Identifying design process patterns: a sequential analysis study of design thinking
Tóm tắt
Design is a key element of both the teaching and learning of engineering and technology. However, the process of engineering design has yielded limited research results. This study explored the iterative design process by searching for sequential design thinking patterns. The researchers collected nine concurrent think-aloud protocols from fourth-grade elementary students. The study identified that idea generation plays a central role in design that features the dominant use of time. In addition, the researchers revealed significant pathways in design thinking and built a design pattern model. The results will not only help engineering and technology educators the understanding of design behavior, but also support the harmonious matching of learning and teaching styles in engineering and technology education.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allison, P. D., & Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A comment on Gottman. Psychological Bulletin, 91(2), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.91.2.393.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., Sorensen, C. K., & Walker, D. (2014). Introduction to research in education. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.
Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design process: 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.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00332.x.
Bakeman, R., & Brownlee, J. R. (1980). The strategic use of parallel play: A sequential analysis. Child Development, 51(3), 873–878. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129476.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2015). Generalized sequential [Computer software]. Retrieved from http://www.gsu.edu/~psyrab/gseq/. Accessed May 2017.
Blount, R. L., Corbin, S. M., Sturges, J. W., Wolfe, V. V., Prater, J. M., & James, L. D. (1989). The relationship between adults’ behavior and child coping and distress during BMA/LP procedures: A sequential analysis. Behavior Therapy, 20(4), 585–601. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7894(89)80136-4.
Bousbaci, R. (2008). “Models of Man” in design thinking: The “Bounded Rationality” episode. Design Issues, 24(4), 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2008.24.4.38.
Bucciarelli, L. L. (2003). Engineering philosophy. Delft: Delft University Press.
Buchanan, R. (1992). Wicked problems in design thinking. Design Issues, 8(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511637.
Clarkson, J., & Eckert, C. (2004). Design process improvement: A review of current practice. London: Springer.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design. New York, NY: Wiley.
Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.06.002.
Cross, N. (2008). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (4th ed.). Chichester: Wiley.
Dorst, K. (2006). Design problems and design paradoxes. Design Issues, 22(3), 4–17. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi.2006.22.3.4.
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.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1998). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040.
Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1603_3.
Goldschmidt, G. (1991). The dialectics of sketching. Creativity Research Journal, 4(2), 123–143. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534381.
Gottman, J., Markman, H., & Notarius, C. (1977). The topography of marital conflict: A sequential analysis of verbal and nonverbal behavior. Journal of Marriage and the Family. https://doi.org/10.2307/350902.
Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach. (Doctoral dissertation, West Virginia University) Dissertation Abstracts International, (1) 1111A.
Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem solving in real-life contexts: An alternative for design in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 203–220. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008854926028.
Hubka, V. (1982). Principles of engineering design. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Indiana Department of Education. (2010). Indiana Academic Standards for Science. Retrieved from http://www.doe.in.gov/standards/science-computer-science. Accessed May 2017.
International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.
Jeong, A. C. (2003). The sequential analysis of group interaction and critical thinking online. The American Journal of Distance Education, 17(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15389286AJDE1701_3.
Jin, 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.
Justice, L. M., Weber, S. E., Ezell, H. K., & Bakeman, R. (2002). A sequential analysis of children’s responsiveness to parental print references during shared book-reading interactions. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11(1), 30–40. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2002/004).
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Kelley, T. R. (2010). Design assessment: Consumer reports style. The Technology Teacher, 69(8), 12–16.
Koen, B. V. (2003). Discussion of the method: Conducting the engineer’s approach to problem solving. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.
Lawson, B. R. (1979). Cognitive strategies in architectural design. Ergonomics, 22(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140137908924589.
Lawson, B. R., & Dorst, K. (2009). Design expertise. Burlington, MA: Elsevier.
Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20111.
Locke, K., Golden-Biddle, K., & Feldman, M. S. (2008). Making doubt generative: rethinking the role of doubt in the research process. Organization Science, 19(6), 907–918. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1080.3098.
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.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mosborg, S., & Adams, R., & Kim, R., & Cardella, M., & Atman, C., & Turns, J. (2005). Conceptions of the engineering design process: An expert study of advanced practicing professionals. Paper presented at 2005 Annual Conference, Portland, OR. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/14999. Accessed June 2005.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4, 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(73)90011-8.
Tversky, B. (2003). Structures of mental spaces how people think about space. Environment and behavior, 35(1), 66–80.
Tversky, B., & Suwa, M. (2009). Thinking with sketches. In A. Markman & K. Wood (Eds.), Tools for innovation (pp. 75–84). London: Oxford Scholarship Online.
van der Lugt, R. (2005). How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Design Studies, 26(2), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2004.08.003.
Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science and Technical Education, 17(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0263514990170102.
Yilmaz, S., & Daly, S. R. (2016). Feedback in concept development: Comparing design disciplines. Design Studies, 45(Part A), 137–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2015.12.008.