Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Investigation of Engineering Design Cognition and Achievement in Primary School

  • Published:
Journal for STEM Education Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the design cognition and achievement results of both kindergarten and fourth grade students engaged in engineering design-based instructional activities. Relationships between design cognition and student grade level, as well as quality of student work, were investigated. 30 concurrent think-aloud protocols were collected from individual primary students as they worked in groups to design and make a solution to a design task. The concurrent think-aloud protocols were examined and coded to determine the duration of time the participants devoted to a pre-established set of mental processes for technological problem solving. Significant differences between kindergarten and fourth grade participants were found in the amount of time various cognitive processes were employed. Fourth grade students dedicated significantly more time to the mental processes of Creating, Defining Problems, Measuring, and Testing than kindergarten students. In addition, when examining the think-aloud protocols along with the evaluations of the participant’s design work, it was found that more time devoted to the cognitive process of Managing could be a significant predictor of lower design achievement. These findings can highlight potential areas for improving educational practice based on the cognitive abilities of students at different grade levels and the quality of their design work. As engineering design-based activities become more prevalent for the teaching of STEM-related content and practices, the results of this research, and the employed methodology, may demonstrate a promising practice for better understanding and assessing such education efforts.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1998). Verbal protocol analysis as a method to document engineering student design processes. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(2), 121–132.

    Article  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., Strimel, G. J., & Jackson, A. (2017). A comparison of traditional and adaptive comparative judgment assessment techniques for freshman engineering design projects. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 20–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartholomew, S. R., Strimel, G. J., & Yoshikowa, E. (2018). Using adaptive comparative judgment for student formative feedback and learning during a middle school open-ended design challenge. International Journal of Design & Technology Education.

  • 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 2012 Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.

  • Blanchard, P., & Suhr, J. (1999). My bug box. Katonah: Richard C. Owen Publishers, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., French, B. F., & Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2012). Engineering identity development among pre-adolescent learners. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 698–716.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carr, R. L., Bennett IV, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K- 12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. (2002). How the child’s mind develops? London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, B. H. (2007). Explaining psychological statistics (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crossland, J. (2015). Is Piaget wrong? Primary Science, 137, 30–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 30(3), 11–17.

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is Elementary: An Engineering and Technology Curriculum for Children. Paper presented at ASSE Annual Conference and Exposition, Honolulu, HI. Retrived from http://www.eie.org/sites/default/files/research_article/research_file/ac2007full8.pdf

  • Dutson, A., Todd, R., Magleby, S., & Sorensen, C. (1997). A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2016). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs. Baltimore: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/T001-17-18-ETAC-Criteria-10-29-16.

    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 

  • Grubbs, M. E. (2013). Bridging design cognition research and theory with teaching and learning. New Zealand: Published Proceedings of the Pupil's Attitudes Toward Technology International Conference, Christ Church.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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).

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

  • Grubbs, M. E., & Strimel, G. J. (2016). 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, June 26, 2016.

  • Halfin, H. H. (1973) Technology: A process approach. (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University, 1973) Dissertation Abstracts International, (1) 1111A.

  • Hall, M. (2006). Dragonflies. Mankato: Capstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammack, R., Ivey, T. A., Utley, J., & High, K. A. (2015). Effect of an engineering camp on students’ perceptions of engineering and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(2), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegedus, T. (2014). Engineering education for youth: Diverse elementary school students' experiences with engineering design (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://eie.org/sites/default/files/research_article/research_file/hegedus-dissertation-final-dec2014.pdf.

  • 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 

  • International Technology and Engineering Educators Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

  • 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 

  • Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 50–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T., & Sung, E. (2017). Examining elementary school students’ transfer of learning through engineering design using think-aloud protocol analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., Brenner, D. C., & Pieper, J. T. (2010). Two approaches to engineering design: Observations in stem education. Journal of stem Teacher Education, 47(2), 5–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., Capobianco, B. M., & Kaluf, K. J. (2015). Concurrent think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolpin, M. (2014). Great women of the civil war. Mankato: Capstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kruger, C., & Cross, N. (2006). Solution driven versus problem driven design: Strategies and outcomes. Design Studies, 27(5), 527–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammi, M. D., & Becker, K. (2013). Engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 24(2), 55–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lammi, M. D. & Gero, J. S. (2011). Comparing design cognition of undergraduate engineering students and high school pre-engineering students. Paper presented at the 2011 Frontiers in Education Conference, Rapid City, SD.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullar, H. (2015). Am I really teaching engineering to elementary students? Science & Children, 52(7), 80–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHugh, M. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mechisedech, K. (2011). The terrible, awful civil war. Mankato: Capstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, N. (2014). Team based engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education, 25(2), 52–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

  • Polacco, P. (1994). Pink and say. New York: Babushka Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, A. T., Gero, J. S., Edwards, H., & McNeill, T. (1996). The data in design protocols: The issue of data coding, data analysis in the development of models of the design process. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 225–252). Chichester: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seery, N., Buckley, J., Doyle, A., & Canty, D. (2016). The validity and reliability of Adaptive Comparative Judgements in the assessment of graphical capability. In Proceedings of the 71st Mid-Year Conference of the Engineering Design Graphics Division (pp. 104–109).

  • 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. J. (2014). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3662376).

  • Strimel, G. J., Grubbs, M. E, & Wells, J. G. (2016). Engineering education: A clear decision. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(4), 18–24.

  • Strimel, G. J., Bartholomew, S. R., Kim, E., & Cantu, D. V. (2018). Examining engineering design cognition with respect to student performance. International Journal of Engineering Education. 34(6), 1–20.

  • Sutherland, P. (1992). Cognitive development today : Piaget and his critics. London: P. Chapman Pub.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, A. (2010). Toads. Mankato: Capstone Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiten, W. (1992). Psychology: Themes and variations (2nd ed). California: Brooks Cole Publishing Company.

  • Welch, M., & Lim, H. S. (2000). The strategic thinking of novice designers: Discontinuity between theory and practice. Journal of Technology Studies, 26(2), 34–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Wilson, A. A., Smith, E. R., & Householder, D. L. (2013). High school students’ cognitive activity while solving authentic problems through engineering design processes. Atlanta: Published Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Greg J. Strimel, Scott R. Bartholomew, Eunhye Kim & Liwei Zhang

Authors
  1. Greg J. Strimel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Scott R. Bartholomew
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Eunhye Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Liwei Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Greg J. Strimel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Strimel, G.J., Bartholomew, S.R., Kim, E. et al. An Investigation of Engineering Design Cognition and Achievement in Primary School. Journal for STEM Educ Res 1, 173–201 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0008-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-018-0008-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation