Lewis, K., & Moore-Russo, D. A., & Okudan Kremer, G. E., & Tucker, C., & Simpson, T. W., & Zappe, S. E., & McKenna, A. F., & Carberry, A. R., & Chen, W., & Gatchell, D. W., & Shooter, S. B., & Paretti, M. C., & McNair, L. D., & Williams, C. B. (2013, June), The Development of Product Archaeology as a Platform for Contextualizing Engineering Design  Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. 10.18260/1-2--22571

\bibitem{asee_peer_22571}
  Lewis, K., \& Moore-Russo, D. A., \& Okudan Kremer, G. E., \& Tucker, C., \& Simpson, T. W., \& Zappe, S. E., \& McKenna, A. F., \& Carberry, A. R., \& Chen, W., \& Gatchell, D. W., \& Shooter, S. B., \& Paretti, M. C., \& McNair, L. D., \& Williams, C. B. (2013, June), \emph{The Development of Product Archaeology as a Platform for Contextualizing Engineering Design}
  Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia.
  10.18260/1-2--22571

Kemper Lewis, Deborah A. Moore-Russo Ph.D., Gül E. Okudan Kremer, Conrad Tucker, Timothy W. Simpson, Sarah E Zappe, Ann F. McKenna, Adam R Carberry, Wei Chen, David W. Gatchell, Steven B. Shooter, Marie C Paretti, Lisa D. McNair, and Christopher B. Williams.  "The Development of Product Archaeology as a Platform for Contextualizing Engineering Design".  2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2013.  https://strategy.asee.org/22571 Internet.  08 Jun, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_22571}
  Kemper Lewis, Deborah A. Moore-Russo Ph.D., Gül E. Okudan Kremer, Conrad Tucker, Timothy W. Simpson, Sarah E Zappe, Ann F. McKenna, Adam R Carberry, Wei Chen, David W. Gatchell, Steven B. Shooter, Marie C Paretti, Lisa D. McNair, and Christopher B. Williams.
  "The Development of Product Archaeology as a Platform for Contextualizing Engineering Design".
  \emph{2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia, 2013, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2013.
  https://strategy.asee.org/22571 Internet.  08 Jun, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_22571
author = "Kemper Lewis, Deborah A. Moore-Russo Ph.D., Gül E. Okudan Kremer, Conrad Tucker, Timothy W. Simpson, Sarah E Zappe, Ann F. McKenna, Adam R Carberry, Wei Chen, David W. Gatchell, Steven B. Shooter, Marie C Paretti, Lisa D. McNair, and Christopher B. Williams"
title = "The Development of Product Archaeology as a Platform for Contextualizing Engineering Design"
booktitle = "2013 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2013"
month = "June"
address = "Atlanta, Georgia"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://strategy.asee.org/22571}
number = {10.18260/1-2--22571}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -                  Assessment of Product Archaeology as a Platform                      for Contextualizing Engineering DesignAbstractEngineers in the U.S. face tremendous challenges that include globalization of technical labor,economic turmoil, environmental resource limitations, and the increasingly blurred lines betweenthe social and technical aspects of design. For over a decade, the NAE, NAS, NSF, and ABEThave identified engineering education as a principal site for inculcating future engineers withnew competencies to thrive in a globalized society. At the same time, they lamented about the“disconnect between the system of engineering education and the practice of engineering” thataccelerating global challenges have only exacerbated [1].Since 1996 the ABET Outcomes Assessment Criteria have offered a set of guidelines to assurethat engineers are equipped to succeed and lead in this new world [2]. Among the most vital ofthese criteria is Outcome h: “the broad education necessary to understand the impact ofengineering solutions in a global, economic, environmental, and societal context”. Properlyunderstood, Outcome h goes far beyond contextual awareness. It provides the bond betweenvirtually all other ABET outcomes, linking the profession’s traditional strengths in scientificknowledge (Outcome a) with design (Outcomes b and c), multidisciplinary teamwork (Outcomed), and knowledge of contemporary issues (Outcome j). Outcome h is doubly important forengineering education because such global, economic, environmental, and societal issues havebecome critical for preparing, engaging, and retaining the nation’s best students [3,4].Despite its importance, engineering departments struggle to achieve Outcome h. As a result,engineering students receive meaningful contextual experiences in piecemeal fashion andgraduate with a lack of concrete competencies that bridge knowledge and practice in the globalworld in which they will live and work. By considering products as designed artifacts with ahistory rooted in their development, our product archaeology framework combines conceptsfrom archaeology with advances in cyber-enhanced product dissection to implement pedagogicalinnovations that address the significant educational gap.The term product archaeology was initially coined by Ulrich and Pearson [5] as the process ofdissecting and analyzing a physical product to assess the design attributes that drive cost. Morerecently we formally defined product archaeology as the process of reconstructing the lifecycleof a product—the customer requirements, design specifications, and manufacturing processesused to produce it—to understand the decisions that led to its development [6-10]. With an“archaeological mindset,” students approach product dissection with the task of evaluating andunderstanding a product’s (and its designers’) global, societal, economic and environmentalcontext and impact. These hands-on, inductive learning activities require students to movebeyond rote knowledge to hone their engineering judgment, extend and refine their knowledge,and apply their knowledge in meaningful ways to realistic challenges. This pedagogicalframework thus provides students with formal activities to think more broadly about theirprofessional roles as engineers.To connect to a learning framework we map Kolb’s four-stage learning model [11] to the fourphases of archaeology [12]: (1) Preparation, (2) Excavation, (3) Evaluation, (4) Explanation.The four keywords from Outcome h (i.e., global, societal, economic, environmental) are thenused as triggers to develop questions pertaining to a specific product, usage, and impact, Duringthe preparation phase, students reflect on what they know about the factors that impact thedesign of the particular product and postulate responses to questions about its design. Theexcavation activities lead to concrete experiences where students can physically dissect theproduct and perform appropriate research to develop well-reasoned answers to specific design-related questions. The evaluation phase provides opportunities for students to activelyexperiment and abstract meaning from their research and concrete dissection experiences.Finally, they articulate their findings during the explanation phase to describe the global,societal, economic, and environmental impact of the product.In this paper, we present scalable learning materials, strategies, and educational innovations thatwe are implementing to develop students’ understanding of the broader context of engineering.We also report on the assessment of the effectiveness of taking a product archaeology approachto teach students the necessary skills and knowledge to meet ABET outcome h. Data is collectedfrom six partner institutions across the undergraduate years to assess three dimensions ofthinking that influence the learning process: (1) extending and refining knowledge, (2) usingknowledge meaningfully, and (3) positive attitudes and perceptions about the learning context[13].References[1] National Academy of Engineering, 2005, Educating the Engineer of 2020: Adapting    Engineering Education to the New Century, The National Academies Press, Washington,    D.C.[2] Engineering Accreditation Commission, 1999, Criteria for Accrediting Engineering    Programs, ABET, Baltimore, MD, http://www.abet.org/.[3] National Academy of Engineering, 2008, Changing the Conversation: Messages for    Improving Public Understanding of Engineering, The National Academies Press,    Washington, D.C.[4] Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Colby, A. and Sullivan, W. M., 2009, Educating    Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.[5] Ulrich, K. T. and Pearson, S., 1998, "Assessing the Importance of Design through Product    Archaeology," Management Science, 44(3), 352-369.[6] Lewis, K., Moore-Russo, D., Ashour, O., Kremer, G., Simpson, T. W., Neumeyer, X.,    McKenna, A. and Chen, W., 2011, "Teaching the Global, Economic, Environmental, and    Societal Foundations of Engineering Design through Product Archaeology," ASEE Annual    Conference & Exhibition, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, ASEE-1149.[7] Simpson, T. W., Okudan, G. E., Ashour, O. and Lewis, K., 2011, "From Product Dissection    to Product Archaeology: Exposing Students to Global, Economic, Environmental, and    Societal Impact through Competitive and Collaborative ‘Digs’," ASME International Design    Technical Conferences - Design Education Conference, Washington, D.C., DETC2011-    48298.[8] McKenna, A., Neumeyer, X. and Chen, W., 2011, "Using Product Archaeology to Embed    Context in Engineering Design," ASME International Design Technical Conferences -    Design Education Conference, Washington, D.C., DETC2011-48242.[9] Lewis, K. and Moore-Russo, D., 2011, "Upper Level Engineering Design Instruction Using     a Product Archaeology Paradigm," ASME International Design Technical Conferences -     Design Education Conference, Washington, D.C., ASME, DETC2011-47933.[10] Cormier, P., Devendorf, E., Moore-Russo, D., and Lewis, K., 2011, “Using Product     Archaeology to Integrate Global, Economic, Environmental, and Societal Factors in     Introductory Design Education,” ASME International Design Technical Conferences -     Design Education Conference, Washington, DC, DETC2011-48438.[11] Kolb, D., 1984, Experiential Learning: Experience as the Source of Learning and     Development, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.[12] Renfrew, C. and Bahn, P., 2004, Archeology: Theories, Methods, and Practice, Thames &     Hudson, New York.[13] Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. and McTighe, J., 1993, Assessing Student Outcomes:     Performance Assessment using the Dimensions of Learning Model, Association for     Supervision and Curriculum Development, Alexandria, VA.
AU  - Kemper Lewis
AU  - Deborah A. Moore-Russo Ph.D.
AU  - Gül E. Okudan Kremer
AU  - Conrad Tucker
AU  - Timothy W. Simpson
AU  - Sarah E Zappe
AU  - Ann F. McKenna
AU  - Adam R Carberry
AU  - Wei Chen
AU  - David W. Gatchell
AU  - Steven B. Shooter
AU  - Marie C Paretti
AU  - Lisa D. McNair
AU  - Christopher B. Williams
CY  - Atlanta, Georgia
DA  - 2013/06/23
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - The Development of Product Archaeology as a Platform for Contextualizing Engineering Design
UR  - https://strategy.asee.org/22571
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--22571
ER  -