Conference Agenda

During the pandemic, the use of remote laboratories helped maintain academic quality in the areas of Engineering and Science at universities around the world. At Tecnologico de Monterrey, we tried to go further using virtual, augmented, and immersive reality to give continuity to learning through the creation of digital twins during the confinement by COVID-19, and now that we have returned to strengthen the learning of complex lessons,

Using simulators replicating a manufacturing plant's operations allows students to better understand the transactions and generation of data formed by simulating the behavior during a determined period of demand. Gamifying the mixed reality lessons and simulators has allowed us to take learning to a high level of immersion on the part of the students.

During distance learning, it was not easy to control the correct use of devices to avoid student distraction, now with the return to school, the use of these technologies allows not only an almost total immersion and increase in learning but also the development of graduation competencies not only of the students but also beyond the university.

A key element of learning in the TEC21 model is the challenge posed by a training partner, but one of the restrictions is the time they dedicate to us and the accessibility to their processes. Through these technologies, digital twins are being created that allow students immersive learning of the processes of the training partners and, for them, the current analysis of their processes and training of new personnel.

This document reflects the learning by designing, developing, and implementing mixed reality lessons, simulators, and gamification from August 2020 to date for the development of student learning in the TEC21 model.

Names used to describe the people our design projects are intended for are both stabilised and questionable. Human-Centred and User-Centred approaches are still at the core of design activity, but should we be talking about humans and users? These terms originated over thirty years ago in design methodology, but are still default terms in much of design methodology and teaching. Equally while UX/UI are commonly used abbreviations, some companies have dropped the notion of “user” experience design, to return to the term ‘product design’. Predating ‘users’, in the 1950s Henry Dreyfuss used the term ‘people’ for those he was designing for, and ‘people’ may be returning for want of a better alternative.

Designers today understand that their methodology can be applied to ever-wider problems, therefore it seems relevant to continue to question which words should be used to refer to the ‘people' who are at the centre of design’s focus. While a wide range of possible words exist in English, from users to actors, adopters, customers, stake-holders, participants and beneficiaries, to name but a few, each one can potentially influence and perhaps limit the way these people are considered, perceived and are present in a design process. Equally these different terms relate to different levels of participation by the people concerned by the design project, whereas today’s design process (particularly in all strands of design for sustainability) requires a social focus, giving a much more central role to the people concerned by design interventions.

This paper discusses chronologies of accepted terminology for different people involved in design processes and highlights recent evolutions and debates around certain words. Factors that may lead to the emergence or replacement of certain terms are explored (for example; perceived links to aspects of methodology that may no longer be seen as contemporary, or inversely to emerging strands of methodology). In the context of increasingly multi-disciplinary approaches addressing today's complex problems, it is also relevant to question which terms can be shared (and readily understood) in domains beyond design. Equally while design may tend to adopt English language terminology, there are clearly valuable insights that can be gained from terminology used in other languages.

Based on a literature review but also on interviews with designers, design students and design educators of different nationalities and specialisations we highlight the terminology most commonly used and also the parts of the terminology that appear to generate problems. While it would not be possible to be exhaustive in the exploration of terminology beyond the English language, we discuss certain examples that appear to be valuable.

The aim of this discussion paper is to confront ambiguities, and encourage considering the most relevant terms for more respectful, responsible language use in our evolving design process. Questioning the most relevant ways of (re)naming the people at the heart of design methodology has important ethical implications and is particularly relevant in the context of design education, influencing the status given to people involved in future design activity.

Design students are well-versed in standard linear presentations: moving from slide A to B to C in a predefined order. However, they are unpracticed in non-linear storytelling in the classroom, a method that allows for narrative flexibility. This paper explores the impact of linear and non-linear presentation methods using linear and non-linear presentation software Canva and Figma in a Design History course. Eighteen design students from gaming, user experience, graphic, and industrial design disciplines participated in the study. Students presented twice using Canva and twice using Figma. They were encouraged to experiment with linear and non-linear methods of presenting to the class, and for a fifth collaborative presentation, they could choose either tool to present with.

Results indicate that Figma had a steeper learning curve than Canva; however, its non-linear structure effectively engaged the audience, increased their knowledge retention, and improved opinions of team presentations over Canva's linear structure. When asked which presentation tool to use in next year's course, 50% said Figma, 11.2% said Canva, and 38.9% said both. Disrupting the current linear based standards for design presentation tools, like Canva, Adobe or PowerPoint type products, with non-linear methods with tools like Figma enhances student learning experiences. Students also preferred presenting alongside a partner, enabling increased discussion of details and deeper exploration into critical aspects of the designer's lives.

Industrial designers use several kinds of representations to support reflection-in-action while developing design proposals. The affordances provided by digital tools impact the flow of shifting between different representations, thus influencing the ability for reflection and discussion. This fact challenges learning designers who need to plan industrial design courses in digital learning environments.

This paper addresses planning a product design morphology course delivered in a digital learning environment in the context of problem-based learning. The study reflects upon the externalisation of knowledge and how it impacts the matching between educational goals and the affordances of digital tools. The study reflects on the planning process, in particular on the relationship between designing active learning experiences with conscious considerations of specific affordances provided by digital tools. A reflection following the course delivery revisits the planning process. By examining the robustness of the course in relation to the initial goals and in regard to enabling self-directed learning, it proposes steps to improve the planning process by considering the affordances of digital tools in online learning environments.

This paper draws parallels and contrasts between the Design-focussed learning tracks of the Mechanical Engineering courses at Imperial College London (ICL) and Nottingham Trent University (NTU). These two institutions have historically had a different focus and vision.

The ICL Mechanical Engineering course has a strong emphasis on theoretical and mathematical foundations. Objectives of the Design modules are to integrate the knowledge obtained in the theoretical modules and to bring this theoretical knowledge into practice. Additionally, the students achieve competence in the applied aspects of Design and Manufacture, including engineering drawing, standards, design processes and methodologies, and workshop skills. In addition skills such as teamwork, project and time management and budgeting are trained. The objective is to develop mechanical engineers who combine a strong foundation, analytical skills and the ability to utilise their knowledge to develop innovative products.

At NTU design teaching is approached as a tool to encourage creativity across disciplines, within the themes of sustainability and robust product development. All engineering courses (Sport, Biomedical, Mechanical and Electrical & Electronics Engineering) undergo the same design and manufacturing module with the aim to produce well-rounded engineers who have specialism within their own discipline and have acquired skills and knowledge in areas that are considered slightly outside their domain of study. The objective is to remove inter-disciplinary barriers and silos with the appreciation that problems of the present and future require pragmatic solutions from creative problem-solvers who are not limited by their disciplines of study.

Key differences in approach include

ICL

- Mechanical Engineering only

- Mech Eng undergoes specific D&M courses

- Focus on including engineering drawing, sketching and CAD, engineering standards, design processes and methods as well as obtaining competence in conventional and CNC machining and workshop skills

- Evolution from individual work in year 1 to group work in year 2 and multi-level supergroups in year 3

- Project-enhanced learning to apply and broaden didactic teaching

D&M modules culminate in a 20 ECTS Design-Make-Test project in year 3 where several groups of 4 students collaborate in a so-called superproject

- Focus is on engineering design problems with a real client, external suppliers and planning and budget responsibility. Projects are application or research driven and aim to utilise theoretical knowledge, also from year 3 elective modules

NTU

- Different engineering courses follow the same D&M modules

- All courses undergo the modules, encouraging inter-disciplinarity

- Strong focus on Design processes and methods. Manufacturing is only demonstrated (students don’t actually use any machines), Workshop skills acquired through project-based learning and manufacturing demonstrations , Some focus on drawings

- Recurrent themes of group working and collaborative learning

- Primarily project-based learning with very little didactic teaching

- D&M modules are a build up to a 3- week long Grand Challenge where 1st year students team up with 2nd year students (mixed discipline) to solve a current engineering problem (wireless networking, sustainable development, energy harvesting, etc.) aims are to encourage working in mix teams, across disciplines and year of study

This analysis aids towards creating an engineering design education framework aimed at selecting appropriate student-focused pedagogies.