Case Study: Learning Engineering as a Team Sport (Poster 6)

• In Event: From Research to Application: Learning Engineering as a Process for Learning-Sciences-Informed Educational Design

Abstract

A crucial element of the learning engineering process is the relationship between learners and the design team (Thai et al., 2022). The learning engineering process values diverse talents and expertise across disciplines, including subject matter experts, learning scientists, data analysts, software engineers, educational professionals, and instructional designers. A human-centered design approach focusing on learners requires interdisciplinary team members with common and unique competencies working together through a shared vocabulary and context (Thai et al., 2022). This case study of the ADAPT Lab at the Schulich School of Engineering presents the creation of a learning engineering team to develop digital literacy curricula for first-year engineering students. The educational challenge was to address gaps in foundational digital literacy knowledge among incoming students. Participatory design (Trischler et al., 2018) requires members of the design team to consider their unique expertise and ability to engage in a human-centered approach while supporting learners (DiSalvo et al., 2017).
The team was assembled to include a variety of contexts and intersectional backgrounds:
• Faculty experts in digital transformation of engineering education (PI)
• Faculty experts in human factors in software engineering (CO)
• GA with industry experience in instructional design (ID)
• GA with expertise in mixed-method educational research (ER)
• Senior undergraduate student in software engineering with expertise in visual design (SE)
• Undergraduate student in psychology with interest in digital wellness (USP)
• Undergraduate student in engineering with recent experience in target course (USE)

Over four months, the team collaborated to create several deliverables, incorporating their interdisciplinary strengths while addressing the challenge. The PI noted that roles shifted as the team moved through the learning engineering process. Informal leadership positions changed throughout solution development. Team members leveraged their expertise to train colleagues while providing guidance on related aspects of the deliverables. For example, USE created student personas and a rubric of skills for intended learners based on his experiences in the target course, which he explained to ID. She adapted his work into a syllabus and learning outcomes, training him on instructional design methodologies and course development best practices. The following year, USE took on a leadership role and trained new members based on his knowledge from ID. Outcomes and evidence of interdisciplinary team collaboration:
• Qualitative observational and feedback data (PI, CO)
• Development and deployment of a digital literacy measurement survey (PI, CO, ID)
• Analysis of incoming student skills (PI, CO, ER, ID, USE)
• Analysis of digital tools, necessary skills, and use barriers (PI, SE, USP)
• Understanding student digital wellness, accessibility, and related interventions (PI, ER, SE, USP, USE)
• Development of a visual framework for best practices in using digital learning tools (PI, SE, USP)
• Development and deployment of an asynchronous online course for digital literacy skills (PI, CO, ID, USE)
Each member was integral to solving the educational challenge while maintaining desired timelines and deliverables. This case study continues to be expanded to demonstrate effective collaboration practices for building interdisciplinary design teams working on educational research challenges.

Authors

• Emily Marasco, University of Calgary

• Khawla Shnaikat, University of Calgary

• Ann Barcomb, University of Calgary