GROUP PRACTICES IN A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROJECT – A VIDEO-ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY

J. Bernhard, J. Davidsen, T. Ryberg (2023). GROUP PRACTICES IN A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROJECT – A VIDEO-ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY. 732-745.

2023 19th International CDIO Conference, NTNU, Norway

CDIO 2023 Proceedings (39).pdf

CONTEXT: There is a growing interest in engineering education that the curriculum should include collaborative design projects. The problem-based and project-based learning context of this study is a design project in the fifth semester of the problem-based Architecture and Design programme at Aalborg University. The students had the task to design a real office building in collaborative groups of five to six students. PURPOSE: Collaboration and collaborative learning imply a shared activity, a shared purpose, and a mutual interdependence to achieve the intended learning outcomes. In earlier studies we have highlighted the cognitive importance of tools and the use of a wealth of bodily and material resources in students' collaborative interactional work in the design project. In this study, we focus on students' collaborative group practices in the design project. The fine-grained details of collaborative work in engineering students design projects are currently under- researched. METHODOLOGY: The preparation for an upcoming status seminar was video recorded in situ. Video ethnography, conversation analysis and embodied interaction analysis were used to explore what interactional work the student teams did and what kind of resources they used to collaborate and complete the design task. Complete six hours sessions of five groups were recorded using multiple video cameras (two to five cameras per group). OUTCOMES: The fine-grained patterns of social interaction within groups were found to be complex and dynamic. In the video recordings it was observed that students often changed constellations and break into subgroups of one, two or three students to do some work and to congregate later as a whole group. Thus, we found that the patterns of collaboration in groups practical day-to-day work were not static but displayed a myriad of different patterns. CONCLUSION: Our results challenge a na"ve individual-collaborative- binary and point to the need to investigate group practices and individual and collaborative learning in design project groups and other collaborative learning environments in more detail. Physical settings in active learning environments should make fluid collaboration patterns in students' collaborative work feasible and it should be encouraged by instructors.

Authors (New):

Jonte Bernhard

Jacob Davidsen

Thomas Ryberg

Pages:

732-745

Affiliations:

Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden

Aalborg University, Denmark

Keywords:

design projects

collaborative learning

Group practices

Video ethnography

CDIO Standard 5

CDIO Standard 7

CDIO Standard 8

Year:

2023

Reference:

Adams, R., & Siddiqui, J. (Eds.). (2015). Analyzing Design Review Conversations. Purdue University Press.:

Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359-379.:

Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131-152.:

Bernhard, J., Carstensen, A.-K., Davidsen, J., & Ryberg, T. (2019). Practical epistemic cognition in a design project - engineering students developing epistemic fluency. IEEE Transactions on Education, 62(3), 216-225.:

Bernhard, J., Davidsen, J., & Ryberg, T. (2020). By hand and by computer - a video-ethnographic study of engineering students' representational practices in a design project. In A. Guerra, J. Chen, M. Winther, & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Educate for the future: PBL, Sustainability and Digitalisation 2020 (pp. 561-570). Aalborg University Press.:

Bernhard, J., Edstrom, K., & Kolmos, A. (2016). Learning through design-implement experiences: A literature review. Work-in-progress presented at the 12th International CDIO Conference, Turku University of Applied Sciences, Turku, Finland, June 12-16, 2016.,:

Borgford-Parnell, J., Deibel, K., & Atman, C. J. (2013). Engineering design teams. In B. Williams, J. Figueiredo, & J. Trevelyan (Eds.), Engineering Practice in a Global Context (pp. 79-99). CRC Press.:

Brereton, M. (2004). Distributed Cognition in Engineering Design: Negotiating between Abstract and Material Representations. In G. Goldschmidt & W. L. Porter (Eds.), Design Representation (pp. 83- 103). Springer.:

Campbell, C., Roth, W.-M., & Jornet, A. (2018). Collaborative design decision-making as social process. European Journal of Engineering Education, 44(3), 294-311.:

Cardella, M. E., Atman, C. J., Turns, J., & Adams, R. S. (2008). Students with Differing Design Processes as Freshmen: Case Studies on Change. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 246-259.:

Craig, D. L. (2001). Stalking Homo Faber: A Comparison of Research Strategies for Studying Design Behavior. In C. Eastman, W. Newstetter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design Knowing and Learning: Cognition in Design Education (pp. 13-36). Elsevier.:

Crawley, E. F., Malmqvist, J., Ostlund, S., Brodeur, D. R., & Edstrom, K. (2014). Rethinking Engineering Education: The CDIO Approach (2nd ed.). Springer.:

Davidsen, J., Ryberg, T., & Bernhard, J. (2020). "Everything comes together": Students' collaborative development of a professional dialogic practice in architecture and design education. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 37, 100678.:

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches. (pp. 1-19). Elsevier. :

Edstrom, K., & Kolmos, A. (2014). PBL and CDIO: complementary models for engineering education development. European Journal of Engineering Education, 39(5), 539-555.:

Gilbuena, D. M., Sherrett, B. U., Gummer, E. S., Champagne, A. B., & Koretsky, M. D. (2015). Feedback on Professional Skills as Enculturation into Communities of Practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(1), 7-34.:

Goncher, A., & Johri, A. (2015). Contextual Constraining of Student Design Practices. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(3), 252-278. :

Goodwin, C. (1995). Seeing in Depth. Social Studies of Science, 25(2), 237-274. :

Goodwin, C. (2018). Co-operative Action. Cambridge University Press.:

Heath, C. (2016). Embodied action: video and the analysis of social interaction. In D. Silverman (Ed.), Qualitative Research (4th ed., pp. 311-327). Sage. (Qualitative research) :

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the Wild. The MIT Press.:

Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction Analysis: Foundations and Practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39-103.:

Juhl, J., & Lindegaard, H. (2013). Representations and Visual Synthesis in Engineering Design. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 20-50.:

Markauskaite, L., & Goodyear, P. (2017). Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education: Innovation, Knowledgeable Action and Actionable Knowledge. Springer.:

Mcilvenny, P. B., & Davidsen, J. (2017). A Big Video Manifesto: Re-sensing Video and Audio. Nordicom Information, 39(2).:

Menekse, M., Higashi, R., Schunn, C. D., & Baehr, E. (2017). The Role of Robotics Teams' Collaboration Quality on Team Performance in a Robotics Tournament. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 564-584.:

Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking Through Technology: The Path between Engineering and Philosophy. The University of Chicago Press.:

Ryberg, T., Davidsen, J., & Bernhard, J. (2020). Knowledge Forms in Students' Collaborative Work - PBL as a Design for Transfer work. In N. B. Dohn, S. B. Hansen, & J. J. Hansen (Eds.), Designing for situated knowledge transformation (pp. 127-144). Routledge.:

Ryberg, T., Davidsen, J., Bernhard, J., & Larsen, M. C. (2021). Ecotones: a Conceptual Contribution to Postdigital Thinking. Postdigital Science and Education.:

Ryberg, T., Davidsen, J., & Hodgson, V. (2018). Understanding nomadic collaborative learning groups. British Journal of Educational Technology, 49(2), 235-247.:

Simon, H. (1996). The Sciences of the Artificial (3rd ed.). The MIT Press.:

Stahl, G. (2013). Theories of Cognition in Collaborative Learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O'Donnell (Eds.), The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp. 74-90). Routledge.:

Stahl, G. (2016). The Group as Paradigmatic Unit of Analysis: The Contested Relationship of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning to the Learning Sciences. In M. A. Evans, M. J. Packer, & R. K. Sawyer (Eds.), Reflections on the Learning Sciences (pp. 76-102). Cambridge University Press.:

S0rensen, M. T. (2022). Students' orchestration of groupwork and the role of technology. Aalborg Universitetsforlag.:

Tang, J. C., & Leifer, L. J. (1991). An Observational Methodology for Studying Group Design Activity. Research in Engineering Design, 2(4), 209-219. :

on November 28, 2023 - 11:22 frebyst

GROUP PRACTICES IN A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROJECT – A VIDEO-ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY

Navigation

GROUP PRACTICES IN A COLLABORATIVE DESIGN PROJECT – A VIDEO-ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDY

Share this content.