (e.g., cardboard) for exploring ideas.

2. Functional Prototypes: Medium-fidelity models incorporating core design elements for testing and refinement.

3. Production Prototypes: High-fidelity models focusing on manufacturability and precision.

The instructional approach includes structured milestones developed by near-peer mentors. These milestones guide students through key stages: problem definition, concept sketching, material selection, iterative prototyping, and final production. Coaching interventions are tailored to each phase, emphasizing creativity in early stages and technical refinement later.
Data collection involves case studies of student projects, including a butterfly knife, a pinball machine, and a lightsaber. Documentation includes student reflections, coaching interactions, and prototype evaluations. Thematic analysis [4] maps outcomes to Kolb’s learning cycle and adaptive expertise dimensions.

Results: Preliminary findings highlight the effectiveness of structured coaching and iterative prototyping in fostering adaptive expertise. Successful projects demonstrated:

* Creativity and Problem-Solving: Teams iterated through multiple conceptual and functional prototypes, refining designs based on performance data and user feedback.

* Adaptability: Students navigated uncertainties in manufacturability and design specifications, showcasing flexibility in their approaches.

* Alignment with Theoretical Frameworks: Evidence supports the integration of Kolb’s Experiential Learning Cycle, with students moving fluidly through its phases during the prototyping process.

For example, the butterfly knife project evolved from sketches and 3D-printed models to CNC-machined production prototypes. Iterative testing revealed design flaws, which were addressed through collaborative problem-solving. In contrast, teams that struggled often skipped early prototyping stages or underestimated manufacturability, requiring additional coaching to revisit fundamental design principles.

These findings suggest that coaching and structured milestones are instrumental in developing the skills and mindsets necessary for real-world engineering challenges. The study contributes practical insights into the design of first-year engineering courses, with implications for broader adoption of adaptive expertise frameworks across educational contexts.