Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects?

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

Abstract

Engineering design practice has been recognized as an effective approach to engage students in STEM learning. However, we noticed that students who possessed strong STEM knowledge did not necessarily perform well on their design projects. Thus, this study sought to explore factors that shaped students’ design objectives and means. A design-based research was adopted using a single group teaching experiment, in which students’ performance in relation to conceptual knowledge, engineering design practice, and their STEM attitudes were assessed in different design complexity groups. Based on the findings of this study, we concluded that students’ interest and metacognitive skills might be the key factors affecting their motivation during the engineering design process. Their abilities in predictive analysis and testing/revising were core elements affecting their design thinking. Our work provides preliminary evidence on how students form and present different design purposes and objectives in an engineering design project.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asunda, P. A., & Hill, R. B. (2007). Critical features of engineering design in technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(1), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., 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. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, B. S., Moran, A. L., & Woods, J. E. (2014). Meteorology meets engineering: An interdisciplinary STEM module for middle and early secondary school students. International Journal of STEM Education, 1(1), 1–7. doi:10.1186/2196-7822-1-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, J., Braund, M., & Sharpe, R. M. (2013). Student attitudes, engagement and participation in STEM subjects. London: The Royal Society/Department of Education, The University of York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernhard, J., Carstensen, A. K., & Holmberg, M. (2007). Design-based educational research and development of engineering education: Examples from courses in mechanics and electrical engineering. Paper presented at the 6th ASEE Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, Istanbul.

  • Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. The Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., IV, & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, R. L., & Strobel, J. (2012). Work in progress: Development of a metacognition scaffold in STEM/P-6 engineering context: MCinEDP. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), OK.

  • Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Design-Based Research Collective [DBRC]. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.

    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. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 1–18. doi:10.1186/s40594-015-0027-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittroc (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2016). Core value and implementation of the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics curriculum in technology education. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 61(2), 153–183. doi:10.6209/JORIES.2016.61(2).06.

  • Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129. doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimm, S. L. (2010). Gateway to technology (GTT) Project lead the way (PLTW). Retrieved from http://www.lcsd.k12.ny.us/cms/lib/NY01001015/Centricity/Domain/4/PLTW-Board_Presentation_Nov_2010.pdf.

  • Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279. doi:10.1111/ssm.12077.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernandez, P. R., Bodin, R., Elliott, J. W., Ibrahim, B., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Chen, T. W., et al. (2014). Connecting the STEM dots: Measuring the effect of an integrated engineering design intervention. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(1), 107–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Householder, D. L., & Hailey, C. E. (Eds.). (2012). Incorporating engineering design challenges into STEM courses. Retrieved from http://ncete.org/flash/pdfs/NCETECaucusReport.pdf.

  • International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEEA]. (Ed.). (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering. Reston, VA: Author.

  • Kelley, T., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). PLTW and Epics-High: Curriculum comparisons to support problem solving in the context of engineering design. Utah, UT: National Center for Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE).

  • Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of educational robots on learning STEM and on students’ attitude toward STEM. Paper presented at the 2013 IEEE 5th conference on engineering education (ICEED), Kuala Lumpur.

  • Kolmos, A., de Graaff, E., & Du, X. (2009). Chapter 2: Diversity of PBL-PBL learning principles and models. In X. Du, E. de Graaff, & A. Kolmos (Eds.), Research on PBL practice in engineering education (pp. 9–21). Boston: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lantz, H. B., Jr. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education what form? What function? Retrieved from http://www.currtechintegrations.com/pdf/STEMEducationArticle.pdf.

  • Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo, M. L., Marton, F., Pang, M. F., & Pong, W. Y. (2004). Toward a pedagogy of learning. In F. Marton & A. B. M. Tsui (Eds.), Classroom discourse and the space of learning (pp. 189–225). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahoney, M. (2010). Students’ attitudes toward STEM: Development of an instrument for high school STEM-based programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 24–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenney, S., Nieveen, N., & Van den Akker, J. (2006). Design research from a curriculum perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 110–143). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, N. (2011). High school engineering and technology education integration through design challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(2), 103–136.

    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 

  • Merrill, C., Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2009). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem based or project-based learning the answer? Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3, 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. In J. Van den Akker, K. Gravemeijeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 86–109). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sahin, A. (2015). A practice-based model of STEM teaching STEM students on the stage (SOS). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education. STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1861–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taraban, R., Anderson, E. E., DeFinis, A., Brown, A. G., Weigold, A., & Sharma, M. (2007). First steps in understanding engineering students’ growth of conceptual and procedural knowledge in an interactive learning context. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 57–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. San Rafael, CA: Autodesk Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering-design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Funding was provided by Mistery of Science and Technology of Taiwan (Grant No. MOST 103-2511-S-003-007-MY3).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University, 162, HePing East Road, Section 1, Taipei, Taiwan

    Kuang-Chao Yu

  2. Graduate Institute of Vocational and Technical Education, National Pingtung University of Science and Technology, 1, Xue Fu Road, Lao Bei Village, Nei-Pu Township, Pingtung County, Taiwan

    Shi-Jer Lou

  3. Department of Industrial Technology Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, 82444 No. 62, Shenjhong Rd., Yanchao District, Kaohsiung City, 82446, Taiwan

    Szu-Chun Fan

Authors
  1. Szu-Chun Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kuang-Chao Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shi-Jer Lou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kuang-Chao Yu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fan, SC., Yu, KC. & Lou, SJ. Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects?. Int J Technol Des Educ 28, 1039–1060 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9420-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9420-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation