Designing for Open Innovation: Change of Attitudes, Self-Concept, and Team Dynamics in Engineering Education

Chapter

Abstract

Within Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics (STEAM) education initiatives, a learner-centric paradigm that instills in individuals the habit of becoming self-directed and life-long learners is a major objective. The implemented instructional framework presented recognizes that students develop mental models that represent their competencies in Engineering. Findings of a case study report the students’ change of attitudes, self-concept, and team dynamics while taking the re-designed graduate course. The findings guide the further instructional design of the course and the development of future research projects.

Keywords

Engineering Self-concept Attitudes Team Scaffolding 

References

  1. Anderson, L. W., Krathwohl, D. R., Airsasian, P. W., Cruikshank, K. A., Mayer, R. E., Pintrich, P. R., & Wittrock, M. C. (Eds.). (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  2. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (Vol. 5, pp. 307–337). Hershey: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B. S., Engelhardt, M. B., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: The cognitive domain. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D. C.: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  5. Gagné, R. M. (1965). The conditions of learning. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  6. Gosper, M., & Ifenthaler, D. (2014). Curriculum design for the twenty-first century. In M. Gosper & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum models for the 21st century. Using learning technologies in higher education (pp. 1–15). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ifenthaler, D. (2009). Model-based feedback for improving expertise and expert performance. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning, 7(2), 83–101.Google Scholar
  8. Ifenthaler, D. (2012). Design of learning environments. In N. M. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (Vol. 4, pp. 929–931). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Ifenthaler, D. (2014a). AKOVIA: Automated Knowledge Visualization and Assessment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 241–248. doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9224-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ifenthaler, D. (2014b). Toward automated computer-based visualization and assessment of team-based performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 651–665. doi:10.1037/a0035505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ifenthaler, D., & Gosper, M. (2014). Guiding the design of lessons by using the MAPLET framework: Matching aims, processes, learner expertise and technologies. Instructional Science, 42(4), 561–578. doi:10.1007/s11251-013-9301-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ifenthaler, D., & Widanapathirana, C. (2014). Development and validation of a learning analytics framework: Two case studies using support vector machines. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1–2), 221–240. doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9226-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ifenthaler, D., Mistree, F., & Siddique, Z. (2014). Learning how to learn in a team-based engineering eduction. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 11(1), 63–82. doi:10.1108/ITSE-10-2013-0025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, T. E., Lee, Y., Lee, M., & O’Connor, D. L. (2007). Measuring sharedness of team-related knowledge: Design and validation of a shared mental model instrument. Human Resource Development International, 10(4), 437–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King, B. A., & Magun-Jackson, S. (2009). Epistemological beliefs of engineering students. The Journal of Technology Studies, 35(2), 56–64.Google Scholar
  16. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy. An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Merrill, M. D. (2007). The future of instructional design: The proper study of instructional design. In R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in instructional design and technology (pp. 336–341). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, Inc.Google Scholar
  18. Mistree, F., Panchal, J. H., & Schaefer, D. (2012). Mass-customization: From personalized products to personalized engineering education. In A. Crosnik & Y. Xiong (Eds.), Supply chain management (pp. 150–174). Croatia: INTECH.Google Scholar
  19. Mistree, F., Ifenthaler, D., & Siddique, Z. (2013). Empowering engineering students to learn how to learn: A competency-based approach. AC 7324. Paper presented at the ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  20. Mistree, F., Panchal, J. H., Schaefer, D., Allen, J. K., Haroon, S., & Siddique, Z. (2014). Personalized engineering education for the 21st century: A competency based approach. In M. Gosper & D. Ifenthaler (Eds.), Curriculum models for the 21st century. Using learning technologies in higher education (pp. 91–112). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  22. Williams, C., & Mistree, F. (2006). Empowering students to learn how to learn: Mass customization of a graduate engineering design course. The International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(6), 1269–1280.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dirk Ifenthaler
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zahed Siddique
    • 3
  • Farrokh Mistree
    • 3
  1. 1.University of MannheimMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Deakin UniversityMelbourneAustralia
  3. 3.University of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations