Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Factors influencing student success on open-ended design problems

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

Abstract

Open-ended design problems have become an important component in our educational landscape (Grubbs and Strimel in J STEM Teach Educ 50(1):77–90, 2015; Jonassen et al. in J Eng Educ 95:139–151, 2006; National Research Council in Education for life and work: developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st Century, National Academies Press, Washington, 2012; Strimel in Technol Eng Teach 73(7):8–18, 2014a). The ability of students to confront open-ended problem scenarios, think creatively, and produce novel designs have all been lauded as necessary skills for today’s twenty first century learners (Partnership for 21st Century Skills in P21 framework definitions, Author, Washington, 2016). This emphasis on open-ended design problems in problem-based learning scenarios has been tied to workforce and higher education preparation for students (National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council in STEM integration in K–12 education: status, prospects, and an agenda for research, National Academies Press, Washington, 2014; National Research Council in Engineering in K–12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects, National Academies Press, Washington, 2009; Strimel in Technol Eng Teach 73(5):16–24, 2014b). However, little research has been conducted to identify the impact of potentially-influential factors on student success in such open-ended design scenarios. Therefore, the researchers examined data from 706 middle school students, working in small groups, as they completed an open-ended design challenge to determine the relationships between a variety of potentially-influential factors and student performance, as measured through adaptive comparative judgment. The analysis of the data revealed several relationships, significant and not significant, between identified variables and student success on open-ended design challenges.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Antony, G. (1996). Active learning in a constructivist framework. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 31(4), 349–369.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem-based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. In L. Wilkerson & H. Gilselaers (Eds.), Bringing problem-based learning to higher education: Theory and practice (pp. 3–12). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, S. R. (2017). Assessing open-ended design problems. Technology and Engineering Education Teacher, 76(6), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, S. R., Reeve, E., Veon, R., Goodridge, W., Stewardson, G., Lee, V. et al. (2017). Mobile devices, self-directed learning, and achievement in Technology and Engineering Education classrooms during a STEM activity. Journal of Technology Education (accepted for publication).

  • Bejar, I. I. (1991). A methodology for scoring open-ended architectural design problems. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K. (2013). Designing for STEM integration. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(1), 22–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K, & Busch, K. (2012). Negotiating STEM epistemic commitments for engineering design challenges. In American Society for Engineering Education, pp. 00856-19. 2012., 00856-00819.

  • Bjorklund, L. (2008). The repertory grid technique. In H. Middleton (Ed.), Research technology education: Methands and techniques (pp. 46–69). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cool, N., Strimel, G. J., Croly, M., & Grubb, M. E. (2017). Mason bee habitations: Teaching proper “Making” skills through authentic engineering design contexts. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(8), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denson, C. D., Buelin, J. K., Lammi, M. D., & D’Amico, S. (2015). Developing instrumentation for assessing creativity in engineering design. Journal of Technology Education, 27(1), 23–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diefes-Dux, H. A., Moore, T., Zawojewski, J., Imbrie, P. K., & Follman, D. (2004). A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: Model-eliciting activities. In Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual (pp. F1A-3). IEEE.

  • Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19, 22–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghosh, S. (1993). An exercise in inducing creativity in undergraduate engineering students through challenging examinations and open-ended design problems. IEEE Transactions on Education, 36(1), 113–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldstone, R. L., & Sakamoto, Y. (2003). The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems. Cognitive Psychology, 46(4), 414–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2011). Towards characterising design-based learning in engineering education: A review of the literature. European Journal of Engineering Education, 36(2), 137–149. doi:10.1080/03043797.2011.565116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grubbs, M. E. (2013). Bridging design cognition research and theory with teaching and learning. In P. J. Williams, & D. Gedera (Eds.), Technology education for the future: A play on sustainability (pp. 189–195). Hamilton: University of Waikato. Retrieved from http://www.iteaconnect.org/Conference/PATT/PATT27/PATT27proceedingsNZDec2013.pdf.

  • Grubbs, M. E., & Strimel, G. (2015). Engineering design: The great integrator. The Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartell, E., & Skogh, I. B. (2015). Criteria for success: A study of primary technology teachers’ assessment of digital portfolios. Australasian Journal of Technology Education, 2(1), 2–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Haynie, W. J., III. (2009). Safety and liability in the new technology laboratory. Technology Teacher, 69(3), 31–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, I., Swan, M., & Pollitt, A. (2014). Assessing mathematical problem solving using comparative judgement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 151–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2007). E-assessment in project e-scape. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 12(2), 66–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2012a). Evolving project e-scape for national assessment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R. (2012b). The origins and underpinning principles of e-scape. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 123–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMahon, S., & Jones, I. (2015). A comparative judgment approach to teacher assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 22(3), 368–389.

    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 

  • Metzgar, M. (2016). Using adaptive comparative judgement to assess student work in an MBA course. International Journal for Infonomics, 9(3), 1217–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 461–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering (NAE) & National Research Council (NRC). (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Committee on how people learn, a targeted report for teachers. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st Century. Washington: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2016). P21 framework definitions. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework.

  • Pollitt, A. (2004). Let’s stop marking exams. Retrieved from http://www.cambridgeassessment.org.uk/images/109719-let-s-stop-marking-exams.pdf.

  • Pollitt, A. (2012). The method of adaptive comparative judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(3), 281–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ribeiro, L. R. (2011). The pros and cons of problem-based learning from the teacher’s standpoint. Journal of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 8(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. (2009). Integrative STEM education: A primer. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellwood, P. (1989). The role of problem-solving in developing thinking skills. The Technology Teacher, 49(3), 3–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sloutsky, V. M., Kaminski, J. A., & Heckler, A. F. (2005). The advantage of simple symbols for learning and transfer. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12(3), 508–513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Strimel, G. (2014b). Shale gas extraction: Drilling into current issues and making STEM connections. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73(5), 16–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strimel, G. J. (2014c). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach (Doctoral dissertation). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3662376)

  • Tarricone, P., & Newhouse, C. P. (2016). Using comparative judgement and online technologies in the assessment and measurement of creative performance and capability. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 13(1), 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teo, T., Tan, S. C., Lee, C. B., Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., Chen, W. L., et al. (2010). The self-directed learning with technology scale (SDLTS) for young students: An initial development and validation. Computers & Education, 55, 1764–1771. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2010.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thode, B. (1989). Applying higher level thinking skills. The Technology Teacher, 49(2), 6–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thurstone, L. L. (1927). A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waetjen, W. B. (1989). Technological problem-solving: A proposal International Technology Education Association. Reston, VA: Technology Education Advisory Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, J. G. (2013). Integrative stem education at Virginia Tech: Graduate preparation for tomorrow’s leaders. The Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(5), 28–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wijnen, W. H. F. W. (2000). Towards design-based learning. Eindhoven: Eindhoven University of Technology, Educational Service Centre.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Scott R. Bartholomew.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bartholomew, S.R., Strimel, G.J. Factors influencing student success on open-ended design problems. Int J Technol Des Educ 28, 753–770 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9415-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9415-2

Keywords

Navigation