2026 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Context
This study examines student growth in the DesignCube, a makerspace designed for the Biomedical Engineering Department at a large public university in Uganda. The DesignCube equips BME students with tools, materials, and mentorship to prototype solutions for local problems across a four-semester design sequence. These courses aim to create local innovators in a community of critical need. The DesignCube fosters a community of practice for iterative design, encouraging collaboration and experimentation while providing resources for the projects.

Purpose
Scholarship underscores the importance of sociotechnical competencies that merge technical proficiency with interpersonal and intrapersonal skills [1] [2]. Building on this, we ask: How do students participating in the DesignCube for prototyping experience growth in sociotechnical competencies through collaborative design work? We explore the ways in which the DesignCube shapes students’ interpersonal learning, reflection, and sense of social responsibility as engineers.

Background
Makerspaces in formal institutions of education create a safe space for exploration, where failure is integral to learning [3]. Within the DesignCube, students learn to listen, integrate diverse perspectives, and navigate team dynamics that mirror real-world engineering practice. By focusing on these dimensions of learning, this study underscores the unique role makerspaces play in educating engineers who are not only technically capable, but reflective and socially attuned innovators.

Methods
Upon IRB approval, students enrolled in the Biomedical Engineering Design 2 course participated in pre- and post- semi-structured interviews. These interviews were transcribed and coded by a team of three analysts, two of whom are from Uganda and thus familiar with cultural nuances in responses. After individually coding the interviews, analysts wrote memos to communicate their perceptions of the impact on students. These memos were later discussed to gather feedback and synthesize findings.

Preliminary Findings
In their pre-interviews, several students expressed a distinct disinterest in group work and group learning. They had concerns about differences between themselves, their personal inability to perform specific technical skills, and doubts that their devices would succeed.

However, students’ post-interviews showed stark growth in that area. One student described: “[Design 2] opened an opportunity for me to engage with people of different cultures…back then, we were just classmates, and you wouldn't really know how the person behaves if you're not working with them”. As a designated space for collaboration, we see evidence that the DesignCube triggers sociotechnical growth in students as they engage in teamwork and connect the human characteristics to the technical dimensions throughout the prototyping process.

Students reported changes in their behaviors regarding patience, collaboration, extraversion, handling conflict, and tolerance. These inter- and intrapersonal skills, and a familiarity with reflecting on these skills, are essential to success in the workplace and, perhaps more importantly, in response to complex community needs.

Conclusion
Through this study, we aim to foreground the social, emotional, and cultural dimensions of engineering education that develop in students utilizing makerspaces. The findings suggest that strategic investments in spaces like the DesignCube can influence broader outcomes by nurturing innovators equipped to solve context-specific challenges through interpersonal skills and social-emotional intelligence.

References
[1]P. Willmot and B. Colman, “Interpersonal skills in engineering education”. Loughborough University, Jan. 2016.
[2] B. Schulz, “The importance of soft skills: Education beyond academic knowledge,” NAWA J. Lang. Commun., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 146–154, 2008.
[3] D. Turakhia, D. Ludgin, S. Mueller, and K. Desportes, “Understanding the educators’ practices in makerspaces for the design of education tools,” Educational technology research and development, vol. 72, no. 1, pp. 329–358, Nov. 2023. doi:10.1007/s11423-023-10305-1