Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating the Impact of Using a CAD Simulation Tool on Students’ Learning of Design Thinking

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

Abstract

Engineering design thinking is hard to teach and still harder to learn by novices primarily due to the undetermined nature of engineering problems that often results in multiple solutions. In this paper, we investigate the effect of teaching engineering design thinking to freshmen students by using a computer-aided Design (CAD) simulation software. We present a framework for characterizing different levels of engineering design thinking displayed by students who interacted with the CAD simulation software in the context of a collaborative assignment. This framework describes the presence of four levels of engineering design thinking—beginning designer, adept beginning designer, informed designer, adept informed designer. We present the characteristics associated with each of these four levels as they pertain to four engineering design strategies that students pursued in this study—understanding the design challenge, building knowledge, weighing options and making tradeoffs, and reflecting on the process. Students demonstrated significant improvements in two strategies—understanding the design challenge and building knowledge. We discuss the affordances of the CAD simulation tool along with the learning environment that potentially helped students move towards Adept informed designers while pursuing these design strategies.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ABET - Engineering Accreditation Commission (2016). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs: effective for reviews during the 2017 - 2018 accreditation cycle. Baltimore: ABET. http://www.abet.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/12/E001-17-18-EAC-Criteria-10-29-16-1.pdf. Accessed Jan 25 2018.

  • Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-694X(98)00031-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., & Adams, R. (2005). Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: An in-depth follow-up study. Design Studies, 26(4), 325–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, T., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4), 271–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol, 26(3–4), 369–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bratitsis, T., & Demetriadis, S. (2013). Research approaches in computer-supported collaborative learning. International Journal of e-Collaboration (IJeC), 9(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.4018/jec.2013010101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., Nyquist, C., & Tyrie, N. (2013). Shedding light on engineering design. Science and Children, 50(5), 58–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cerra, P. P., González, J. M. S., Parra, B. B., Ortiz, D. R., & Peñín, P. I. Á. (2014). Can interactive web-based CAD tools improve the learning of engineering drawing? A case study. Journal of Science Education and Technology., 23(3), 398–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-013-9471-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., Howland, J., & Jonassen, D. (2011). Designing with technology. In J. How-land, D. H. Jonassen, & R. M. Marra (Eds.), Meaningful learning with technology (4th ed., pp. 72–90). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D., & Adams, R. (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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies. In C. Eastman, W. Newstatter, & M. McCracken (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79–103). Oxford: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50005-X.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing (First ed.). London: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christophersen, E., Coupe, P. S., Lenschow, R. J., & Townson, J. (1994). Evaluation of civil and construction engineering education in Denmark. Copenhagen: Centre for Quality Assurance and Evaluation of higher education in Denmark.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, C. & Moher, T. (2014). Using deficient models as scaffolds for learning engineering concepts of tradeoffs and optimization. Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences. Boulder: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  • Dorst, K. (2003). The problem of design problems. Paper presented at the design thinking research symposium, Sydney, Australia.

  • Dorst, K & Reymen, I. (2004). Levels of expertise in design education. Paper presented at the International Engineering Conference and Product Design Education Conference. Delft: The Design Society.

  • Dorst, K., & Lawson, B. (2009). Design expertise. Oxford: Architectural press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its application. Design studies, 32(6), 521–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duderstadt, J. J. (2008). Engineering for a changing world. A roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. G., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2009). Learning progressions: Aligning curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 606–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20316.

    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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. D., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Introduction to the issue. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019705.04018.a3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. D., & Pallant, A. (2004). Fostering students’ epistemologies of models via authentic model-based tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 7–22. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019635.70068.6f.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Göl, Ö., & Nafalski, A. (2007). Collaborative learning in engineering education. Global Journal of Engineering Education, 11(2), 173–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, Ş., Mejia, C. V., Zielinski, M., & Douglas, K. A. (2015). Assessing idea fluency through the student design process. Paper presented at the Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). El Paso: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2015.7344207.

  • Haddock, C., Rindskopf, D., & Shadish, W. (1998). Using odds ratios as effect sizes for meta-analysis of dichotomous data: A primer on methods and issues. Psychological Methods, 3(3), 339–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.3.339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horwitz, P., & Barowy, B. (1994). Designing and using open-ended software to promote conceptual change. Journal of Science Education, 3(3), 161–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hsiung, C. M. (2012). The effectiveness of cooperative learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 119–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00044.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jornet, A., & Roth, W.-M. (2017). Design {thinking | communicating}: A sociogenetic approach to reflective practice in collaborative design. In B. Christensen, L. J. Ball, & K. Halskov (Eds.), Analyzing design thinking: Studies of cross-cultural co-creation (pp. 331–347). Boca Raton: CRC Press. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315208169-23.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–333). Cambridge: Cambridge University press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, G. D., & Radcliffe, D. F. (1998). Artefacting in a cross-discipline design team. Proceedings of DETC98. 1998 ASME design engineering technical conference. Atlanta: American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

  • Larmer, J., Mergendoller, J., & Boss, S. (2015). Setting the standard for project based learning. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magana, A., Brophy, S., & Bodner, G. (2012). Instructors’ intended learning outcomes for using computational simulations as learning tools. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(2), 220–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00049.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandinach, E. B., & Cline, H. F. (1996). Classroom dynamics: The impact of a technology-based curriculum innovation on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.2190/9MH6-LB76-7EF5-C43M.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. In Basics and techniques (7th edition, first edition 1983). Weinheim: German Studies publishing house.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mills, J. E., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Engineering education—Is problem-based or project-based learning the answer. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 3(2), 2–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oss, S. (2005). Computers with wings: Flight simulation and personalized landscapes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-2739-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional Science, 32(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021806.17516.d0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallant, A., & Tinker, R. F. (2004). Reasoning with atomic-scale molecular dynamic models. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JOST.0000019638.01800.d0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paton, B., & Dorst, K. (2011). Briefing and reframing: A situated practice. Design Studies, 32(6), 573–587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prendergast, L., & Etkina, E. (2014). Review of a first-year engineering design course. In Proceedings of the 121st American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis: American Society for Engineering Education. https://peer.asee.org/review-of-a-first-year-engineering-design-course. Accessed Jan 25 2018.

  • Purzer, Hathaway, Adams, Xie, & Nourian. (2015). An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM education, 2(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-015-0019-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramos, J., & Yokomoto, C. F. (1999). Making probabilistic methods real, relevant, and interesting using MATLAB. Paper presented at the 29th Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE). San Juan: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.1999.840378.

  • Rates, C., Mulvey, B., & Feldon, D. (2016). Promoting conceptual change for complex systems understanding: Outcomes of an agent-based participatory simulation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 610–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9616-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, B. F., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 136–146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2008.06.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W.-M. (1995). Inventors, copycats, and everyone else: The emergence of shared resources and practices as defining aspects of classroom cultures. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic books, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, S. D., Macatangay, K., Anne, C., & William, S. (2009). Educating Engineers: Designing for the Future of the Field. Stanford: Jossey-bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence., 4(3-4), 181–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snir, J., Smith, C., & Grosslight, L. (1993). Conceptually enhanced simulations: A computer tool for science teaching. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 2(2), 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00694526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stier, K. W. (2003). Teaching lean manufacturing concepts through project-based learning and simulation. Journal of Industrial Technology, 19(4), 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stump, G. S., Hilpert, J. C., Husman, J., Chung, W. T., & Kim, W. (2011). Collaborative learning in engineering students: Gender and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 475–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00023.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taleyarkhan, M. R., & Dasgupta, C., & Mendoza-Garcia, J. A., & Magana, A. J., & Purzer, S. (2016), Investigating the impact of an educational CAD modeling tool on student design thinking. In Proceedings of the 123rd ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. New Orleans: American Society for Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.25485.

  • Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (1995). Product design and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, C., Goldstein, M. H., Purzer, Ş., & Magana, A. J. (2016). Using learning analytics to characterize student experimentation strategies in the context of engineering design. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(3), 291–317. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Zhang, Nourian, Pallant, & Hazzard. (2014). Time series analysis method for assessing engineering design processes using a CAD tool. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 218–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youmans, R. J., & Arciszewski, T. (2012). Design fixation: A cloak of many colors. In J. Gero (Ed.), Design Computing and Cognition'12. Dordrecht: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9112-0_7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research reported in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation under the award DRL 1503436 and 1151019. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Manaz Taleyarkhan

    Present address: Northrop Grumman, Falls Church, VA, 22042, USA

  2. Chandan Dasgupta

    Present address: Interdisciplinary Program in Educational Technology, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, 400076, India

  3. John Mendoza Garcia

    Present address: Institute for Excellence in Engineering Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 32611, USA

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer and Information Technology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    Manaz Taleyarkhan, Chandan Dasgupta & Alejandra J. Magana

  2. School of Engineering Education, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, 47906, USA

    John Mendoza Garcia & Alejandra J. Magana

Authors
  1. Manaz Taleyarkhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chandan Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Mendoza Garcia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Alejandra J. Magana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chandan Dasgupta.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taleyarkhan, M., Dasgupta, C., Garcia, J.M. et al. Investigating the Impact of Using a CAD Simulation Tool on Students’ Learning of Design Thinking. J Sci Educ Technol 27, 334–347 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9727-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9727-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation