Examining Middle School Students’ Engineering Design Processes in a Design Workshop

  • Ninger ZhouEmail author
  • Nielsen Pereira
  • Senthil Chandrasegaran
  • Tarun Thomas George
  • Joran Booth
  • Karthik Ramani


Design thinking has an important role in STEM education. However, there has been limited research on how students engage in various modalities throughout the design process in hands-on design tasks. To promote middle school students’ engineering literacy, it is necessary to examine the use of design modalities during design. Using a case study approach, we examine middle school students’ design stages and modalities during design activities. We also identify the patterns of design processes in the teams with different design outcomes. Drawing on theories in design thinking and embodied interaction, we proposed a framework and devised a video analysis protocol to examine students’ design stages and modalities. Middle school students attending a design workshop engaged in two design activities in teams of 3–4 people. The design sessions were video recorded and analyzed using the video analysis protocol. The teams engaged in the stages of planning, building, and testing, while employing the verbal, the visual, and the physical modalities. The teams that varied in design outcomes exhibited different patterns in the use of multiple modalities during the design stages. This study contributes to research on design thinking by proposing a framework for analyzing middle school students’ multimodal design processes and presenting data visualization methods to identify patterns in design stages and modalities. The findings suggest the necessity to examine students’ use of design modalities in the context of design stages and imply the potential benefits of using multiple modalities during design. The implications for future research and education practices are also discussed.


Engineering design Design thinking Middle school Design processes 



  1. Ainsworth, S. (1999). The functions of multiple representations. Computers & Education, 33(2–3), 131–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atman, C. J., & Bursic, K. M. (1996). Teaching engineering design: Can reading a textbook make a difference? Research in Engineering Design, 8, 240–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atman, C. J., Kilgore, D., & McKenna, A. F. (2008). Characterizing design learning: A mixed-methods study of engineering designers’ use of language. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bankel, J., Berggren, K.-F., Engstro È M, Wiklund, I., Crawley, E. F., Soderholm, D., … Stlund, O. È. (2005). Benchmarking engineering curricula with the CDIO syllabus*. International Journal of Engineering Education, 21(1), 121–133.Google Scholar
  6. Best, D. J., & Roberts, D. E. (1975). Algorithm AS 89: The upper tail probabilities of Spearman’s rho. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 24(3), 377–379.Google Scholar
  7. Booth, J. W., Reid, T. N., Eckert, C., & Ramani, K. (2015). Comparing Functional Analysis Methods for Product Dissection Tasks. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 137(8).
  8. Booth, J. W., Taborda, E. A., Ramani, K., & Reid, T. (2016). Interventions for teaching sketching skills and reducing inhibition for novice engineering designers. In Design Studies (Vol. 43, pp. 1–23). Elsevier Ltd. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brereton, M. (2004). Distributed cognition in engineering design: Negotiating between abstract and material representations. In G. Goldschmidt & W. L. Porter (Eds.), Design Representation (pp. 83–103). London: Springer.
  10. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2015). Design thinking for social innovation. Annual Review of Policy Design, 3(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. Carlson, L. E., Sullivan, J. F., & Franklin, B. (1999). Hands-on engineering: Learning by doing in the integrated teaching and learning program. International Journal of Engineering Education, 15(1), 20–31.Google Scholar
  13. Cham, J. G., & Yang, M. C. (2005). Does sketching skill relate to good design? In Proceedings of ASME international design engineering technical conferences and computers and information in engineering conference (Vol. 2005, pp. 1–8). Long Beach, CA: ASME.Google Scholar
  14. Clark, A. (2009). Supersizing the mind. Philosophical Psychology (Vol. 22). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Committee on STEM Education. (2018). Charting a course for success: America’s strategy for stem education. Washington, DC.: National Science and Technology Council.Google Scholar
  16. Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2005). Engineering Creativity: A Systems Concept of Functional Creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 169–185). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
  17. de Vries, E. (2006). Students’ construction of external representations in design-based learning situations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Deckner, D. F., Adamson, L. B., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Child and maternal contributions to shared reading: Effects on language and literacy development. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Demirkan, H., & Afacan, Y. (2012). Assessing creativity in design education: Analysis of creativity factors in the first-year design studio. Design Studies, 33(3), 262–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dong, A. (2007). The enactment of design through language. Design Studies, 28(1), 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dorst, K. (2004). On the problem of design problems-problem solving and design expertise. Journal of Design Research, 4(2), 185–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem-solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. F., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 103–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dym, C. L., Little, P., Orwin, E., & Spjut, E. (2009). Engineering design: A project-based introduction. New York: John Wiley and sons.Google Scholar
  25. English, L. D., Hudson, P., & Dawes, L. (2013). Engineering-based problem solving in the middle school: Design and construction with simple machines. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(2), 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fish, J., & Scrivener, S. (1990). Amplifying the mind’s eye: Sketching and visual cognition. Leonardo, 23(1), 117–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hathcock, S. J., Dickerson, D. L., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based STEM activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hennessey, M. P., & Johnson, M. D. (2010). Design and manufacture of a museum-grade children’s indoor trebuchet by mechanical engineering students. International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Education, 38(1), 28–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hernandez, N. V., Schmidt, L. C., & Okudan, G. E. (2013). Systematic ideation effectiveness study of TRIZ. Journal of Mechanical Design, 135(10), 101009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies, 29(2), 160–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacobs, J. K., Kawanaka, T., & Stigler, J. W. (1999). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to the analysis of video data on classroom teaching. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(8), 717–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirsh, D. (2013). Embodied cognition and the magical future of interaction design. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 20(1), 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kudrowitz, B. M., & Wallace, D. (2013). Assessing the quality of ideas from prolific, early-stage product ideation. Journal of Engineering Design, 24(2), 120–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kuhn, D. (2006). Do cognitive changes accompany developments in the adolescent brain? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(1), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lamancusa, J., Jorgensen, J. E., & Fridley, J. L. (1996). Product dissection-a tool for benchmarking in the process of teaching design. In Technology-Based Re-Engineering Engineering Education Proceedings of Frontiers in Education FIE’96 26th Annual Conference (pp. 1317–1321).Google Scholar
  37. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan, E., Kay, K., & Milstein, B. (1998). Codebook development for team-based qualitative analysis. CAM Journal, 10(2), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. MacQueen, K. M., McLellan-Lemal, E., Bartholow, K., & Milstein, B. (2008). Team-based codebook development: structure, process, and agreement. In G. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 119–135). Lanham, Maryland: Altamira Press.Google Scholar
  39. Marchese, A. J., Ramachandran, R. P., Hesketh, R. P., Schmalzel, J. L., & Newell, H. L. (2003). The competitive assessment laboratory: Introducing engineering design via consumer product benchmarking. IEEE Transactions on Education, 46(1), 197–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39.
  41. McGown, A., Green, G., & Rodgers, P. A. (1998). Visible ideas: Information patterns of conceptual sketch activity. Design Studies, 19(4), 431–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McHugh, M. L. (2012). Lessons in biostatistics interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemica Medica, 22(3), 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McKoy, F. L., Vargas-Hernández, N., Summers, J. D., & Shah, J. J. (2001). Influence of design representation on effectiveness of idea generation. In Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference (pp. 1–10). PIttsburgh, PA.Google Scholar
  44. McPherson, J. W. (2010). Reliability Physics and Engineering:Time-To-Failure Modeling. Boston, MA: Springer. Scholar
  45. Mehta, C. M., & Strough, J. (2010). Gender segregation and gender-typing in adolescence. Sex Roles, 63(3), 251–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mentzer, N., Huffman, T., & Thayer, H. (2014). High school student modeling in the engineering design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(3), 293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, T. M., & Geraci, L. (2011). Unskilled but aware: Reinterpreting overconfidence in low-performing students. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory and Cognition, 37(2), 502–506.Google Scholar
  49. Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nathan, M. J., Srisurichan, R., Walkington, C., Wolfgram, M., Williams, C., & Alibali, M. W. (2013). Building cohesion across representations: A mechanism for STEM integration. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 77–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neroni, M. A., Vasconcelos, L. A., & Crilly, N. (2017). Computer-based “mental set” tasks: An alternative approach to studying design fixation. Journal of Mechanical Design, 139(7), 071102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states (vol. 1, The Standards). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Accessed 6 Jun 2019.
  53. Ostafichuk, P. M., Naylor, C., & Fengler, M. (2014). Measuring the influence of team functioning on design project outcomes. Proc. of the 2014 Canadian Engineering Education Association Annual Conference, (p. 7 pages). Canmore,AB.Google Scholar
  54. Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K.-H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach. London: Springer. Scholar
  55. Powell, D. R., Burchinal, M. R., File, N., & Kontos, S. (2008). An eco-behavioral analysis of children’s engagement in urban public school preschool classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 108–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Purzer, Ş. (2011). The relationship between team discourse, self-efficacy, and individual achievement: A sequential mixed-methods study. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 655–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reid, F. J. M., & Reed, S. E. (2005). Speaker-centredness and participatory listening in pre-expert engineering design teams. CoDesign, 1(1), 39–60 Article.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Modeling design as situated and distributed process. Learning and Instruction, 11(3), 211–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Safoutin, M. J. 2003. A methodology for empirical measurement of iteration in engineering design processes. Ph.D. thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
  62. Sarkar, P., & Chakrabarti, A. (2011). Assessing design creativity. Design Studies, 32(4), 348–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shah, J., & Smith, S. M. (2003). Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Design Studies, 24(2), 111–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Simpson, A., Burris, A., & Maltese, A. (2017). Youth’s engagement as scientists and engineers in an afterschool making and tinkering program. Research in Science Education, 1–22.
  65. Sobek, D. K., & Jain, V. K. (2007). Relating design process to quality: A virtual design of experiments approach. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(5), 483–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Suchman, L. (2000). Embodied practices of engineering work. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 7(1–2), 4–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Science, technology, engineering, and math: Education for global leadership. Retrieved from
  68. Vanasupa, L., Stolk, J., & Herter, R. J. (2009). The four-domain development diagram: A guide for holistic design of effective learning experiences for the twenty-first century engineer. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., Benbow, C. P., & Steiger, J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) and Its Relation to STEM Educational Dose: A 25-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860–871. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Walkington, C. A., Nathan, M. J., Wolfgram, M., Alibali, M. W., & Srisurichan, R. (2014). Bridges and barriers to constructing conceptual cohesion across modalities and temporalities: Challenges of STEM integration in the pre-college engineering classroom. In Ş. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in Pre-College Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices (pp. 183–210). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Westmoreland, S., Ruocco, A., & Schmidt, L. (2011). Analysis of capstone design reports: Visual representations. Journal of Mechanical Design, 133(5), 051010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Whitebread, D., Coltman, P., Pasternak, D. P., Sangster, C., Grau, V., Bingham, S., Almeqdad, Q., & Demetriou, D. (2009). The development of two observational tools for assessing metacognition and self-regulated learning in young children. Metacognition and Learning, 4(1), 63–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Whitfield, C. F., & Xie, S. X. (2002). Correlation of problem-based learning facilitators’ scores with student performance on written exams. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 7(1), 41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yang, M. C., & Cham, J. G. (2007). An analysis of sketching skill and its role in early stage engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 129(5), 476–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zhou, N., Pereira, N. L., George, T. T., Alperovich, J., Booth, J., Chandrasegaran, S., & Ramani, K. (2017). The Influence of Toy Design Activities onMiddle School Students’ Understanding of the Engineering Design Processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 1–13. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations