Abstract
With the increasing importance of teaching STEM to young students, the engineering design process (EDP) has become a popular learning platform in K-12 STEM education. The engineering design process guides students in solving engineering problems, but there is a lack of understanding of how students utilize this process. In this study, we explored how iterative design activities form procedural patterns of the engineering design process using sequential analysis. We videotaped 48 engineering design sessions via the Concurrent Think-Aloud (CTA) protocol from elementary students grades 3–6 in the USA. The data was coded using Halfin’s codes. The sequential analyses identified the statistical significance of patterns from the repetitive design activities. The results indicate (1) there were two iterative recursions in the problem and solution phases, (2) questioning was a gateway to designing, (3) modeling and predicting occurred with designing, and (4) managing bridged the problem and solution phases. The study also found that different design contexts yield distinctive procedural patterns. This result implies that engineering educators need to understand the proper use of the design process model.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to the request made in the consent forms issued to participants.
Abbreviations
- CCSSM:
-
Common Core State Standards for Mathematics
- CTA:
-
Concurrent Think-Aloud
- GSEQ:
-
Generalized Sequential Querier
- NGSS:
-
Next Generation Science Standards
- STEM:
-
Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
- SLED:
-
Science Learning through Engineering Design
References
Arık, M., & Topçu, M. S. (2020). Implementation of engineering design process in the K-12 science classrooms: Trends and issues. Research in Science Education, 16(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09912-x
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes In K .W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.). The psychology of learning and motivation, 2, 89–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60422-3
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2015). GSEQ: Generalized Sequential 5.1.22. Available from http://www2.gsu.edu/~psyrab/gseq/
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.2307/1176008
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2003). Engineering philosophy. Dup Satellite.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637
Clarkson, J., & Eckert, C. (Eds.). (2004). Design process improvement: A review of current practice. London: Springer.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and the Council of Chief State School Officers.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Cross, N. (2021). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(01)00009-6
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
Elio, R., & Scharf, P. B. (1990). Modeling novice to expert shifts in problem-solving strategy and knowledge organization. Cognitive Science, 14(4), 579–639. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1404_4
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. MIT Press.
Estapa, A. T., & Tank, K. M. (2017). Supporting integrated STEM in the elementary classroom: A professional development approach centered on an engineering design challenge. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0058-3
Flavell, J. H., Miller, P. H., & Miller, S. A. (1993). Cognitive development. Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Fan, S. C., Yu, K. C., & Lin, K. Y. (2021). A framework for implementing an engineering-focused STEM curriculum. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(8), 1523–1541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10129-y
French, M. J. (1999). Conceptual design for engineers (3rd ed.). Springer-Verlag.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. Person Education.
Garry, F., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: A framework for develo** STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x
Haberman, S. J. (1978). Analysis of qualitative data: Vol.: 1- Introductory topics. Academic Press.
Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11(1), 1111A.
Hay, L., Duffy, A. H., McTeague, C., Pidgeon, L. M., Vuletic, T., & Grealy, M. (2017). A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: Design as search and exploration. Design Science, 3, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1017/dsj.2017.11
Hruschka, D., Schwartz, D., & St. John, D., Picone-Decaro, E., Jenkins, R., & Carey, J. (2004). Reliability in coding open-ended data: Lessons learned from HIV behavioral research. Field Methods, 16(3), 307–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X04266540
Hubka, V. (1980). Principles of engineering design. Butterworth Scientific.
Indiana Academic Standards. (2010). Indiana academic standards for science. Retrieved from https://www.in.gov/doe/students/indiana-academic-standards/
Jackson, A., Godwin, A., Bartholomew, S., & Mentzer, N. (2021). Learning from failure: A systematized review. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32, 1853–1873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09661-x
**, Y., & Benami, O. (2010). Creative patterns and stimulation in conceptual design. Ai Edam, 24(2), 191–209. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0890060410000053
**, Y., & Chusilp, P. (2006). Study of mental iteration in different design situations. Design Studies, 27(1), 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.003
Johnsey, R. (1995). The design process—Does it exist? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 199–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00769904
Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500
Junginger, S. (2007). Learning to design: Giving purpose to heart, hand and mind. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 59–65. https://doi.org/10.1108/02756660710760953
Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33(2), 363–374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
Lawson, B. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137908924589
Lu, C. C. (2015). The relationship between student design cognition types and creative design outcomes. Design Studies, 36, 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2014.08.002
Maltese, A. V., Simpson, A., & Anderson, A. (2018). Failing to learn: The impact of failures during making activities. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 30, 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2018.01.003
March, L. J. (1984). The logic of design. In N. Cross (Ed.), Developments in design methodology (pp. 265–276). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Meadows, S. (2006). The child as thinker: The development and acquisition of cognition in childhood (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105
Moodley, K., & Gaigher, E. (2019). Teaching electric circuits: Teachers’ perceptions and learners’ misconceptions. Research in Science Education, 49(1), 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9615-5
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165
Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483
The NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press.
Robson, S. (2006). Develo** thinking and understanding in young children: An introduction for students. Routledge.
Schnittka, J., & Schnittka, C. (2016). Can I drop it this time? Gender and collaborative group dynamics in an engineering design-based afterschool program. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(2), 1–24.
Shroyer, K., Lovins, T., Turns, J., Cardella, M. E., & Atman, C. J. (2018). Timescales and ideaspace: An examination of idea generation in design practice. Design Studies, 57, 9–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2018.03.004
Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: A sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/09544828.2022.2042498
Thornton, S. (2002). Growing minds: An introduction to cognitive development. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wendell, K. B., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. (2017). Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20173
Wynn, D. C., & Eckert, C. M. (2017). Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Research in Engineering Design, 28(2), 153–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3
Yu, K. C., Wu, P. H., & Fan, S. C. (2020). Structural relationships among high school students’ scientific knowledge, critical thinking, engineering design process, and design product. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(6), 1001–1022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10007-2
Acknowledgements
This article is written based on the first author’s Ph.D. dissertation, but focused on the iterative design process of engineering design.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation, grant numbers DUE-0962840.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Euisuk Sung contributed to the design and implementation of the study; led data collection, analysis, and interpretation; and writing and revising the manuscript. Todd Kelley contributed to the design of the study and revising the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval and Consent to Participant
The study presented in this paper had the Purdue University - Institutional Review Board’s approval. Therefore, all procedures performed in this study were under the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all students and parents included in the study.
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Disclaimer
Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Sung, E., Kelley, T.R. Elementary Students’ Engineering Design Process: How Young Students Solve Engineering Problems. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 21, 1615–1638 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10317-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10317-y