| The purpose of this study was twofold: (1) to investigate how two groups of undergraduate students experienced the engineering design process, and (2) to examine how group communication influenced the design process. The research questions examined in this study were: (1) How do groups of undergraduate engineering students experience the design process? (2) In what ways do groups of undergraduate engineering students communicate while working on a design project? (3) What characteristics of communication help the design process? (4) What characteristics of communication hinder the design process?;The research design included case studies of two, three-student groups working on an engineering design project. Students in both groups were enrolled in an introductory engineering design course at a large research university. Data collection included direct observation of groups engaged in the engineering design process and standardized, open-ended interviews with individual students upon completion of the process.;This study found that the design process experienced by the groups differed from the model of the engineering design process provided to the class. The observed design process included four phases: generating ideas, identifying a solution, building and testing, and presentation. Both groups experienced the four phases; however, the phases differed in terms of duration. In individual interviews, students described a five-stage process that resembled the observed process. The stages included brainstorming, evaluating alternatives, building the prototype, testing the prototype, and presenting or demonstrating the prototype.;Next, the results showed that group communication in the design process involved a large percentage of task communication, with very little procedural, interpersonal, or off-task communication. In fact, no interpersonal communication took place in the first phase in either group. Most of the procedural communication for Group 1 took place in the second phase. For Group 2, most of the procedural communication occurred in the third phase. Simple response/request communication accounted for the largest percentage of task, procedural, and interpersonal communication in almost every phase for both groups. Both groups engaged in similar amounts of support and tension communication in the third phase, but that changed in the fourth phase when Group 2 demonstrated more tension communication.;The study also identified six facilitators and six inhibitors of the engineering design process. The facilitators included (1) staying on task, (2) using sketches to describe design ideas to teammates, (3) reviewing the requirements of the assignment, (4) dividing labor among group members, (5) encouraging teammates to continue working, and (6) troubleshooting when the prototype does not work as planned.;The inhibitors of the design process included: (1) failing to engage in interpersonal communication in the first phase of the process, (2) engaging in a small amount of procedural communication, (3) asking too few questions in the first phase of the process, (4) engaging in a large amount of simple response/request communication throughout the process, (5) participating in off-task communication with students in other groups, and (6) choosing not to take the advice of more knowledgeable others such as the instructor.;Based on these findings, the researcher makes recommendations for practice and future research. The recommendations for practice address topics such as planning the assignment, monitoring group work and evaluating group work. Future research might focus on how group communication in the design process influences outcomes such as the development of design and teamwork competencies. |
