Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge
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.
KeywordsDesign conversations Productive thinking K-12 STEM
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.
- 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
- Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York, NY: Harper Collins.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
- 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
- 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
- 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