The new transdisciplinary nature of industrial product design should be appropriately addressed by post-secondary institutions and engineering schools in their curricula to ensure high quality of engineering design education and its applicability to industrial demands. To achieve this, a new transdisciplinary teaching methodology is required. This paper presents the results of a pilot trial of a new transdisciplinary teaching approach to engineering design education based on Bloom’s Taxonomy and a comparitive analysis of the cognitive game task performed by both professors and fours groups of students to investigate the differences in their design thinking. The approach included the knowledge component in the form of a lecture, a cognitive game task developed to map the design thinking of engineers, and administration of a modified sample design problem. The knowledge components consisted of a guest lecture on transdisciplinary engineering design and disciplinary differences. The cognitive task involved the formation of design activities and their placement along a general design process. The modification of the sample design problem involved the application of action verbs of Bloom’s Taxonomy to create guiding steps to guide students’ thinking while solving the problem. The results revealed a strong relation between engineering design activity and cognitive mental activity in both students and professors. The course instructors who piloted the new approach provided positive feedback finding it to be a “useful element” for the introduction of transdisciplinarity as well as for students’ reflection on their design thinking. In addition, the application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in design problems suggested potential improvements in students’ performance on design tasks. The results of this study are applicable for the development of engineering design courses and transdisciplinary projects.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. (2005). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Educational Horizons, 83(3), 154–159.
Butt, M., Sharunova, A., & Qureshi, A. J. (2019). Transdisciplinary engineering design process: Tracing design similarities through comparison of design stages across engineering disciplines. In Proceedings of 2019 ASEE annual conference & exposition, Tampa, Florida. https://peer.asee.org/33457.
Butt, M., Sharunova, A., Storga, M., Khan, Y. I., & Qureshi, A. J. (2018). Transdisciplinary engineering design education: Ontology for a generic product design process. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.019.
Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., & Brodeur, D. R. (2007). Rethinking engineering education: The CDIO approach. New York, NY: Springer.
Duderstadt, J. J. (2008). Engineering for a changing world: A roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millennium Project, The University of Michigan.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x.
Engineers Canada. (2017). Retrieved November, 2017, from https://engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/accreditation-criteria-procedures-2016-final.pdf.
Ertas, A. (2018). Transdisciplinary engineering design process (1st ed., pp. 77–128). London: Wiley.
Ertas, A., Frias, K. M., Tate, D., & Back, S. M. (2015). Shifting engineering education from disciplinary to transdisciplinary practice. International Journal of Engineering Education, 31(1a), 94–105.
Ertas, A., Maxwell, T., Rainey, V. P., & Tanik, M. M. (2003). Transformation of higher education: The transdisciplinary approach in engineering. IEEE Transactions on Education, 4(2), 289–295.
Ertas, A., Tanik, M. M., & Maxwell, T. T. (2000). Transdisciplinary engineering education and research model. Journal of Integrated Design and Process Science, 4(4), 1–11.
Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. (2012). An analysis of design process models across disciplines. In DS 70: Proceedings of DESIGN 2012, the 12th international design conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
Gericke, K., Qureshi, A. J., & Blessing, L. (2013). Analyzing transdisciplinary design processes in industry: An overview. In ASME 2013 international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference.
Granello, D. H. (2000). Encouraging the cognitive development of supervisees: Using Bloom’s taxonomy in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 40(1), 31–46.
King, J. E. (2007). Educating engineers for the 21st century. London: The Royal Academy of Engineering.
Kirillov, N. P., Leontyeva, E. G., & Moiseenko, Y. A. (2015). Creativity in Engineering Education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.537.
Liebenberg, L., & Methews, E. H. (2012). Integrating innovation skills in an introductory engineering design-build course. Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9137-1.
Lutters, E., Houten, F. J. A. M., Bernard, A., Mermoz, E., & Shutte, C. S. L. (2014). Tools and techniques for product design. CIRP Annals. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cirp.2014.05.010.
Qureshi, A. J., Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. M. (2013). Design process commonalities in trans-disciplinary design. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on engineering design (ICED13), design for harmonies. Design processes, Seoul, Korea (Vol. 1).
Qureshi, A. J., Gericke, K., & Blessing, L. M. (2014). Stages in product lifecycle: Trans-disciplinary design context. Procedia CIRP. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2014.03.131.
Ramachandran, M., & Siddique, Z. (2016). Development of competencies and their inter-relationships in an engineering design course. https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2016-59694.
Sharunova, A., Butt, M., & Qureshi. A. J. (2018a). Transdisciplinary Design Education for Engineering Undergraduates: Mapping of Bloom’s Taxonomy Cognitive Domain across Design Stages, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2018.02.042.
Sharunova, A., Butt, M., Carey, J. P., & Qureshi, A. J. (2019). Alumni feedback and reflections on industrial demands and transdisciplinary engineering design education. In Proceedings of 2019 ASEE annual conference & exposition, Tampa, Florida. https://peer.asee.org/32052.
Sharunova, A., Butt, M., Kresta, S., Carey, J., P., Wyard-Scott, L., Adeeb, S., Blessing, L. M., & Qureshi, A. J. (2017). Cognition and transdisciplinary design: An educational framework for undergraduate engineering design curriculum development. In Proceedings of Canadian engineering education association conference 2017.
Sharunova, A., Wang, Y., Kowalski, M., & Qureshi, A. J. (2018b). Looking at transdisciplinary engineering design education through bloom’s taxonomy. International Journal of Engineering Education. Accepted November 2018.
Tempelman, E., & Pilot, A. (2011). Strengthening the link between theory and practice in teaching design engineering: an empirical study on a new approach. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9118-4.
Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2012). Product design and development (5th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the Center for Teaching and Learning at the University of Alberta and all collaborators of the “Transdisciplinary Design Education for Engineering Undergraduates” research project.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Sharunova, A., Wang, Y., Kowalski, M. et al. Applying Bloom’s taxonomy in transdisciplinary engineering design education. Int J Technol Des Educ 32, 987–999 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-020-09621-x