The construction of low-fidelity prototypes is a critical phase of the engineering design process important for realizing design functionality, and to aid in the communication of engineering design ideas to others. The physical act of building, or constructing a prototype is a way to help young engineers develop the confidence they need to recognize themselves as engineers. This research elucidates differences based on gender and 1st-generation status when experiencing rapid prototyping. This work demonstrates the importance of constructionist activities in the engineering design classroom and awareness of its effect on different archetypes of undergraduate students. Females were significantly more likely to see these learning opportunities as an empowering moment, where construction of artifacts made them feel like design engineers compared to their male peers. Additionally, prior experience before college in tinkering, building, and making things were both higher in male students and those from 1st-generation students compared to females. There was a strong association between engineering self-efficacy and confidence in constructionist activities: rapid prototyping low-fidelity artifacts and developing CAD models based on individual design ideas. Not surprising, those with higher engineering self-efficacy had more confidence in their building skills. A major discovery from this work was a clear delineation that those with low engineering self-efficacy also had a lower perception of access to facilities like makerspaces, and rapid prototyping materials that help realize design ideas. The students and faculty agree that making activities are critical as part of the design process and the conclusions of this work demonstrate the need for more exposure to constructionist activities in the engineering design classroom and a stronger message for the availability of resources. Continuous building activities embedded throughout the engineering curriculum may help promote design skills and confidence in those with low engineering self-efficacy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kwaczala et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: