Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning

  • Yaron Doppelt
Original paper


Infusing creative thinking competence through the design process of authentic projects requires not only changing the teaching methods and learning environment, but also adopting new assessment methods, such as portfolio assessment. The participants in this study were 128 high school pupils who have studied MECHATRONICS from 10th to 12th grades (16–18 years old). By the end of 12th grade, the pupils had created 57 authentic projects. The intervention program had two parts: first, the pupils documented their project according to a creative design process that had been introduced to them. Second, the projects were assessed according to a creative thinking scale. This scale was designed to assist pupils in documenting the design process. It could be used as a guideline for teachers and pupils during the course of the project. The research examined pupils’ performance during project-based learning. The research tools included: observations of class activities, portfolio assessment, and external matriculation assessment. The findings show first that pupils learned to document their design process. Second, pupils’ projects demonstrated various levels of creative thinking skill. Evidences for high-level documentation of the projects were found in pupils’ portfolios. On the other hand, there is much to be learned about documenting teamwork and pupils’ reflection. This research could assist researchers and teachers who are interested in assessing engineering education outcomes.


Engineering education Design process Project-based learning Creative thinking Learning environment Portfolio assessment 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



I would like to thank Dr. Nadav Betzer, Mr. Ron Eizenberg, Mr. Haim Dribin, Mr. Oded Richsefeld and Mrs. Irena Glikin for their collaboration on improving Engineering Education. Furthermore, I have studied many years with different teachers, but I have learned the most from my pupils. Their authentic projects inspired me and encouraged me to continue my research on how to develop thinking and assist all learners to learn. In addition, thanks are due to Dr. Eliza Littleton for her thoughtful comments on this paper.


  1. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the CoRT program for creative thinking into a project-based technology curriculum. Research in Science and Technological Education, 17(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barak, M., & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 16–24.Google Scholar
  3. Barak, M., Eisenberg, E., & Harel, O. (1995). ‘What’s in the calculator?’ An introductory project for technology studies. Research in Science and Technological Education, 12(2), 147–154.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, M., & Maymon T. (1998). Aspects of teamwork observed in a technological task in junior high schools. Journal of Technology Education, 9(2), 3–17.Google Scholar
  5. Barak, M., Waks, S., & Doppelt Y. (2000). Majoring in technology studies at high school and fostering learning. Learning Environment Research, 3, 135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barlex, D. (1994). Organising project work, In: F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology, (pp. 124–143). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Barlex, D. (2002). The relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary school curriculum in England. In: I. Mottier, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of the PATT12 Conference, 3–12.Google Scholar
  8. Collings, J. E. (1985). Scientific thinking through the development of formal operation training, in the cognitive restructuring aspect of field-independence. Research in Science and Technological Education, 3, 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, A. (1991). Portfolio for biology teacher assessment. Journal of School Personnel Evaluation in Education, 5, 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Bono, E. (1986). The CoRT thinking program (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Bono, E. (1996). Master workshop of de Bono’s thinking course. Jerusalem: Branco Weiss Institute for the Development of Thinking.Google Scholar
  12. de Vries, M. J. (1993). Design methodology and relationships with science: Introduction. In: M. J. deVries, N. Cross, & D. P. Grant (Eds.), Design methodology and relationship with science (pp. 1–14). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers (in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs Division).Google Scholar
  13. de Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the “technology is applied science” paradigm. Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.Google Scholar
  14. de Vries, M. J. (1997). Technology assessment and the assessment of technology education. In: I.␣Mottier & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of PATT8 Conference: Assessing Technology Education (pp. 373–378). PATT Foundation, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  15. Denton, H. (1994). The role of group/team work in design and technology: Some possibilities and problems. In: F. Banks. (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 145–151). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Dewey, J. (1977). Experience and education (20th printing), New York: Macmillan Collier.Google Scholar
  17. Doppelt, Y. (2000, June). Developing pupils’ competencies through creative thinking in technological projects, Paper presented to The 28th Israel Conference on Mechanical Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva, Israel.Google Scholar
  18. Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementing and assessing project-based learning in a flexible environment. The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 255–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Doppelt, Y. (2004). The impact of the characteristics of science–technology learning environment: Pupils’ perceptions and gender differences. Learning environment Research, 7(3), 271–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Doppelt, Y. (2005). Assessment of project-based learning in a MECHATRONICS context. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 7–21.Google Scholar
  21. Doppelt, Y., & Armon, U. (1999, August). LEGO/Logo (Multi-Techno-Logo) as an authentic environment for improving learning skills of low-achievers, Paper presented at the Euro-Logo Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria.Google Scholar
  22. Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Pupils identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12–18.Google Scholar
  23. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, D. C. (2005, April). A close-knit collaboration between researchers and teachers for developing and implementing a design-based science module. National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Dallas, TX.Google Scholar
  24. Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research. Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.Google Scholar
  25. Glaser, R. (1993). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. In: R. McCormick, P. Murphy, & M. Harrison (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Technology (pp. 91–111). Wokingham, England: Addison-Wesley in association with The Open University.Google Scholar
  26. Gredler, E. M. (1995). Implications of portfolio assessment for programme evaluation. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 21, 431–437, Elsevier Science Ltd.Google Scholar
  27. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 98) (pp. 16–22). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  28. McCormick R., & Murphy P. (1994) Learning the processes in technology, Paper presented to the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Oxford University, England.Google Scholar
  29. NSPE, National Society of Professional Engineers, (1992). Engineering Education Issues: Report on surveys of opinions by engineering deans and employers of engineering graduates on the first professional degree, NSPE Publication No. 3059, NSPE, 1420 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314–2794.Google Scholar
  30. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms, children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  31. Resnick, M., & Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design. In: I. Harel, & S.␣Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 141–150). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation Norwood.Google Scholar
  32. Seiler, G., Tobin, K., & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 746–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg: Tempus Publicationss.Google Scholar
  34. Wolf, D. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student’s work. Educational Leadership, 45(4), 35–39.Google Scholar
  35. Zohar, A., & Tamir, P. (1993). Incorporating critical thinking within a regular high school biology curriculum. School Science and Mathmatics, 93(3), 136–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PittsburgPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations