Design Thinking and Teamwork in a Bioengineering Design Course: A Role Identity Perspective

Introduction: : Design thinking (DT) provides a comprehensive set of principles for approaching diverse challenges through deep needs assessment, contextualized problem definition, creative idea generation, and constructive iterative phases of implementing, testing, and improving a solution [1]. Best practice DT involves effective teamwork that contributes to communication, problem solving, and sense of belonging and engineering identity that improve design [4-9]. Yet, while a main goal of engineering education is for students to learn DT and teamwork in their courses for transfer to new situations [2], research has shown that this seldom occurs, even with extensive scaffolding. [3]. Furthermore, while teamwork is extensively used in engineering classes, evidence suggests that most students are not taught effective collaboration [10]. The current study investigated engineering students’ learning of DT and teamwork in a Biodesign course. The study was guided by the Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI)—a complex dynamic systems model of identity, motivation, and action that explains learning as based in the person’s situated role identity (RI) — who they believe themselves to be in a particular situation [11]. The RI hierarchical dynamic system can be more or less coherent and aligned, with different sub-roles in harmony or tension—for example, those of Teammate and Designer. The current study focused on characterizing the Biodesign students’ RIs, and the interplay of sub-roles related to DT and teamwork within these RIs throughout the semester.

Materials and

Methods: : We purposively selected a group of six senior-level bioengineering students (out of 16 students consenting) from the Fall 2024 Biodesign course. Students were selected to diversify the sample on level of achievement, technical skill, learning behaviors, and self-perceptions (Temple University’s IRB exempt proposal 30861). The Biodesign course is a pre-requisite to the senior capstone course, and it consists of weekly lectures and laboratory sessions. The course aims to promote learning the theory and practice of the DT process through three design modules that build towards a final project. Each module requires a complete cycle through the design process, including prototyping and testing, with students working in teams of 2-3 during the laboratory sessions. Learning of DT and teamwork in the course was supplemented with weekly reflective journals of students’ self-description of their use of DT strategies with scaffolds for considering DT transfer to the capstone and to future engineering jobs [2]. Final projects were assessed by the TA for completeness according to the instructor-established deliverables. The selected students were interviewed at term end about their course experiences, use of DT, and intended transfer of DT to future roles. We followed the DSMRI Analysis Guide [12] to conduct a combined deductive-inductive analysis that triangulated analyses of course observations, students’ weekly and end-of-module reflections, and end-of-term interviews. We focused on understanding how learning and applying DT in teams manifested in the students’ Biodesign RIs and in their future imagined RIs in capstone and as engineers.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions:: The analysis indicated that the sub-RIs of Designer and Teammate were integrated within the Biodesign RI among students who experienced teamwork as harmonious, but they were in tension among students who experienced teamwork as disharmonious. Among the former, DT was expressed as actions that integrate design and teamwork through empathizing and communicating throughout the engineering design process. These students’ RIs as Biodesign Students included beliefs about the role of communication and collaboration in DT. For example, student 15 reflected this integration when they said: “When the team was with each other we discussed what we were going to talk about, and made sure we had a clear understanding of what was going to be in the presentation.” Differently, the Biodesign RIs of students who experienced teamwork as disharmonious reflected tensions between their Designer and Teammate sub-RIs, viewing teamwork as a hindrance to the DT process. For example, after realizing that their teammates had made a mistake, student 9 stated, “I would have begun working on it earlier and checked my team members’ work more as it turned out that we had built it incorrectly and had to waste time taking it apart and putting it back together.” Students experiencing tensions between their Designer and Teammate sub-RIs also relied less on their team and more on the instructors for problem solving. For example, student 16 reported on an occasion when the team encountered problems with their code, “we’d like [ask the instructors’] help, help immediately.”

The analysis also indicated the dynamics of the relations between the Designer and Teammate sub-RIs during the semester. For example, student 8 experienced increased integration between the two sub-RIs, reflecting early in the semester, “I think… I could have communicated better with my partner.” Later, this student’s reflections manifested increased integration of Teammate and Designer sub-RIs, so that by the term end, they consistently mentioned teamwork, with the eventual reflection that “our device is a result of compromise and collaboration.”

The findings highlight the importance of attending to students’ dynamical formation of Designer and Teammate sub-RIs for promoting learning the essential skills of DT and teamwork.

Acknowledgements and/or References (Optional):: Acknowledgement: This study was funded by the NSF RIEF proposal # 2306219.

Bibliography
[1] T. Brown, “Design Thinking,” Harvard Business Review, no. 86, pp. 84–92, 2008.
[2] A. Royalty, H. Chen, B. Roth, and S. Sheppard, “Developing a Tool to Measure the Transfer of Design Practice from Training Contexts to Applied Contexts,” in Design Thinking Research : Interrogating the Doing, C. Meinel and L. Leifer, Eds., in Understanding Innovation. , Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2021, pp. 103–121. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-62037-0_4.
[3] J. Patten, A. Kaplan, and R. Ochia, “RIEF: Enhancing design thinking transfer among undergraduate bioengineering students: A Dynamic Role Identity Approach,” presented at the ASEE Conference and Exposition, Montreal, CAN, Jun. 2025.
[4] F. Zarandi and D. Reeping, “Work In Progress: Influences of Team-Based Activities on Engineering Students’ Identities and Careers in University and Co-op Settings,” presented at the ASEE Conference and Exposition, Portland, OR, Jun. 2024.
[5] Y. Wang, X. Zhang, F. Khalkhal, S. Claussen, and A. Biviano, “A Quantitative Analysis on Teamwork Behavior, Disagreement, and Their Linkages to Students’ Engineering Identities,” presented at the ASEE Conference and Exposition, Baltimore, MD, Jun. 2023.
[6] K. L. Tonso, “Teams that Work: Campus Culture, Engineer Identity, and Social Interactions,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 25–37, 2006, doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00875.x.
[7] C. Kimpton and N. and Maynard, “Factors shaping teamwork skills development in tertiary engineering education: a systematic literature review,” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 253–280, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.1080/03043797.2024.2357343.
[8] H. J. Passow and C. H. Passow, “What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs Emphasize? A Systematic Review,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 106, no. 3, pp. 475–526, 2017, doi: 10.1002/jee.20171.
[9] J. Stempfle and P. Badke-Schaub, “Thinking in design teams - an analysis of team communication,” Design Studies, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 473–496, Sep. 2002, doi: 10.1016/S0142-694X(02)00004-2.
[10] T. Ahmed, S. Mufid, S. Deb, and M. Rahman, “Enhancing Teamwork Skills in STEM Education: A Behavioral Theory-Based Approach,” presented at the ASEE Conference and Exposition, Portland, OR, Jun. 2024.
[11] A. Kaplan and J. K. Garner, “A complex dynamic systems perspective on identity and its development: The dynamic systems model of role identity,” Developmental Psychology, vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 2036–2051, 2017, doi: 10.1037/dev0000339.
[12] A. Kaplan and J. K. Garner, Dynamic Systems Model of Role Identity (DSMRI) Analysis Guide and Codebook V. 6. Temple University and Old Dominion University, 2022.