Invention & Design:
Dodge Evaluation

Report Submitted to the Dodge Foundation

Jonathan A. Plucker
Department of Educational Studies
Curry School of Education
The University of Virginia

Michael E. Gorman
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences
The University of Virginia

This report summarizes the evaluation of the Invention and Design course that was offered twice during the summer of 1994 as part of the University of Virginia's Summer Enrichment Program (SEP). A variety of methods were used to collect data: intensive observations, seven surveys administered throughout the course, analysis of group notebook and individual journal entries, and interviews with students, counselors, and project staff. Each instrument that was used to collect evaluation data is included in the appendices, and detailed summaries of the collected data also appear in the appendices.

We would like to personally thank the project staff, including the physics teacher, Michael Brittingham, and the consultant, Dr. Carolyn Callahan, and the counselors at the Summer Enrichment Program for their assistance and openness during the evaluation. We would also like to thank Darci Leib, the SEP director, and the rest of her staff for the extensive logistical support that was necessary for this course and evaluation to be successful.

Program Objectives and Evaluation Questions

The following program objectives and corresponding evaluation questions guided both the course and the evaluation:

Program Objectives:

• To help students understand that invention is a process which can be improved by reflection.
• To learn to take advantage of different intelligences and abilities in a team effort.
• To help students see the benefits of a multi-disciplinary team approach.

Evaluation Questions:

• How does the course function with respect to nuts-and-bolts issues, including:
  • Are the objectives and requirements of the course clearly stated?
  • Are the activities effective in achieving the program objectives?
  • Are the handouts easy-to-read and timely/useful?
  • Do quality and quantity of materials meet student needs?
  • Is enough time provided for students to work on projects during and outside of class?
  • Do activities and the schedule allow program objectives to be met?
• How do student attitudes toward invention change as a result of the course?
• Does student ability to work in groups improve as a result of the course?
• In what ways and to what extent is the course exportable? (teacher training, availability of materials)

According to a 1991 study done by the Manufacturing Studies Board and the National Research Council, graduates of engineering schools have a difficult time transferring school-based lessons about design to work situations (Improving Engineering Design, 1991). One proposed solution has been the recent swell of case-based approaches to teaching design (see, for example Chou & Calkins, 1994). Cases permit students to apply what they are learning in classrooms to situations that have a higher potential to transfer to real-world problems, including those that are ill-structured and open-ended (Spiro, Coulson, Feltovich, & Anderson, 1988).

Two active learning modules were assigned over the course of a three-week summer session (see Appendices A and B). Each module had its own set of sub-goals (see below) related to the overall course goals and included the following assignments:

• A team invention or design activity that included construction of a prototype.
• Detailed notebooks in which students kept a detailed record of experiments and speculated about alternate approaches.
• Oral and written presentations of an interim stage and of the final results of this activity.
• Case-studies of actual inventors working on similar problems.
• A final notebook entry in which students compared their group processes to those of other groups and to those of the inventors.

Instructions for each module were distributed in a lengthy packet that included background readings and information. Lectures covered topics in physics that were relevant to the problems students were encountering. Additional, detailed description of the course can be found in Appendix G.

Go on to answers to evaluation questions: