Does Interdisciplinary Collaboration Alter Student Perceptions of their Disciplines? A Case Study of a User Centerd Design Experience for Mechanical Engineering and Early Childhood Education Students
Interdisciplinary collaboration between undergraduate students in engineering and nonengineering disciplines is mutually beneficial. For the engineering students, such collaborations provide opportunities to practice effective communication and to utilize their technical expertise in a broader social and societal context; and, for the non engineers, collaboration demystifies the engineering profession, contextualizes prior STEM knowledge, and, in some instances, allows for the physical realization of concepts through hands on design and prototyping. The benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration are best realized when students view each other's respective skillsets and chosen professions as being valuable and necessary in achieving the ultimate goals of the group. The origin and nature of students' beliefs about dissimilar professions warrants further investigation, particularly as it relates to interdisciplinary collaborative experiences, which have the potential to reshape, either positively or negatively, a priori beliefs about peer collaborators. The purpose of this case study was to characterize the impact of an interdisciplinary collaboration on engineering and non engineering undergraduate students' perceptions of their peers in dissimilar professions. The setting for the study was a mid sized, research intensive land grant university in the eastern US, where second and third year mechanical engineering (ME) and early childhood education (ECE) students were placed on interdisciplinary teams and tasked with designing and fabricating a novel toy for young children that promotes constructive play. Online surveys were administered prior to and after this one semester course and focused on: (1) a priori knowledge and experience of the other group's subject area; (2) effect of interdisciplinary project on interest in other group's subject area; and (3) perceptions of other group's profession and/or their skills. Survey results showed that neither ME nor ECE students had a prior exposure to the other discipline. After completing the course, ME students perceived that they knew more about child development, play, and the design of children's toys, and ECE students reported they better understood the types of engineering disciplines. Interesting, ECE students less positively rated their ME counterparts post versus pre course in the following areas: "very good at math science," "hardworking," "good communicators," and "intense." Both ECE and ME students finished the course with balanced perceptions of their own disciplines relative to their counterparts. Both ECE and ME cohorts, on average, agreed that their counterparts' professions were equally legitimate and disagreed that there was a discrepancy in rigor between ECE and ME. ECE students solidly agreed that ME was a more valued discipline, although ME students were more neutral on this view. These findings suggest that engineering students have little content knowledge or experience in disparate fields, such as in this case child development and education, and benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration both in terms of content knowledge and developing a healthy appreciation for outside expertise. The collaboration also benefited the non engineering students by demystifying the field of engineering, potentially alleviating "imposter syndrome" by normalizing team performance expectations, and providing some literacy of the engineering design process. In the case of early childhood education students, these altered perceptions of the engineering discipline may have impact on their self efficacy for teaching science and engineering (Maier et al. 2013; Kallery 2004; Watters et al. 2000) as such their teaching in these two content areas may positively influence the perceptions of engineering by their future students, particularly females and minorities. This study adds to the growing body of research on the benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration at the undergraduate level, particularly as it relates to shifting perceptions of the involved disciplines (Brown et al. 2014; Burrows, 2015; Falloon and Trewern, 2013; Harris Willcuts, 2009; Jeanpierre et al. 2005; and Lee, 2004. Introduction Interdisciplinary collaboration between undergraduate students in engineering and nonengineering disciplines is mutually beneficial. For the engineering students, such collaborations provide opportunities to practice effective communication and to utilize their technical expertise in a broader social and societal context (Gruenther, 2009; Bailey, 2007; Hotaling, 2012) For the non engineers, collaboration demystifies the engineering profession, contextualizes prior STEM knowledge, and, in some instances, allows for the physical realization of concepts through hands on design and prototyping. The benefits of interdisciplinary collaboration are best realized when students view each other's respective skillsets and chosen professions as being valuable and necessary in achieving the ultimate goals of the group. The origin and nature of students' beliefs about dissimilar professions warrants further investigation, particularly as it relates to interdisciplinary collaborative experiences, which have the potential to reshape, either positively or negatively, a priori beliefs about peer collaborators. This work represents a case study of a project based collaboration between mechanical engineering and early childhood education students, which was motivated in no small part by national trends in K12 education. With the publication of the Framework for K 12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) emphasis is now placed on the integration of engineering principles and practices into formal science education. Understanding factors, such as the learning opportunities afforded in preservice education, is essential for preparing future educators to meet education standards. Research indicates the need for preservice teachers to be proficient with the engineering design process; this can be accomplished through systematic engagement in design problems and challenges that allow them to act as engineers while drawing on their own expertise about teaching and learning (Brophy et al. 2008; Hsu, et al. 2011) The purpose of this study was to examine a semester long interdisciplinary collaboration between mechanical engineering and early childhood education undergraduate students to determine if interdisciplinary collaboration impacted participants' perceptions of one another's fields. Previous research on collaborations between K 12 teachers and STEM faculty have focused on middle grades (grade 6 8) or secondary education (grade 9 12) see for example, for example, Brown et al. (2014) Burrows (2015) Falloon and Trewern, (2013) Harris Willcuts, (2009) Jeanpierre et al. (2005) and Lee, (2004) Few studies have investigated partnerships between engineers and early childhood educators. In this study, we hypothesized: (1) Engineering students would have little to no experience and relatively negative perceptions of early childhood education and child development relative to their own discipline, but perceptions would become more positive through collaboration, and (2) Early childhood education students would have little to no experience with engineering but highly positive perceptions of the field. Through collaboration, their perceptions of engineers and engineering would be high before collaboration and remain high. Science and Engineering in Early Childhood Education With the publication of the Framework for K 12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) emphasis is now placed on the integration of engineering principles and practices into formal science education. Understanding factors, such as the learning opportunities afforded in preservice education, is essential for preparing future educators to meet education standards. Research indicates the need for preservice teachers to be proficient with the engineering design process; this can be accomplished through systematic engagement in design problems and challenges that allow them to act as engineers while drawing on their own expertise about teaching and learning (Brophy et al. 2008; Hsu, et al. 2011) Moreover, Hotaling et al (2012) suggested that engineering should be holistically connected to the intellectual components of the fields for which designs are produced. Working collaboratively on interdisciplinary teams affords engineering students with opportunities to experience and demonstrate criteria of successful engineers, including the ability to integrate mathematics, science, and engineering; design products and processes that meet the needs of users; demonstrate ethical responsibility and communicate effectively. Like their elementary counterparts, early childhood educators often report negative attitude towards teaching science, lack of confidence due to inadequate science knowledge, and lack of resources including instructional time, classroom space and instructional materials (Maier et al. 2013; Kallery 2004; Watters et al. 2000) Nonetheless, several projects have reported successful outcomes in integrating science and engineering into early childhood education. Van Meetren and Zan (2010) outlined the use of block centers in early childhood classrooms to engage children in engineering design of ramps and pathways. Brophy and Evangelou (2007) found children's design activities were sophisticated; they were constructing beyond a visual representation to an actual structure. Data indicated young children employed details of physical properties to allow them to create increasingly complex designs that worked within the governing properties of physics. In sum, engineering design based instruction can support students in developing initial or deeper conceptual understanding, depending on context, of domain specific content knowledge and support proficiency in science and engineering practices (Br