Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

High School Student Perceptions of the Utility of the Engineering Design Process: Creating Opportunities to Engage in Engineering Practices and Apply Math and Science Content

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

Abstract

Research and policy documents increasingly advocate for incorporating engineering design into K-12 classrooms in order to accomplish two goals: (1) provide an opportunity to engage with science content in a motivating real-world context; and (2) introduce students to the field of engineering. The present study uses multiple qualitative data sources (i.e., interviews, artifact analysis) in order to examine the ways in which engaging in engineering design can support students in participating in engineering practices and applying math and science knowledge. This study suggests that students better understand and value those aspects of engineering design that are more qualitative (i.e., interviewing users, generating multiple possible solutions) than the more quantitative aspects of design which create opportunities for students to integrate traditional math and science content into their design work (i.e., modeling or systematically choosing between possible design solutions). Recommendations for curriculum design and implementation are discussed.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson JR, Farrell R, Sauers R (1984) Learning to program in LISP. Cogn Sci 8(2):87–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman CJ, Cardella ME, Turns J, Adams R (2005) Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-up study. Des Stud 4(26):325–357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball LJ, Ormerod TC (1995) Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion. Int J Hum Comput Stud 43(1):131–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball LJ, Evans JSBT, Dennis I, Ormerod TC (1997) Problem-solving strategies and expertise in engineering design. Think Reason 3(4):247–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab SA, Hay KE, Barnett M, Squire K (2000) Virtual solar system project: building understanding through model building. J Res Sci Teach 37:719–756

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barnett M (2005) Engaging inner city students in learning through designing remote operated vehicles. J Sci Educ Technol 14(1):87–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland LK (2013) Designing for STEM Integration. J Pre-Coll Eng Educ. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1078

  • Crismond DP, Adams RS (2012) The informed design teaching and learning matrix. J Eng Educ 101(4):738–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly SR, Adams RS, Bodner GM (2012) What does it mean to design? A qualitative investigation of design professionals’ experiences. J Eng Educ 101(2):187–219. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00048.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst K, Cross N (2001) Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution. Des Stud 22(5):425–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dow SP, Glassco A, Kass J, Schwarz M, Schwartz DL, Klemmer SR (2010) Parallel prototyping leads to better design results, more divergence, and increased self-efficacy. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact 17(4):1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym C (1999) Learning engineering: design, languages, and experiences. J Eng Educ 88(2):145–148

  • Edelson DC (2001) Learning-for-use: a framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities. J Res Sci Teach 38(3):355–385

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortus D, Dershimer RC, Krajcik JS, Marx RW, Mamlok-Naaman R (2004) Design-based science and student learning. J Res Sci Teach 41(10):1081–1110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fontana A, Frey JH (2000) The interview: from structured questions to negotiated text. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, vol 2. Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA, pp 645–672

  • Galbraith P (2012) Models of modelling: genres, purposes or perspectives. J Math Model Appl 1(5):3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra L, Allen D, Berland L, Crawford R, Farmer C (2012) A unique approach to characterizing the engineering design process. Presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX

  • Harel I, Papert S (1992) Software design as a learning environment. In: Balestri D, Ehrmann S, Ferguson D (eds) Learning to design, designing to learn: using technology to transform the curriculum. Taylor and Francis, Washington, pp 35–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo CE, Holton DL, Kolodner JL (2000) Designing to learn about complex systems. J Learn Sci 9(3):247–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jin Y, Chusilp P (2006) Study of mental iteration in different design situations. Des Stud 27(1):25–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen D, Strobel J, Lee CB (2006) Everyday problem solving in engineering: lessons for engineering educators. J Eng Educ 95(2):139–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julie C (2002) Making relevance relevant in mathematics teacher education. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on the teaching of mathematics at the undergraduate level

  • Kanter DE (2010) Doing the project and learning the content: designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Sci Educ 94(3):525–551

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein SS, Harris AH (2007) A user’s guide to the legacy cycle. J Educ Hum Dev 1(1):1–16

  • Kuhn L, Kenyon LO, Reiser BJ (2006) Fostering scientific argumentation by creating a need for students to attend to each other’s claims and evidence. In: Barab S, Hay K, Hickey D (eds) Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the learning sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Mahwah, pp 370–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Kvale S, Brinkmann S (2008) InterViews: learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing, 2nd edn. SAGE, Los Angeles

    Google Scholar 

  • Lattuca LR, Terenzini PT, Volkwein JF (2006) Engineering Change: a study of the impact of EC2000. Retrieved from the ABET, Inc. http://www.abet.org/Linked%20DocumentsUPDATE/White%20Papers/Engineering%20Change.pdf

  • Maher M, Tang H–H (2003) Co-evolution as a computational and cognitive model of design. Res Eng Des 14(1):47–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles MB, Huberman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineers & National Research Council (2009) In: Katehi L, Feder M (eds) Engineering in K-12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects. National Academies Press, Washington

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010) Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC. www.corestandards.org/

  • National Research Council (2012) A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstetter WC, McCracken WM (2001) Novice conceptions of design: implications for the design of learning environments. In: Eastman C, McCracken M, Newstetter W (eds) Design knowing and learning: cognition in design education, 1st edn. Elsevier Science, Kidlington, pp 63–77

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pahl G, Badke-Schaub P, Frankenberger E (1999) Resume of 12 years interdisciplinary empirical studies of engineering design in Germany. Des Stud 20(5):481–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perlow L, Bailyn L (1997) The senseless submergence of difference: engineers, their work, and their careers. In: Barley SR, Orr JE (eds) Between craft and science: technical work in U.S. settings. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, pp 63–77

    Google Scholar 

  • Prevost AC, Nathan MJ, Atwood AK, Phelps LA (2011) STEM integration in a pre-college course in digital electronics: analysis of the enacted curriculum. In: Proceedings of the 119th Annual American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) Conference, Vancouver, BC, Canada

  • Purcell AT, Gero JS (1996) Design and other types of fixation. Des Stud 17(4):363–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler P, Coyle H, Schwartz M (2000) Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: key elements in developing effective design challenges. J Learn Sci 9(3):299–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard S, Jenison R, Agogino A, Brereton M, Bocciarelli L, Dally J et al (1997) Examples of freshman design education. Int J Eng Educ 13(4):248–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith RP, Tjandra P (1998) Experimental observation of iteration in engineering design. Res Eng Des 10(2):107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stohlmann M, Moore TJ, Roehrig GH (2012) Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. J Pre-Coll Eng Educ Res (J-PEER) 2(1):4

  • Tate D, Chandler JR, Fontenot AD, Talkmitt S (2010) Matching pedagogical intent with engineering design process models for precollege education. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 24:379–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tran NA, Nathan MJ (2010) Pre-college engineering studies: an investigation of the relationship between pre-college engineering studies and student achievement in science and mathematics. J Eng Educ 99(2):143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman DG, Dietterich TG, Stauffer LA (1988) A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data. Artif Intell Eng Des Manuf 2(1):33–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang MC (2005) A study of prototypes, design activity, and design outcome. Des Stud 26(6):649–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank everyone on the UTeachEngineering project team for their invaluable support on this work. The project was funded by National Science Foundation grant DUE-0831811 to the UTeachEngineering project at The University of Texas at Austin. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NSF. An early version of this work was presented at AERA, 2013.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Wisconsin at Madison, 225 N Mills St, Madison, WI, 53706, USA

    Leema Berland

  2. University of Texas at Austin, 1912 Speedway, Stop D5500, Austin, TX, 78712, USA

    Rebecca Steingut & Pat Ko

Authors
  1. Leema Berland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Rebecca Steingut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Pat Ko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leema Berland.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Questionnaire Items

  1. 1.

    Imagine a professional photographer wants to use a pinhole camera that is slightly different from the one you designed and built in class. Describe the process an engineer would go through to create this camera for the photographer.

  2. 2.

    Use this space below to create a picture or representation of what you think the process of engineering design is. Do not refer back to your notes or other materials.

  3. 3.

    Of the steps in the Engineering Design Process, which one do you think is the MOST useful for engineers?

    1. a.

      Can you give an example of a time you did that step in class and found that it really helped your project work?

  4. 4.

    Of the steps in the Engineering Design Process, which one do you think is the LEAST useful for engineers?

    1. a.

      Can you give an example of a time you did that step in class and found that it really didn’t impact your project work at all?

  5. 5.

    Is there anything you would like us to tell the curriculum designers about the course—good or bad?

Appendix 2: Chi-Squared Comparison of Interviewee and Non-interviewee Responses to Questionnaire

To determine whether the worksheets of the interviewees were representative of the worksheet of the entire population, we used a chi-square test on the frequencies that each EDP step appeared in the interviewed students’ depicted EDPs versus those of the non-interviewed students. Table 8 displays the frequency of each step and the percentage of the relevant group in which the step occurs.

Table 8 Frequency of occurrence of EDP step in worksheets completed by interviewed (n = 16) and not interviewed (n = 101) students
Full size table

The χ2 statistic with df = 8 is 11.75, which is lower than the critical value of 15.51, p = 0.16. Thus, we conclude that the worksheet results do not depend on whether the students were in the interviewed group or the not interviewed group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Berland, L., Steingut, R. & Ko, P. High School Student Perceptions of the Utility of the Engineering Design Process: Creating Opportunities to Engage in Engineering Practices and Apply Math and Science Content. J Sci Educ Technol 23, 705–720 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation