Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 195–208 | Cite as

Exploring Students’ Experimentation Strategies in Engineering Design Using an Educational CAD Tool

  • Ying Ying SeahEmail author
  • Alejandra J. MaganaEmail author
Article

Abstract

Experimentation is one of the important strategies used in engineering design to understand the relationship between relevant variables so that they can be manipulated to generate optimized solution for a particular problem or design. The understanding of students’ experimentation strategies allows educators to help students improve their design experiments by providing scaffolds or guidance. The purpose of this study is to investigate students’ experimentation strategies while they work on a design challenge. We performed a concurrent think-aloud to capture students’ verbal description of their actions while they designed using a CAD tool. Using mainly the think-aloud transcripts, we identified and characterized patterns of students’ experimentation strategies. In this study, we were able to identify four main activities whose combinations resulted in five different experimentation strategies performed by students, along with their explanation of their actions. Implications of this study relate to scientific argumentation, learning support, design of practical learning activities, and teacher encouragement.

Keywords

Engineering design Experimentation Expertise Think-aloud Computer-aided software 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported in part by the U.S. National Science Foundation under the award DLR 1503436. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this paper, however, are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the funding agency. In addition, we would like to acknowledge the Concord Consortium for providing access to Energy3D.

Funding

This research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation under the award DLR 1503436.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blumenfeld, P., Kempler, T., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, P. (2009). CAD: Do computers aid the design process after all? Intersect: The Stanford Journal of Science, Technology and Society, 2(1), 52–66.Google Scholar
  4. Charters, E. (2003). The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education Journal, 12(2).Google Scholar
  5. Coyle, H. P., Hines, J. L., Rasmussen, K. J., & Sadler, P. M. (2013). Challenges in physical science: Electromagnets (Teacher’s guide). ZENODO.Google Scholar
  6. Crismond, D. (2013). Design practices and misconceptions helping beginners in engineering design. The Science Teacher, 80(1), 50–55.Google Scholar
  7. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dasgupta, C., Magana, A. J., & Vieira, C. M. (2018). Investigating the affordances of a CAD enabled learning environment for promoting integrated STEM learning. Computers & Education.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.014
  9. de Jong, T. (2006). Technological advances in inquiry learning. Science.Google Scholar
  10. de Jong, T., Linn, M. C., & Zacharia, Z. C. (2013). Physical and virtual laboratories in science and engineering education. Science, 340(6130), 305–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  12. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem—Solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Driver, R., Asoko, H., Leach, J., Scott, P., & Mortimer, E. (1994). Constructing scientific knowledge in the classroom. Educational Research, 23(7), 5–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dutson, A. J., Todd, R. H., Magleby, S. P., & Sorensen, C. D. (1997). A review of literature on teaching engineering design through project-oriented capstone courses. Journal of Engineering Education, 86(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eng, N. L., Bracewell, R. H., & Clarkson, P. J. (2009). Concept diagramming software for engineering design support: a review and synthesis of studies. In ASME 2009 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 1221–1234). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar
  17. Gentner, D., & Smith, L. (2012). Analogical reasoning. Encyclopedia of human behavior, 1, 130–136.Google Scholar
  18. Groover, M., & Zimmers, E. W. J. R. (1983). CAD/CAM: Computer-aided design and manufacturing. Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  19. Hsu, P. S., Van Dyke, M., Chen, Y., & Smith, T. J. (2015). The effect of a graph-oriented computer-assisted project-based learning environment on argumentation skills. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 32–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19(4), 509–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolodner, J. L. (2008). Project-based inquiry science. Armonk: It's About Time.Google Scholar
  22. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lim, K. H., Buendía, G., Kim, O. K., Cordero, F., & Kasmer, L. (2010). The role of prediction in the teaching and learning of mathematics. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 41(5), 595–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering design: A systematic approach. London: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  26. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Purzer, S. S., Goldstein, M. H., Adams, R. S., Xie, C., & Nourian, S. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Romero-Zaldivar, V., Pardo, A., Burgos, D., & Delgado, C. (2012). Monitoring student progress using virtual appliances: a case study. Computers in Education, 58(4), 1058–1067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Schauble, L. (1990). Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49(1), 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seah, Y. Y., Vieira, C., Dasgupta, C., & Magana, A. J. (2016). Exploring students’ experimentation strategies in engineering design using an educational CAD tool. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE (pp. 1–5). IEEE.Google Scholar
  32. Seah, Y., Magana, A., Hartman, N., & Laux, D. (2017). Exploring student experimentation strategies in engineering design using an educational CAD tool (master’s thesis). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.Google Scholar
  33. Seepersad, C. C., Green, M. G., & Schmidt, K. J. (2006). Learning journals as a cornerstone for effective experiential learning in undergraduate engineering design courses. In Proceedings of 2006 ASEE Annual Conference.Google Scholar
  34. Simon, S., Johnson, S., Cavell, S., & Parsons, T. (2012). Promoting argumentation in primary science contexts: An analysis of students' interactions in formal and informal learning environments. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(5), 440–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sobek, D. K. (2002). Use of journals to evaluate student design processes. In Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Conference (pp. 16–19).Google Scholar
  36. Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Analyzing engineering design through the lens of computation. Journal of Learning Analytics, 1(2), 151–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Xie, C., Schimpf, C., Chao, J., Nourian, S., & Massicotte, J. (2018). Learning and teaching engineering design through modeling and simulation on a CAD platform, Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(4), 824–840.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21920
  38. Yang, M. C. (2009). Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zeidler, D. L. (1997). The central role of fallacious thinking in science education. Science Education, 81(4), 483–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations