Advertisement

Design Cognition and Student Performance

  • Greg J. StrimelEmail author
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Contemporary Issues in Technology Education book series (CITE)

Abstract

The teaching of engineering in US schools has seen a surge in popularity since the turn of the twenty-first century, and as design is considered a defining characteristic of engineers, the practice of engineering design has become a critical component of technology education. Consequently, research related to design cognition in engineering/technology education has become more prevalent in the literature. However, there are often minimal discussions on bridging design research with practice. Therefore, this chapter will present a design cognition research methodology developed to help inform engineering/technology education practice, the results of a study employing this method, and the implications for teaching and learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Antony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asunda, P. A., & Hill, R. B. (2007). Critical features of engineering design in technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 44(1), 25–48 Retrieved from http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v44n1/pdf/asunda.pdf.Google Scholar
  3. Ayvaci, H. S. (2013). Investigating the effectiveness of predict observe explain strategy on teaching photo electricity topic. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(5), 548–564.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, M., & Hacker, M. (2011). Learning theories for engineering and technology education. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (pp. vii–vxi). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berland, L. K. (2013). Designing for STEM integration. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(1), 22–31.Google Scholar
  6. Berland, L. K., & Busch, K. (2012). Negotiating STEM epistemic commitments for engineering design challenges. American Society for Engineering Education. pp 00856-19. 2012., 00856-00819.Google Scholar
  7. Bransford, J. D., & Vye, N. J. (1989). A perspective on cognitive research and its implications for instruction. In L. Resnick & L. E. Klopfer (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 173–205). Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  8. Cool, N., Strimel, G. J., Croly, M., & Grubbs, M. E. (2017). Making mason beehives: Teaching proper “making” skills through authentic engineering design contexts. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(8), 20–25.Google Scholar
  9. Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grubbs, M. E. (2014). Genetically modified organisms: A design-based biotechnology approach. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(7), 24–29.Google Scholar
  12. Grubbs, M. E. (2016). Further characterization of high school pre- and non-engineering students’ cognitive activity during engineering design. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest dissertations and theses database. (UMI No. 3662376).Google Scholar
  13. Grubbs, M. E., & Strimel, G. (2015). Engineering design: The great integrator. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grubbs, M. E. & Strimel, G. J. (2016, June 26). Cognitive research: Transferring theories and findings to k-12 engineering educational practice. American society for engineering education 103rd annual conference and exposition. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  15. Grubbs, M. E., Strimel, G. J., & Kim, E. (2018). Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 engineering education. International Journal of Design & Technology Education, 1–23. https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.lib.purdue.edu/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs10798-017-94 27-y.pdf.
  16. Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach. Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1973. Dissertation abstracts International, (1) 1111A.Google Scholar
  17. Harris, T. A., & Jacobs, H. R. (1995). On effective methods to teach mechanical design. Journal of Engineering Education, 84(4), 343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haynie, W. J. (2008). Are we compromising safety in the preparation of technology education teachers? Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 94–98.Google Scholar
  19. Haynie, W. J., III. (2009). Safety and liability in the new technology laboratory. Technology Teacher, 69(3), 31–36.Google Scholar
  20. Hill, R. B., & Wicklein, R. C. (1999). A factor analysis of primary mental processes for technological problem-solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(2), 83–100.Google Scholar
  21. International Society for Technology in Education & Computer Science Teachers Association. (2011). Operational definition of computational thinking for K-12 education. Retrieved from http://www.iste.org/docs/ct-documents/computational-thinking-operational-definition-flyer.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  22. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: Author.Google Scholar
  23. Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem-solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaminski, J. A., Sloutsky, V. M., & Heckler, A. (2009). Transfer of mathematical knowledge: The portability of generic instantiations. Child Development Perspectives, 3(3), 151–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 50–64.Google Scholar
  26. Lombardi, M. (2007). Authentic learning for the 21st century: An overview. Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/eLi3009.pdf
  27. Magana, A. J., & Coutinho, G. S. (2017). Modeling and simulation practices for a computational thinking-enabled engineering workforce. Computer Applications in Engineering Education.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  30. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in k-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (2011). Report of a workshop on the pedagogical aspects of computational thinking. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Orr, T., & Flowers, J. (2014). An experimental approach to everything. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(8), 8–12.Google Scholar
  34. Portz, S. (2014). Teaching project management. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(7), 19–23.Google Scholar
  35. Strimel, G. (2014a). Authentic education by providing a situation for student-selected problem based learning. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(7), 8–18.Google Scholar
  36. Strimel, G. J. (2014b). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach. Doctoral dissertation. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3662376).Google Scholar
  37. Strimel, G., & Grubbs, M. E. (2016). Positioning technology and engineering education as a key force in STEM education. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Strimel, G. J., Grubbs, M. E., & Wells, J. G. (2016). Engineering education: A clear decision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(4), 18–24.Google Scholar
  39. Wicklein, R. C., & Rojewski, J. W. (1999). Toward a “unified curriculum framework” for technology education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(4), 38–56.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityLafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options