[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-589443-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-589443-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","development-of-a-supplemental-evaluation-for-engineering-design-courses-spring-2010","Development of a Supplemental Evaluation for Engineering Design Courses - Spring 2010","","Compared to learning in most engineering courses, learning in design courses depends more on students and less on instructors. Because common course evaluations are instructor-centric and do not reveal what students do to support their own learning, a supplemental evaluation was developed to measure key student actions and attitudes. Statistically significant shifts in self-reported practices and attitudes emerged as cohorts progressed. Factor analysis grouped items into eight thematic categories, highlighting independence, maturation and achievement, and responsibility for learning.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/exam/","Exam",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/development-of-a-supplemental-evaluation-for-engineering-design-courses-spring-2010/589443/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/development-of-a-supplemental-evaluation-for-engineering-design-courses-spring-2010/589443.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Terk","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-11-09","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Why is a supplemental evaluation needed for engineering design courses?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Design learning depends heavily on students’ actions and attitudes, while typical evaluations focus mainly on instructors and do not capture student contributions to learning.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"What did the analysis reveal about student responses across design projects?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The evaluation detected statistically significant shifts in self-reported practices and attitudes as student cohorts progressed through design projects.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How were the evaluation questions organized?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"Factor analysis grouped the questions into eight thematic categories, emphasizing independence in uncertain situations, self-perception of maturation and achievement, and acceptance of responsibility for learning.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},589443,1792667694,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,95,99,104,109,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":93,"slug":94},70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":100,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":105,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":110,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":33,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099525198933,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","| Ad | vances in Engineering Edu | cation  |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n|  |  |  |\n\nSPRING 2010  \nDevelopment of a Supplemental Evaluation for Engineering Design Courses  \nGlen A. livesAy, Renee D. RoGGe, and KAy C Dee Department of Applied Biology and Biomedical engineering Rose-Hulman institute of Technology, Terre Haute, in 47803 UsA  \nABSTRACT  \nCompared to the learning that occurs in most engineering courses, the learning that occurs in design courses is more dependent on students, and less dependent on instructors. Because typical course evaluations are instructor-centric and do not provide information about students’ contributions to their learning, we developed a supplemental evaluation to assess student actions and attitudes important to a quality design experience. We detected statistically-significant, logical shifts in self-reported practices and attitudes as student cohorts progressed through design projects. Factor analysis showed that the evaluation questions could be grouped into eight thematic categories, with most of the questions assessing student ability to function independently in uncertain situations, self-perception of maturation and achievement, and acceptance of responsibility for learning. Accepting responsibility for learning and believing that design experiences helps transition from being a student to being a professional were correlated with high student ratings of overall instructor performance and overall learning experience.  \nKeywords: design, assessment, professional skills, evaluations of teaching.  \nINTRODUCTION  \nDesign courses are, in many respects, different from other engineering courses. While students may consider traditional courses as discrete or compartmentalized “units” of learning or concepts, design experiences overtly require students to draw from and apply multiple types of accumulated experiences and knowledge. Design courses require students to complete a project that is usually larger than students have previously completed, with continued student effort over a longer period of time than typical class projects, and with more process documentation than students are accustomed to providing. Furthermore, design problems are open-ended, and the projects are, in  \nSPRING 2010 1  \nAdvAnCes in engineering eduCAtion  \ndevelopment of a supplemental evaluation for engineering design Courses  \nlarge part, [student-driven. in](student-driven. in) helping students meet these challenges, design instructors guide the transition from operating as a student to operating as a professional.  \nThe factors that make design courses challenging for students also make design courses challenging for educators. Design instructors must draw from a wide range of experiences and knowledge to provide guidance to students in multiple technical areas and in project management. Compared to instructors of traditional lecture courses, design instructors often spend more time interacting with students one-on-one or in small groups. Design instructors who teach multi-course sequences invest their effort in developing the abilities of their students over a longer period of time than do instructors whose course enrollments change from term to term. Perhaps the most important challenge of instructing a design course is achieving the fine balance between providing specific assistance/guidance and allowing students to direct their design process and make (and learn from) mistakes as they navigate the open-ended nature of the [problem. in](problem. in) order to let the students “learn by doing,” design instructors must relinquish some control of the learning process to the students, while still maintaining high standards for the quality of the project deliverables. Compared to the learning that occurs in traditional engineering courses, the learning that occurs in design courses is more dependent on students and their self-directed activities.  \nMany academic institutions use formal student evaluations of teaching to obta","cbCaic4U5MAqxbzZ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaic4U5MAqxbzZ","pdf",1086121,14,"English","# Abstract\n# Introduction\n## Differences between design and lecture courses\n## Instructor-centered evaluations and missing student contribution data\n## Prior work on assessing student design performance","[{\"question\":\"Why is a supplemental evaluation needed for engineering design courses?\",\"answer\":\"Design learning depends heavily on students’ actions and attitudes, while typical evaluations focus mainly on instructors and do not capture student contributions to learning.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the analysis reveal about student responses across design projects?\",\"answer\":\"The evaluation detected statistically significant shifts in self-reported practices and attitudes as student cohorts progressed through design projects.\"},{\"question\":\"How were the evaluation questions organized?\",\"answer\":\"Factor analysis grouped the questions into eight thematic categories, emphasizing independence in uncertain situations, self-perception of maturation and achievement, and acceptance of responsibility for learning.\"}]","Development of a Supplemental Evaluation for Engineering Design Courses - Spring 2010 | PDF",1792067305,35]