Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 engineering/technology education

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Cultivating students’ design abilities can be highly beneficial for the learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) concepts, and development of higher-order thinking capabilities (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council in STEM integration in k-12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research, The National Academies Press, Washington, 2014). Therefore, examining students’ strategies, how they distribute their cognitive effort, and confront STEM concepts during design experiences, can help educators identify effective and developmentally appropriate methods for teaching and scaffolding design activities for students (National Research Council in standards for k-12 engineering education? The National Academies Press, Washington, 2010). Yet, educational researchers have only recently begun examining students’ engineering design cognition at the P-12 level, despite reports such as Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? (National Research Council 2010) designating this area of research as lackluster. Of the recent studies that have investigated engineering design cognition at the P-12 level, the primary method of investigation has been verbal protocol analysis using a think-aloud method (Grubbs in further characterization of high school pre- and non-engineering students’ cognitive activity during engineering design, 2016). This methodology captures participants’ verbalization of their thought process as they solve a design challenge. Analysis is typically conducted by applying a pre-determined coding scheme, or one that emerges, to determine the distribution of a group’s or an individual’s cognition. Consequently, researchers have employed a variety of coding schemes to examine and describe students’ design cognition. Given the steady increase of explorations into connections between P-12 engineering design cognition and development of student cognitive competencies, it becomes increasingly important to understand and choose the most appropriate coding schemes available, as each has its own intent and characteristics. Therefore, this article presents an examination of recent P-12 design cognition coding schemes with the purpose of providing a background for selecting and applying a scheme for a specific outcome, which can better enable the synthesis and comparison of findings across studies. Ultimately, the aim is to aid others in choosing an appropriate coding scheme, with cognizance of research analysis intent and characteristics of research design, while improving the intentional scaffolding and support of design challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R. S., Turn, J., & Atman, C. Y. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Bursic, K. M., & Lozito, S. L. (1996). An application of protocol analysis to the engineering design process. In Proceeding of ASEE annual conference, Washington, DC.

  • Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., & Vye, N. J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 173–205). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, W. Newstatter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dixon, R. A., & Johnson, S. D. (2012). The use of executive control processes in engineering design by engineering students and professional engineers. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 73–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eekels, J. (1995). Values, objectivity and subjectivity in science and engineering. Journal of Engineering Design, 6(3), 173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, P. (1980). The nature of design. In P. Freeman & A. I. Wasserman (Eds.), Tutorial on software design techniques (pp. 46–53). Piscataway: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friesen, M., Taylor, K., & Britton, M. (2005). A qualitative study of a course trilogy in biosystems engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), 287–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11(4), 26–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behavior–structure framework. Design Studies, 25(4), 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubbs, M. E. (2013). Bridging design cognition research and theory with teaching and learning. In Published proceedings of the pupil’s attitudes toward technology international conference, Christ Church, New Zealand.

  • Grubbs, M. E. (2016). Further characterization of high school pre- and non-engineering students’ cognitive activity during engineering design. Doctoral dissertation, retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3662376)

  • Grubbs, M. E., & Strimel, G. (2015). Engineering design: The great integrator. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubbs, M. E. & Strimel, G. J. (2016). Cognitive research: Transferring theories and findings to k-12 engineering educational practice. In American society for engineering education 103rd annual conference and exposition. New Orleans, LA, June 26, 2016.

  • Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach. (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1973). Dissertation Abstracts International (1), 1111A.

  • Hill, R. B., & Wicklein, R. C. (1999). A factor analysis of primary mental processes for technological problem-solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(2), 83–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E. Rogers, C., & Hammer, D. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. Retrieved from http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/Infusing_Engineering_Hynes.pdf.

  • Kannengiesser, U., Gero, J., Wells, J., & Lammi, M. (2015). Do high school students benefit from pre-engineering design education? In: Proceedings of the 20th international conference on engineering design (ICED) (Vol. 11, pp. 267–276), Human Behaviour in Design, July 27–30, Milan, Italy.

  • Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 50–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in stem education. Journal of stem Teacher Education, 47(2), 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., Capobianco, B. M., & Kaluf, K. J. (2015). Concurrent think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammi, M. D. (2011) Characterizing high school students’ systems thinking in engineering design through the function–behavior–structure (FBS) framework. All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. Paper 849. http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/849.

  • Lammi, M. D., & Becker, K. (2013). Engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 24(2), 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammi, M. D. & Gero, J. S. (2011). Comparing design cognition of undergraduate engineering students and high school pre-engineering students. Paper presented at the 2011 frontiers in education conference, Rapid City, SD.

  • Lane, D., & Seery, N. (2011, June). Examining the development of sketch thinking and behavior. In Proceedings of the ASEE annual conference, Vancouver, BC.

  • Menary, R. (2007). Cognitive integration: Mind and cognition unbounded. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, N. (2014). Team based engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 52–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, H. E (1998). The role of visual imagery in solving complex problems in design. Unpublished Dissertation, Griffith University.

  • Middleton, H. (2008). Examining design thinking. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Researching technology education: Methods and techniques (pp. 193–212). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Middleton, H., & Stevenson, J. (2011). Creativity in technical and further education in Australia. The Open Education Journal, 4(1), 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, P. L., Atman, C. J., Bursic, K. M., Shuman, L. J., & Gottfried, B. S. (1995). Do freshmen design texts adequately define the engineering design process? In ASEE annual conference proceedings.

  • Mosborg, S., Adams, R. S., Kim, R., Atman, C., Turns, J., & Cardella, M. (2005). Conceptions of the engineering design process: An expert study of advanced practicing professionals. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education, Portland, OR.

  • National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in k-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18612.

  • National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. (2012). Incorporating engineering design challenges into STEM courses. Retrieved from http://www.ncete.org/flash/pdfs/NCETECaucusReport.pdf.

  • National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12990.

  • Purcell, A. T., Gero, J. S., Edwards, H., & McNeill, T. (1996). The data in design protocols: The issue of data coding, data analysis in the development of models of the design process. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 225–252). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, P. (1994). The place of design in technology education. In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education (Vol. 5, pp. 171–179). Paris: UNESCO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, T., Becker, K., Gero, J., DeBerard, S., Lawanto, O., & Reeve, E. (2016). Problem decomposition and recomposition in engineering design: A comparison of design behavior between professional engineers, engineering seniors, and engineering freshmen. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 37–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strimel, G. J. (2014). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3662376)

  • Strimel, G., & Grubbs, M. E. (2016). Positioning technology and engineering education as a key force in STEM education. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 21–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strimel, G. J., Grubbs, M. E, & Wells, J. G. (2016/2017). Engineering education: A clear decision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(4), 18–24.

  • Visser, W. (2009). Design: One, but in different forms. Design Studies, 30(3), 187–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M. (1996). The strategies used by ten grade 7 students, working in single-sex dyads, to solve a technological problem. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.

  • Welch, M., & Lim, H. S. (2000). The strategic thinking of novice designers: Discontinuity between theory and practice. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J., Lammi, M., Gero, J., Grubbs, M. E., Paretti, M., & Williams, C. (2016). Characterizing design cognition of high school students: Initial analyses comparing those with and without pre-engineering experiences. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 78–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wicklein, R. C., & Rojewski, J. W. (1999). Toward a “unified curriculum framework” for technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(4), 38–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. A., Smith, E. R., & Householder, D. L. (2013). High school students’ cognitive activity while solving authentic problems through engineering design processes. In Published proceedings of the american society of engineering education, Atlanta, GA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Baltimore County Public Schools, Office of Career and Technology Education, Jefferson Building, Third Floor, 105 W. Chesapeake Ave, Towson, MD, 21204, USA

    Michael E. Grubbs

  2. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Greg J. Strimel & Eunhye Kim

Authors
  1. Michael E. Grubbs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Greg J. Strimel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eunhye Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael E. Grubbs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grubbs, M.E., Strimel, G.J. & Kim, E. Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 engineering/technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 28, 899–920 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9427-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9427-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation