Paper ID #34677

An Exploration of Social and Educational Influences on User-centeredDesign: Revisiting a Compatibility Questionnaire

Dr. Megan Hammond, University of Indianapolis

Megan Hammond received her Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from Western Michigan University. Sheis an assistant professor in the R.B. Annis School of Engineering at the University of Indianapolis. Herresearch interests include cluster analysis, anomaly detection, human centered design, and engineeringeducation.

Dr. Joan Martinez, University of Indianapolis

Joan Martinez is an assistant professor in the R.B. Annis School of Engineering at the University ofIndianapolis. He received his Ph.D. in Industrial Engineering from Western Michigan University. Hisresearch interest lies in developing data-driven models within the fields of production systems, financialsystems, decision sciences, and engineering education.

Dr. Elizabeth Ziff, University of Indianapolis

Elizabeth Ziff is an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Indianapoliswith interests in reproduction, gender, the body, and the family. She received her PhD in Sociology fromThe New School for Social Research. Her research examines surrogacy with a specific focus on militarywives in the United States.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2021

An Exploration of Social and Educational Influences on User-Centered Design: Revisiting a Compatibility Questionnaire

Abstract Many different factors actively influence the approach a user takes when interacting with a given product or system. The user-product interaction is a form of communication primarily dependent on (1) the message that the product is transmitting in terms of its usability and (2) the user’s cognitive ability to receive, process, and understand such message. The external interfaces of a product or system are where these interactions generally occur, which are typically developed following user-centered design principles. An intuitive interface which effectively communicates its usability and utility to the user is paramount to the successful use of the product. This work focuses on the exploration and education of how to introduce the concept of social, cultural, and educational design biases in a first-year engineering design course through the lens of user-centered design. Designing product displays and controls is not a trivial task for both engineers, focused on the product, and social scientists, who have attempted to conceptualize a universal user. What is the composition of a “good design,” functionality, minimal cost, ability to serve all potential users, or the combination of all? Consideration of the user can be difficult to capture and effectively communicate to engineering students.

Over the past few decades, there has been a push for engineering curriculum to better engage with the global, ethical, and societal impacts of the field and to prepare students to engage in a multicultural and diverse workspace and world. In an effort to introduce diversity in design and to troubleshoot the concept of the universal user, we adapted the display compatibility questionnaire from Smith’s study of display-control stereotype designs, and presented the same design questions to 21st century first-year engineering students, non-engineering students, and non-engineering professionals. This work explores current societal impacts such as gender, age, and occupation on the user expectation of a control’s display and user-interface design. Additionally, the impact of a user’s prior knowledge and the reflections of first-year engineering students on differing results were also assessed.

The results of this study indicate that designing a product display or interface is still centered around a population stereotype, but the population takes many forms depending on the product or interface. When an open-ended prompt is provided, such as, “draw in how you consider the [gear selections] should be positioned for [an auto transmission] Neutral (N), Drive (D), Low (L), and Reverse (R),” the multitude of responses becomes overwhelming to designers. The influence of cultural shifts, since the original study, was evident within our responses as well. Multiple responses highlighted how modernization of technology may have affected interpretations of the prompts. For example, our students struggled with terms such as “adding machine” versus “calculator” skewing interface descriptions from the original study’s results.

Alternatively, there were questions that mirrored the interpretations and compatibility results from the original study, highlighting the convergence of some displays/interfaces across time, occupation, and gender. Ultimately, our data indicates a need to address two significant considerations in the development of engineering curriculum and training: 1) How does engineering as a discipline teach rationality and uniformity of design in an increasing diverse engineering student population? 2) How do we educate future engineers to mind the user gap? Just because a design makes the most rational sense in an engineering context it does not mean it translates to the general public. The universal-user may not exist, but without the conversation, diversity of opinions and experiences will drift farther from universal ideas into the narrow stereotypes of the few. Introduction The development of the undergraduate engineering education experience is an ongoing and ever-growing effort. Engineering programs are under consistent review and perform exhaustive analysis to ensure the continuous improvement of their curriculum and graduating students. These efforts are in large part due to the recommendations and requirements of the Engineering Accreditation Commission (EAC). This work specifically references the EAC’s desire to promote the understanding of professional and ethical responsibility and the understanding of engineering global, economic, environmental, and societal solutions [1]. The accrediting body recognizes and insists our students be educated on the impact engineering and design have on the general public. Programs should be producing competent graduates in their specialties who can design to meet social and technological requirements, constraints, and solutions [2]. Given the EAC’s guidelines, we are exploring how to introduce the concept of social, cultural, and educational design biases in a first-year engineering design course. Ethics and social impact have expanded across the engineering design curriculum, in accordance with the updated requirements of the accrediting body of engineering education [2]. But how are the students gaining this realization that design has social and ethical dimensions? How can we improve the instruction of diverse design and user consideration to have a distinct and lasting impact on our students? This work adapts the display compatibility questionnaire from Smith’s 1981 study of display-control stereotype designs [3], presenting the same design questions to first-year engineering students, non-engineering students, and non-engineering professionals to generate the realization and discussion of societal impact on design.

One of the ways to explore the social and educational influences on design in a first-year course is to introduce students to the complexities of product-interface design. The user-product interaction is a form of communication primarily dependent on (1) the message that the product is transmitting in terms of its usability and (2) the user’s cognitive ability to receive, process, and

understand such message. Appropriate design of usability (e.g. displays, controls, interfaces) is as relevant to the design of a product as the technical and functional requirements of its internal workings. A study by Agogoino et al. [4] revealed that students defined “good design” as being able to serve all potential users, however, this concept of considering the user can be difficult to capture and effectively communicate to engineering students [2]. Murray et al. [5] discussed how engineering design can capture the real problem when addressed from a multitude of viewpoints. Diverse designers provide diverse ideas to generate a variety of solutions. When the diversity of the designers is eliminated we risk the alienation of potential users and lose the intuitive interface design. How can we produce effective user-product interaction or, more importantly, ensure our next generations of designers are producing effective user-product interfaces? Background and Previous Work There have been a number of programs consciously reflecting on this need for developing graduates who are aware and receptive to the needs of clients, users, and the general public. The Picker Engineering Program at Smith College has implemented the TOYtech project into their curriculum to bridge the concept between inclusive perspectives and socially relevant design [6]. Their program aims to excite children in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) through developing educational toys with universal gender appeal. The design and development of toys to encourage mass participation in STEM learning simultaneously develops young designers’ perspectives on the need for inclusivity in product design. Initial feedback from the student participants found overwhelming acknowledgement of the need to consider social context in engineering design. Agogoino et al. [4] studied the gender perceptions within the design process of first- and second-year engineering students. The results of their research indicated that students, even in the infancy of their design education, rationalize “good design” with the service to all potential users. The student reflections expanded to state the representation and inclusion of traditionally underrepresented users is necessary for a “good design.” This concept of inclusivity is mirrored in the application of design games in course curriculum by Grau et al. [7] to highlight how final designs are the intersection of participant values, views, and expertise. The design process must include the social aspect of filtering through the representations of the design team to result in effective solutions. With the need of inclusivity and diverse exchange in the design process, how do we ensure these “good designs” indeed consider societal ramifications, inclusion of broad user bases, and perspectives of diverse team members? The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics [8] reported that in 2017, the Science and Engineering (S&E) workforce consisted of the following: 29% women, 5.6% Black or African American, 7.5% Hispanic or Latino, 19.8% Asian, and 65% White. How can representation of the user base be accurately represented when

such representation is not present in the career fields (see Table 1)? The recruitment, retention, and inclusivity of underrepresented groups within STEM education programs is a problem we continue to face, but if the representation in the classroom is skewed, then the demand for enlightenment and acknowledgement of diverse users must become apparent in other forms in the curriculum.

Table 1. Comparison of Group Representation in the United States between the Science & Engineering Workforce and Residential Population¹ in 2017

Representative Group S&E Workforce (%)

Residential Population (%)

Women 29.0 50.8²

Black or African American 5.6 11.9

Hispanic or Latino 7.5 15.6

Asian 19.8 5.8

White 65% 64.1

Other 2.1 2.7

¹ Residential population considers individual living in the U.S. over the age of 21 ² Percent of female persons in the U.S. [9]

Compatibility through Words and Symbols Designing product displays and controls is not a trivial task, and thus, is studied heavily in the field of Ergonomics and Human Factors. Social scientists have also taken up the question of user design, investigating how to better conceptualize a user that is universal or “everybody.” Early assessment of display design in the 1950’s uncovered an importance to the compatibility of display-controls and user understanding. This compatibility was also described as the user’s natural expectation or population stereotype of the control functionality [3]. The study by Smith [3] illustrating the uncertainty of design, particularly the essence of custom and convention, was the inspiration for a first-year engineering design course to introduce the discussion of design and its implications as a social process [7]. In the original study [3], Smith collected responses from an 18-question survey to gauge the ambiguity of design decisions and promote discussion for the “norms” of design standards, both the origin and development. The original study surveyed 92 practicing male engineers, 80 women of some relation to the engineers (e.g. wives, daughters, secretaries, non-engineers), and 55 human factors specialists (mostly men). The study then captured the natural responses of

these participating individuals to ambiguous design questions as an exercise to uncover natural expectations of design. We will be referencing some of Smith’s original findings in comparison to our work in the results section, however, the main takeaway from Smith’s work is the underlying bias that gender, custom, experience, and expectation can present. Since no descriptive information other than gender was reported in the original paper, our team saw a terrific opportunity to reboot this survey in our first-year engineering design course, particularly, prompting students to consider how we design controls and displays for the user. What influences the decisions of the designers? More importantly, if expectations and customs are driving forces of design, then how do we ensure that diverse expectations and customs are contributing to design? The reboot of this study, captured roughly 50 years after the original work and from a subject pool expectedly 10-15 years younger, opens the conversation of context, culture, convention, and learned expectations to a new generation of engineering majors. It is not surprising that some questions in the survey exposed reliable group differences [3], however, a few formed distinct convergences to the design selection. Does this confirm population stereotypes for design or was the population too narrow? How have the expected designs from the late 1970’s early 1980’s changed in this second decade of the 21st century? Our hope is that through these tools and discussions the cultural, educational, humanistic, and societal differences of users can become a foundation of our next generation of engineers to fully grasp universal design. Beginning the discussion of cultural, societal, and learned expectations of users in cornerstone courses provides the opportunity to develop understanding and empathy of diversity throughout a curriculum; not only raising the question of differences, but beginning to design a solution for the universal user. Social Competency in Engineering Education Requirements There is ample acknowledgement from leaders in the field of engineering that the profession has a responsibility to address societal problems [10] and, relatedly, to educate future engineers on social issues and social responsibility. Engineers are critical in the design and experience of everyday life; therefore, it is crucial for engineering students to be exposed to social and cultural differences and to be encouraged to adequately reflect upon the social impact of their work [10]. Not only do engineers need to understand the needs of a diverse customer or client base but there are also the broader concerns of “public welfare” which include concerns of privacy, social justice, and access and equity [10]. Despite the broader nod to the importance of this aspect of engineering curriculum, some question if engineering education packages social concerns as outside of the realm of engineering and fosters disengagement from the social world along three key ideological pillars: depoliticization, the technical/social dualism, and meritocracy [10]. These pillars effectively

encroach social concerns outside of the professional development and education of engineers thus making it difficult to fulfill the push towards social awareness and engagement. Arguably, science is never removed from the social context despite theoretical and pedagogical arguments to the contrary. To combat disengagement, it would be beneficial to present engineering as a social process [11] and to integrate elements from a broad spectrum of disciplines into the operational and formal dimensions of the curriculum [12]. Data does point to the overall production of socially disengaged engineers, however, there are optimistic findings to suggest engineering curriculum can produce heightened levels of social responsibility and concern about public welfare. Bielefeldt and Canney [13] found “Students who increased in SR [social responsibility] were more likely to cite engineering courses as contributing to their views of social responsibility compared to students with negative changes in SR.” To effectively do so, social issues, diversity, and social responsibility need to be consistently presented as they relate to the role of the engineer in the social world. Chech [10] also had data that indicated engineering programs can engage students to think critically about the public welfare and technological systems. While the social aspect of the curriculum shares wide support, we as instructors, curriculum developers, and pedagogy creators need to produce effective approaches by which this aspect of engineering curriculum can be effectively produced. Some key barriers to implementation are lack of time for preparation, lack of time to devote to curriculum development, and lack of knowledge as to how to implement and evaluate interdisciplinary teaching and learning [14]. It is the task for engineering educators to create the environment for social awareness, diversity, and equity training [15] and to introduce questions of social justice [16]. Our proposed curriculum/unit revisiting the compatibility questionnaire with first-year engineering design students helps combat the noted pitfalls in successfully implementing social awareness and interdisciplinary thought into the engineering curriculum. Designed to be used as a single unit of a broader course, as a course curriculum in and of itself, or part of a longitudinal discussion with students during their undergraduate education, the updated compatibility reboot offers an instructor a user-friendly apparatus to bring socialcultural differences and awareness to the engineering curriculum with an emphasis on the social factors and importance of design. Methodology An adapted compatibility questionnaire [3] was provided as an assignment in the first-year engineering course, “Introduction to Engineering.” This assignment closed the unit on human centered design, where students were instructed on design methodologies and an introduction to human factor curriculum. As a part of the assignment, students were to complete the 18-question survey related to human-equipment interface design. After the engineering students completed

the survey, they were required to provide the questionnaire to two other non-engineering students or professionals that have not taken the questionnaire previously. A total of 92 questionnaires were collected and tabulated. Answers to the survey questions were categorized according to the original paper for consistency and comparison purposes. A set of 7 questions are presented in the “Results Section” to compare results obtained from our new pool of participants and the original paper. A comparative analysis was conducted based on the answers obtained from the 7 questions with the following categories: profession/study (engineering vs. non-engineering), gender, and age (under 30 vs over 30). Results are shown in the following section. Results In the original study, we speculate that 35% of respondents were female and 65% were male [3]. Our data collection included 40% female, 59% male, and 1% non-binary respondents (see Table 2). Collected responses were obtained from participants ages 14 to 78 years. The majority of responses were from early 18 to 22-year-olds (undergraduate students). Roughly one third of respondents are first-year engineering students, while the remaining two thirds represent our non-engineering (professionals or students) participants. This unbalanced response of among profession/study type is reflective of the course assignment, which requires the first-year engineering students to seek two additional participants not trained in the field of engineering. These additional respondents were primarily friends, roommates, and relatives of the students.

Table 2. Summary Table by Gender and Profession

Profession Female Male Non-Binary All

Engineer 7 23 1 31

N/A (Not stated) 5 6 0 11

Non-Engineer 25 25 0 50

All 37 54 1 92 Question 1

Stove Burners

Here is a stove, with four burners on top, and four controls on the front. Put a number on each burner to show which control should operate it.

Figure 1. Stove Burners design question

Figure 2. Stove Burners: set of answers

Figure 3. Stove Burners vs Eng/Non-Eng results

Figure 4. Stove Burners vs Eng/Non-Eng vs Gender results

Question 2

Cross Faucets

Here are two knobs on a bathroom sink, looking down at them. Put an arrow on each dotted line, to show how you would operate these knobs to turn the water on.

Figure 5. Cross Faucets design question

Figure 6. Cross Faucets vs Age Category results

Figure 7. Cross Faucets vs Eng/Non-Eng vs Gender results

Question 3 Initial recordings of the submitted surveys found 16 unique vertical orderings of the auto transmission controller (Figure 8). The original study presented 32% horizontal orderings, where our respondents presented no horizontal orderings. The original paper reported RNDL as 50% of the captured orders, our data found RNDL to represent 38.5% of the captured orders. In the graphics below, we have condensed the multitude of orderings into 4 categories: R First, R Last, Misc. Order, and Other. This decision to condense orderings based on distinguishing letter orders was implemented for readability and clarity.

Auto Transmission

Some automobiles have push-buttons to control the automatic transmission. On the panel at the left, draw in how you consider the buttons should be positioned for Neutral (N), Drive (D), Low (L), and Reverse (R).

Figure 8. Auto Transmission design question

Figure 9. Auto Transmission Order vs Age Category results

Figure 10. Auto Transmission Order vs Eng/Non-Eng vs Gender results

Question 4

Highway Lanes

On the 4-lane divided highway pictured here, which is the outside lane?

A. Lane A B. Lane B

Figure 11. Highway Lanes design question

Figure 12. Outside Highway Lane Selection results

Question 5

Locked Box

To open this locked box, how would you insert its key?

A. Teeth up B. Teeth down

Figure 13. Locked Box Key design question We observed, roughly, a 50-50 split in responses to how the key should be inserted; teeth down vs. teeth up. This is in comparison to the 80-20 approximate split in the original paper.

Figure 14. Locked Box Key Selection vs Gender vs Age Category results

Table 3. Summary Table for Locked Box Key Selection by Age Category (Percentage)

Age < 30 Age >= 30 All

Teeth Down 46.67 70.59 51.09

Teeth Up 53.33 29.41 48.91

All 100.00 100.00 100.00

Question 6

Adding Machine

An adding machine is designed to be operated with one hand. On the panel at the left, draw in how you consider its keys should be positioned for the 10 numerals.

Figure 15. Adding Machine design question

Figure 16. Adding Machine categorical design results

Telephone order was defined as a standard push-button pad with top line reading 123, or similar variation. Conversely, the adding machine order follows the top line reading 789, or similar variation. In the original paper, men overwhelmingly selected the telephone order, similar to our results. However, the women surveyed in the late 70’s produced numberings inconsistent from either a telephone or adding machine keypad. During the timeframe of the original data collection, our team has speculated that rotary style phones may still be prevalent in the home,

and thus contributing to the non-traditional push button telephone or adding machine key orders. Our data collection also presented an overwhelming amount of responses of the telephone order, however, this was seen across gender and age distinctions. In the current climate of telephone/cellular phone access we were not surprised with this result. We have even considered the language of “adding machine” to also be misleading to our first-year undergraduate students who may be influenced by an update to the questionnaire to use the term “calculator” instead. Question 7

Lever Control

To move the arrow-indicator to the right of the display, how would you move the lever?

A. Push B. Pull

Figure 17. Level Control design question

Figure 18. Level Control Selection vs Gender vs Age Category results

Discussion The data we collected points to interesting trends both in regards to changes in engineering education since the original survey data was collected as well as broader changes in the general public. In this data set we can see divergent trends when it comes to the specific variables of education, gender, and age. We found a shift in some overall general trends, such as with the collective responses to the lever and key question. Ultimately, what this indicates is the need to critically reevaluate the concept of “universal” design and educate engineering students as to how to analyze the concept of the universal, question whose universe we’re talking about, and implement curricular components of their education to involve a deeper understanding of diverse communities’ relationship, implementation, and understanding of design. In the specific questions highlighted in the previous section we saw variability within the group of engineers and variability within the sample at large. First, trends in responses from engineers will be discussed and then we will turn to trends in the general public. In regards to the responses from engineers, we see variability when it comes to gender and age. For example, on the stove burners question not one female selected option II (going counter-clockwise from the top left burner). While we do have a very small n for female engineers, this is a stark contrast to male engineers and males in general. We also see a difference in male and female engineers’ responses to the turning the knob question. Age brought in variability in responses as well, specifically on the turning the knob, auto transmission, and turning the key questions. We prompted students to respond to the following three open-ended questions: What designs shared common understandings? What designs differed in response? What else did you notice? Sixty-six students responded to the open-ended questions. In their responses, 1/3 of the sample speculated as to a difference in experience and shared understanding. One 19-year-old male mechanical engineering student speculated, “When reviewing the results and comparing answers between the 3 participants, the 2 participants that are related and grew up in the same environment had the same answers on almost every question which points to how an understanding of design can be influenced by the environments people grow up within.” One 19-year-old male software engineering student responded, “Overall, I noticed that everybody thinks in a different way based on a variety of factors. These factors could include lifestyle, major, and exposure to the different types of mechanism. All of these factors played a role in how the different questions were to be answered.” In addition to reflecting on a difference of experience the other common explanations in our sample were disciplinary differences (15), difference of interpretation of instruction (15), and common sense (12). Arguably, there is already a foundational understanding of difference which educators can build upon. In regards to the trends we saw amongst our entire sample, the responses to the outside lane and key questions, we saw an overall change in pattern amongst responses which reflects a broader

shift in how these items are implemented or understood in everyday use. We could speculate from this that there is an imperative for curriculum developers to stay on top of overall cultural shifts and trends to ensure that education is responding to the needs that are being presented in society. For example, how does something like driver’s education affect which lane people consider to be the outside lane or the overall demographic change in young drivers? According to a Statista report from January 2020, “Only approximately 61 percent of 18-year-olds in the U.S. had a driver’s license in 2018, compared to 80.4 percent in 1983 [17].” The knowledge we assume people have based on our own generational experiences is not necessarily the perpetual norm. Age also presented itself as a meaningful variable in regards to the lever question, with more older respondents opting to “pull” and the younger group being more so equally divided in regards to pushing or pulling. Additionally, in two of our questions we saw an inverse relationship in regards to variability when we look at engineers versus non-engineers. On the stove question, non-engineers were consistently more varied in their responses, however, on the automobile transmission question, we saw much more variability within the engineering group. Essentially, there seems to be a mismatch between people in the discipline and people outside of it.

Ultimately, our data indicates a need to address two significant considerations in the development of engineering curriculum and training: 1) How does engineering as a discipline teach rationality and uniformity of design in an increasingly diverse engineering student population. Given the push to diversity the STEM fields it is critical that engineering departments learn to address this within their own community. 2) How do we educate future engineers to mind the user gap? Just because a design makes the most rational sense in an engineering context it does not mean it translates to the general public. Improvements to the Questionnaire Though this first pass of the compatibility reboot questionnaire has presented insightful responses from first-year engineering students and a fascinating comparison between 1970s and 2010s responses, there are iterations we believe can be made to our methodology to improve the pedagogical tool. Through the analysis of the student reflections (n = 66), we inadvertently collected a number of suggestions. A comment from student feedback that was referenced often was the odd phrasing of the questions. Students and their non-engineering participants requested clarification or context for a number of questions. The original questionnaire, which we did not change the text, was created to specifically address ambiguous design decisions, however, our team has seen the need to improve the language of a few questions. Clarification of assigning values to a figure and improved picture resolution are two improvements our team will be addressing in the next iteration of questionnaire responses. It is our goal to ensure that the interpretation of design compatibility is neither suggestive nor

compromised, however, must take caution that the true intention of the question is not missed due to muddled instructions or images. For example, the stove burners question presented a number of unexpected responses, when a researcher realized that the values on the knobs, which the participant was supposed to match to the burners, were not visually distinct. An update in language/terminology is also in order for some of the questions. There was speculation among the researchers that results to a question referencing the term “adding machine” were affected by the population of respondents with assumed limited exposure and knowledge of what an adding machine references. Our proposal is to replace dated terminology with more current references. For example, replace the term “adding machine” with “calculator.” Through our analysis of the responses, our team sought more information about our participants. The participant information collected was designed for a semi-direct comparison with the original study’s results. Our current questionnaire allows us to directly compare results across gender and occupation, which we have reinterpreted as education (i.e. engineering students vs. non-engineering students/professionals). Through our research of the subject of engineering design education and the impact of cultural and societal influences, we are looking to collect additional information of our participants, for instance, race/ethnicity, hand dominance, and region of residence. Lastly, we have discussed the potential to create a publicly accessible tool to survey participants. Our current procedure uses printed questionnaire packets, which are manually translated for our analysis. We have discussed an online platform to automate response analysis and potentially reach a global audience. We envision an instructional tool with a growing database so that instructors can compare their class’s results with respondents across the state, nation, globe and drive the conversation beyond their classroom, but into the world in which our students will be entering. Conclusion The inclusion of ethics and social impact within engineering design instruction has been a direct result of the requirements by accrediting bodies and influential stakeholders in the future of engineering. This work explored how to effectively introduce social, cultural, and educational design biases in a first-year engineering design course. Through a series of ambiguous display-control designs, our questionnaire has supported the conversation to allow unique insights of first-year engineering students, non-engineering students, and non-engineering professionals to naturally identify the complexity and impact of the design process. The compatibility questionnaire provides a strong pedagogical tool to expose students to user differences and to interrogate what user-centered design takes into consideration. The

implementation of the compatibility questionnaire unit provides the opportunity to have students analyze and critique survey design, cultural trends, diversity in users and populations, and the overarching concept of the universal. The students in our first-year engineering design course were tasked with taking the survey themselves, administering to two people outside of engineering, and reflecting on the responses. Students were surprised by the differences they found, especially when they assumed similar characteristics would be found amongst peers. The active engagement with the assignment provided first hand exposure to a wide range of differences, creating a tangible bridge to understanding difference and diversity in an active way. Unsurprisingly, comparison across the original results and our collected data showcases the inconsistencies of design expectation. More importantly, our work reveals the need for continuous processing and analysis of design “norms.” The universal-user may not exist, but without the conversation, diversity of opinions and experiences will drift farther from universal ideas into the narrow stereotypes of the few. How can we explain why half the population turns a knob up while the other down? How can we justify the labeling of push versus pull? Those answers may not exist, but if we don’t start the conversation the misrepresentation will remain embedded in the curriculum. References

[1] Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, “Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2018-2019,” abet.org, [Online]. Available: https://www.abet.org/accreditation/ accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2018-2019/#4. [Accessed Feb. 25, 2021].

[2] C. Dym, A. Agogino, O. Eris, D. Frey, and L. Leifer, “Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 103, Jan. 2005.

[3] S. Smith, “Exploring compatibility with words and pictures,” Human Factors, vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 305-315, 1981.

[4] A. Agogino, C. Newman, M, Bauer, and J. Mankoff, “Perceptions of the design process: An examination of gendered aspects of new product development,” International Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 452-460, 2004.

[5] J. Murray, J. Studer, S. Daly, S. McKilligan, and C. Seifert, “Design by taking perspectives: How engineers explore problems,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 248-275, Jun. 2019.

[6] B. Mikic and D. Grasso, “Socially-relevant design: The TOYtech project at Smith College,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 319-326, Jan. 2013.

[7] M. Grau, S. Sheppard, and S. Brunhaver, “Revamping Delta Design for introductory mechanics,” in American Society for Engineering Education 119th Annual Conference and Exposition, ASEE 2012, San Antonio, TX, USA, June 10 – 13, 2012.

[8] National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, “Science and engineering indicators 2020,” NCSES, Alexandria, VA, Jan. 15, 2020. Accessed: Feb. 25, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/preface.

[9] Quick Facts: United States V2019, U.S. Census Bureau. [Online]. Available: https:// www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219

[10] E. Chech, “Culture of disengagement in engineering education?” Science, Technology, & Human Values, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 42-72, Jan. 2014.

[11] E. Conlon, “Integrating engineering ethics and research skills in a first year programme,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium for Engineering Education, ISEE 2008, Dublin, IE.

[12] M. Navarro, T. Foutz, S. Thompson, and K. Singer, “Development of a pedagogical model to help engineering faculty design interdisciplinary curricula,” International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 372-384, 2016.

[13] A. Bielefeldt and N. Canney, “Changes in the social responsibility attitudes of engineering students over time,” Science and Engineering Ethics, vol. 22, pp. 1535-1551, Sep. 2016.

[14] C. Czerniak, W. Weber, A. Sandmann, & J. Ahern, “A literature review of science and mathematics integration,” School Science and Mathematics, vol. 99, no. 8, pp. 421-430, 1999. doi: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.1999.tb17504.x

[15] P. Jiménez, J. Pascual, and A. Mejía, “Educating engineers under a social justice perspective,” International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 82-97, 2020.

[16] J. Leydens and J. Lucena, “Making the invisible visible: Integrating engineering-for-social-justice criteria in humanities and social science courses,” in American Society for Engineering Education 123rd Annual Conference and Exposition, ASEE 2016, New Orleans, LA, USA, June 26 - 29, 2016.

[17] K. Buchholz and F. Richter, “Infographic: Americans get driver's licenses later in life,” Statista Infographics, Jan. 07, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/chart/18682/percentage-of-the-us-population-holding-a-drivers-license-by-age-group/. [Accessed: Mar. 06, 2021].