Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Physical models are widely used as idea generation tools by industrial designers, engineers, engineering educators and government agencies. Many schools promote the use of physical models in their engineering curricula. Despite the apparent popularity of physical models, little is known about their cognitive impacts and when they should be implemented in the design process. A few studies have explored physical models and their use as idea generation tools; however the guidelines from them are conflicting. Based upon these conflicting guidelines, a series of controlled and qualitative studies are conducted by the authors to understand the cognitive impacts of physical models in engineering idea generation. In addition to the insights from these studies, data are collected from a project-based graduate design course. The reports from design teams prototyping their ideas as a part of a class project are studied. These reports provide insights about the conceptual errors that student designers make as they build and test physical models of their designs. To reduce the two most critical errors, a design method (Model Error Reduction Method) is formulated. This design method forces the designers to think about two potential conceptual errors in their designs and provides guidance to rectify the issues. The two conceptual errors that the method addresses are: failure to account for critical loads and failure to design connections. This paper presents a controlled experiment evaluating the effectiveness of the method. The preliminary results show that novice designers find the design method extremely useful; moreover, the method seems to help eliminate, to a large extent, said conceptual errors. These findings suggest that the method might augment existing engineering design curricula. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2012 | 10.1109/FIE.2012.6462353 | FIE |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
schools,cognition,design cognition,government agencies,engineering education,industrial engineering,physical modeling,conflicting guidelines,controlled study,physical models,engineering design curricula,idea generation tool,idea generation tools,design method,prototyping guidelines,student designers,method address,design projects,design process,physical model,design team,government,existing engineering design curriculum,industrial engineers,qualitative study,conceptual error,cognitive impact,model error reduction method,new design method,design project,industrial designers,novice designers,project-based graduate design course,cognitive impacts,engineering idea generation,engineering educators,conceptual errors | Errors-in-variables models,Engineering management,Computer science,Popularity,Engineering education,Design methods,Curriculum,Engineering design process,Qualitative research,Government | Conference |
ISSN | ISBN | Citations |
0190-5848 E-ISBN : 978-1-4673-1351-3 | 978-1-4673-1351-3 | 1 |
PageRank | References | Authors |
0.44 | 3 | 2 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vimal Viswanathan | 1 | 11 | 3.38 |
| Julie Linsey | 2 | 55 | 12.39 |