Background: Design and science inquiry are intertwined during engineering practice. In this study, we examined the relationship between design behaviors and scientific explanations. Data on student design processes were collected as students engaged in a project on designing energy-efficient buildings on a blank square city block surrounded by existing buildings using a computer-aided design program, Energy3D, with built-in solar energy simulation capabilities. We used criterion sampling to select two highly reflective students among 63 high school students. Results: The main data sources were design replays (automatic playback of student design sequences within the CAD software) and electronic notes taken by the students. We identified evidence of informed design such as problem framing, idea fluency, and balancing benefits and trade-offs. Opportunities for meaningful science learning through engineering design occurred when students attempted to balance design benefits and trade-offs. Conclusions: The results suggest that design projects used in classrooms should emphasize trade-off analysis and include time and resources for supporting trade-off decisions through experimentation and reflection. Future research should explore ways to visualize patterns of design behavior based on large samples of students.

Many pedagogical innovations aim to integrate engineering design and science learning. However, students frequently show little attempt or have difficulties in connecting their design projects with the underlying science. Drawing upon the Cultural‐Historical Activity Theory, we argue that the design tools available in a learning environment implicitly shape knowledge development as they mediate students’ design actions. To explore the roles of tools in design‐science integrated learning environments, this study investigated how secondary students’ tool‐mediated design actions were linked with their science learning in a tool‐rich design environment with minimal explicit guidance. Eighty‐three ninth‐grade students completed an energy‐efficient home design challenge in a simulated environment for engineering design supported by rich design tools. Results showed that students substantially improved their knowledge as a result of designing with the tools. Further, their learning gains were positively associated with three types of design actions—representation, analysis, and reflection—measured by the cumulative counts of relevant computer logs. In addition, these design actions were linked with learning gains in ways that were consistent with their theoretical impacts on knowledge development. These findings suggest that, instead of being passive components in a learning environment, tools considerably shape design processes, and learning paths. As such, tools offer possibilities to help bridge the design‐science gap. © 2017 The Authors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 9999:1049–1096, 2017

Engineering design is a complex process. The design process cannot be assessed based solely on a product or as a simple test because there is no single perfect design for a problem. An important design strategy is the conduction of experiments. Informed designers carry out experiments and use their outcomes to inform their next steps. On the other hand, beginning designers do little or no experiments, and the few experiments they do involve confounding variables. These behaviours that differentiate beginning and informed designers are not easy to assess in educational settings because they occur throughout the design process. This paper proposes and evaluates a model to analyze student interactions with a CAD tool in order to identify and characterize the different strategies students use to conduct experiments. A two-fold study is carried out to validate the model. The first phase uses the clickstream data of 51 middle school students working on a design project to create a net-zero energy house. The analysis of clickstream data is compared to a qualitative analysis of an open-ended posttest. The second phase correlates the number of experiments students did to the student prototype quality. The results suggest that the proposed model can be used to identify, characterize, and assess student strategies to conduct experiments.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the world in 2020 by spreading at unprecedented rates and causing tens of thousands of fatalities within a few months. The number of deaths dramatically increased in regions where the number of patients in need of hospital care exceeded the availability of care. Many COVID-19 patients experience Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), a condition that can be treated with mechanical ventilation. In response to the need for mechanical ventilators, designed and tested an emergency ventilator (EV) that can control a patient’s peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and breathing rate, while keeping a positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP). This article describes the rapid design, prototyping, and testing of the EV. The development process was enabled by rapid design iterations using additive manufacturing (AM). In the initial design phase, iterations between design, AM, and testing enabled a working prototype within one week. The designs of the 16 different components of the ventilator were locked by additively manufacturing and testing a total of 283 parts having parametrically varied dimensions. In the second stage, AM was used to produce 75 functional prototypes to support engineering evaluation and animal testing. The devices were tested over more than two million cycles. We also developed an electronic monitoring system and with automatic alarm to provide for safe operation, along with training materials and user guides. The final designs are available online under a free license. The designs have been transferred to more than 70 organizations in 15 countries. This project demonstrates the potential for ultra-fast product design, engineering, and testing of medical devices needed for COVID-19 emergency response.

No abstract

Article HistoryIn schools, design projects can be implemented at a variety of ways and with varying degrees of resources from teachers and schools. However, little work has been done on the differences between student learning outcomes and the type of design projects. This study compares two design projects implemented in 7 th grade classrooms (n=677) at two different schools to explain affordances of each approach based on differences in project authenticity, scale, and depth of context in supporting student learning outcomes. The main data sources were an engineering science test and a design reasoning elicitation problem, administered at each school before and after the design project. To understand the relationship between students' science learning gains and school implementation, we conducted a sign test to compare between-group differences and a Mann Whitney Test to compare within-group differences. Then, we performed a content analysis to examine students' design reasoning and a two-way contingency table analysis to understand if a student's school implementation was related to the changes in design trade-off reasoning. Students at both schools exhibited statistically significant but small gains on their engineering science test scores. While students at the school with a more interdisciplinary, more authentic design project had higher scores on the engineering science test, students at the school with a smaller scale implementation discussed more trade-off factors in their design reasoning elicitation problem. These findings suggest that differences in project implementation appear to be associated with different learning outcomes, and there are potential benefits to both authenticity and simplicity in design projects.

She holds a PhD in Education, an MS in Materials Science and Engineering, and a BS in Mechanical Engineering. Her research is in three interconnecting areas: cross-disciplinary thinking, acting, and being; design cognition and learning; and theories of change in transforming engineering education.

No abstract