Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge

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

Abstract

Recent education reforms highlight the importance of engineering design as a tool to improve student science learning in this new view of K-12 science education. However, little research has investigated the thought processes students use while engaging in the highly complex activity of design. Therefore, building on theories of productive thinking, we analyzed 6th grade students’ design conversations through the following research question: How do 6th grade students employ different modes of thinking when solving a design-based challenge in a science unit? Through a qualitative and descriptive case-study approach using Gallagher and Aschner’s (Merrill-Palmer Q Behav Dev 9(3):183–194, 1963) analytical framework for productive thinking, our results indicate students employ a variety of modes of thinking as they engage in design conversations in a science-based design unit. While students planned their initial design, they employed Cognitive Memory, Divergent Thinking, and Evaluative Thinking. This is not surprising since students need to recall scientific facts and hypothesize as they begin to justify their design decisions. As students finalized design decisions and communicated this design to the client, they employed more higher order modes of thinking, since they evaluated and justified their design decisions. These findings provide insights into effective teaching strategies for higher productivity and conceptual performance.

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

  • Adams, R. (2015). Inquiry into design review conversations. In R. Adams & J. Siddiqui (Eds.), Analyzing design review conversations (pp. 3–22). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akin, O., & Awolomo, O. (2015). A discursive approach to understand dependencies between design acts. In R. Adams & J. Siddiqui (Eds.), Analyzing design review conversations (pp. 217–240). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., Guzey, S. S., Akarsu, M., Johnston, A. C., & Moore, T. J. (2018). Examining teacher talk in an engineering design-based curricular unit. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C., Cardella, M., Turns, J., & Adams, R. S. (2005). Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies,26(4), 325–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process. Journal of Science Education and Technology,23(6), 705–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education,95(October), 301–309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dankenbring, C., & Capobianco, B. M. (2016). Examining elementary school students’ mental models of sun-earth relationships as a result of engaging in engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education,14(5), 825–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (1995). Analyzing design activity: New directions in protocol analysis. Design Studies,16(2), 139–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallagher, J., & Achner, M. (1963). A preliminary report on analyses of classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development,9(3), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groen, C., Paretti, M., & McNair, L. (2015). Learning from student/expert dialogue to enhance engineering design education. In R. Adams & J. A. Siddiqui (Eds.), Analyzing design review conversations (pp. 197–216). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guilford, J. P. (1956). Structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin,53(4), 267–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., & Aranda, M. L. (2017). Student participation in engineering practices and discourse: An exploratory case study. Journal of Engineering Education, 106, 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphries, J., & Ness, M. (2015). Beyond who, what, where, when, why, and how: Preparing students to generate questions in the age of common core standards. Journal of Research in Childhood Education,4, 551–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M., & McDaniel, R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences,23(4), 490–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachapelle, C. P., Cunningham, C. M., & Davis, M. (2017). Middle childhood education: Engineering concepts, practices, and trajectories. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 1–17). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luck, R. (2009). ‘Does this compromise your design?’ Interactionally producing a design concept in talk. CoDesign,5(1), 21–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, J. (1997). Descriptive models for interpreting design. Design Studies,18(4), 457–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonnell, J., & Lloyd, P. (2009). Analyzing design conversations. CoDesign,5(1), 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education,97(1), 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2001). Theoretical foundation for decision making in engineering design. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education. Retrieved June 1, 2018 from www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, D.-Y., Park, M.-H., & Bates, A. B. (2018). Exploring young children’s understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 16(2), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk in interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rodgers, P. (2013). Articulating design thinking. Design Studies,34(4), 433–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in the middle school science classroom. International Journal of Science Education,33, 1861–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology,18, 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vogler, K. (2005). Improve your verbal questioning. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas,79(2), 98–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K., & 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 

  • Wolmarans, N. (2015). Navigating boundaries: Moving between context and disciplinary knowledge when learning to design. In R. Adams & J. A. Siddiqui (Eds.), Analyzing design review conversations (pp. 197–216). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge all the participants, including Mr. Fisher and his students, for their contribution to this work. We would also like to acknowledge the research group who placed so much effort into this project and all its research endeavors. This work was funded by NSF grant 1238140, EngrTEAMS: Engineering to Transform the Education of Analysis, Measurement, and Science in a Team-Based Targeted Mathematics-Science Partnership.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Maurina L. Aranda and Richard Lie are contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, USA

    Maurina L. Aranda

  2. Department of Biological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

    Richard Lie & S. Selcen Guzey

  3. Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

    S. Selcen Guzey

Authors
  1. Maurina L. Aranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Lie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Selcen Guzey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maurina L. Aranda.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Aranda, M.L., Lie, R. & Selcen Guzey, S. Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. Int J Technol Des Educ 30, 67–81 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation