Fila, N. D., & Rover, D. T., & Duwe, H., & Mina, M., & Jones, P. H. (2023, June), Course Design Thinking: Navigating Tensions at the Intersection of Design Thinking and Engineering Course Design  Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland. 10.18260/1-2--42773

\bibitem{asee_peer_42773}
  Fila, N. D., \& Rover, D. T., \& Duwe, H., \& Mina, M., \& Jones, P. H. (2023, June), \emph{Course Design Thinking: Navigating Tensions at the Intersection of Design Thinking and Engineering Course Design}
  Paper presented at 2023 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland.
  10.18260/1-2--42773

Nicholas D. Fila, Diane T. Rover, Henry Duwe, Mani Mina, and Phillip H. Jones III.  "Course Design Thinking: Navigating Tensions at the Intersection of Design Thinking and Engineering Course Design".  2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland, 2023, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2023.  https://strategy.asee.org/42773 Internet.  28 Jun, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_42773}
  Nicholas D. Fila, Diane T. Rover, Henry Duwe, Mani Mina, and Phillip H. Jones III.
  "Course Design Thinking: Navigating Tensions at the Intersection of Design Thinking and Engineering Course Design".
  \emph{2023 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Baltimore , Maryland, 2023, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2023.
  https://strategy.asee.org/42773 Internet.  28 Jun, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_42773
author = "Nicholas D. Fila, Diane T. Rover, Henry Duwe, Mani Mina, and Phillip H. Jones III"
title = "Course Design Thinking: Navigating Tensions at the Intersection of Design Thinking and Engineering Course Design"
booktitle = "2023 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2023"
month = "June"
address = "Baltimore , Maryland"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://strategy.asee.org/42773}
number = {10.18260/1-2--42773}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  - In recent years, several researchers and educators have explored how design thinking might be applied to education design practices. These explorations have ranged from general use toolkits to theoretical framings to empirical investigations. While these explorations have advanced considerations of how the human-centered, inquisitive, iterative, generative, and multi-perspective nature of design thinking might inform and improve education design practice, it is also clear that design thinking, as it has been applied in other disciplines and contexts, can be met with resistance and struggles when applied to designing engineering courses. For example, a recent study suggested obstacles related to instructors’ mindsets, course design practices, departmental cultures, and constraints of course and curricular structures. This study seeks to further understand the intersection between design thinking and engineering course design by investigating two research questions: 

1.	What tensions are experienced by engineering educators attempting to apply design thinking to the redesign of two courses in the second and third year of an undergraduate electrical and computer engineering program?
2.	How do these tensions inform the application of design thinking in an engineering course design context?

We utilized a collaborative inquiry approach to address the two research questions. Five engineering faculty members who had served on two course design teams participated in this collaborative inquiry. Each team was facilitated by a design expert who worked with the teams to utilize a process that met instructor needs while retaining key human-centered, problem-oriented, generative, iterative, and diverse aspects of design thinking. Teams also consisted of course instructors and additional faculty, staff, and students who provided additional perspectives on student experience, content, and other education aspects. We, the collaborative inquiry participants applied a four-stage process to address the two research questions: (1) we engaged in an open-ended series of individual reflections and group discussions regarding the teams’ processes and application of design thinking, (2) one participant synthesized the discussions into a set of tensions and a collective framing of design thinking in engineering course design, (3) we further engaged in a series of individual reflections and group discussions in response to the synthesis, and (4) we collectively revised the tensions and framing of “course design thinking” to reflective collective agreements and individual nuances.

Intermediate results suggest several key tensions experienced by engineering educators when attempting to apply design thinking to course design. These include: (1) resolving extant practices and mindsets with design thinking practices and mindsets, (2) desire to take ownership of process while worrying about ability without facilitation, (3) discomfort with nature of design thinking vs. belief in opportunities it provides, and (4) burgeoning interest and ability set against concerns about buy-in from department and colleagues. Collectively, these tensions informed a framing of design thinking that includes extant themes such as empathy for users and applying generative, visual practices, but reframes these themes to better align with engineering educators’ practices, mindsets, and contexts. In the paper, we will report on the new “course design thinking” framing, elaborate on the identified tensions, and discuss implications for engineering course design practice.
AU  - Nicholas D. Fila
AU  - Diane T. Rover
AU  - Henry Duwe
AU  - Mani Mina
AU  - Phillip H. Jones III
CY  - Baltimore , Maryland
DA  - 2023/06/25
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Course Design Thinking: Navigating Tensions at the Intersection of Design Thinking and Engineering Course Design
UR  - https://strategy.asee.org/42773
DO  - 10.18260/1-2--42773
ER  -