Are their designs iterative or fixated? Investigating design patterns from student digital footprints in computer-aided design software

This paper investigates iteration and fixation in design by mining digital footprints left by designers. High school students used computer-aided design software to create buildings in an urban area, with the goal of applying passive solar design techniques to ensure optimal solar gains of the buildings throughout a year. Students were required to complete three different designs. Fine-grained data including design actions, intermediate artifacts, and reflection notes were logged. Computational analytics programs were developed to mine the logs through three indicators: (a) frequency of the action of using energy analysis tools; (b) solar performance of the final designs; and (c) difference in solar performance between the prototype and final designs. Triangulating results from the indicators suggests three types of iteration—efficacious, inadequate and ineffective. Over half of the participants were detected as being efficacious iterative during the first design and becoming more and more fixated toward the end of the project, which resonates with previous findings on fixation effect among college students and professional designers. Overall the results demonstrate the power of applying computational analytics to investigate complex design processes. Findings from this work shed light on how to quantitatively assess and research student performance and processes during design projects.

[1]  T. B. Ward,et al.  The inadvertent use of prior knowledge in a generative cognitive task , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[2]  CHARLES XIE,et al.  Time series analysis method for assessing engineering design processes using a CAD tool , 2014 .

[3]  Rahinah Ibrahim,et al.  Comparison of CAD and manual sketching tools for teaching architectural design , 2010 .

[4]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  A Case Study of Problem-Based Learning in a Middle-School Science Class: Lessons Learned , 1996, ICLS.

[5]  Masaki Suwa,et al.  Unexpected discoveries and S-invention of design requirements , 2000 .

[6]  Henry Petroski,et al.  To Engineer is Human , 1985 .

[7]  Robert J. Youmans,et al.  Design fixation: Classifications and modern methods of prevention , 2014, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[8]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Problem-Based Learning Meets Case-Based Reasoning in the Middle-School Science Classroom: Putting Learning by Design(tm) Into Practice , 2003 .

[9]  R. Glaser,et al.  Knowing What Students Know: The Science and Design of Educational Assessment , 2001 .

[10]  S. J. Kline,et al.  Innovation Is Not a Linear Process , 1985 .

[11]  R. Marx,et al.  Design‐based science and student learning , 2004 .

[12]  V. Shute,et al.  Stealth Assessment: Measuring and Supporting Learning in Video Games , 2013 .

[13]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Comparing freshman and senior engineering design processes: an in-depth follow-up study , 2005 .

[14]  J. Sinnott A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everyday and abstract problem solving. , 1989 .

[15]  John S. Gero,et al.  An evolutionary process model of design , 1992 .

[16]  Robin Adams,et al.  The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix , 2012 .

[17]  S. Papert The children's machine: rethinking school in the age of the computer , 1993 .

[18]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners , 2007 .

[19]  C.J. Atman,et al.  Cognitive processes in iterative design behavior , 1999, FIE'99 Frontiers in Education. 29th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference. Designing the Future of Science and Engineering Education. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.99CH37011.

[20]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in A Digital World , 1996 .

[21]  Robert P. Smith,et al.  Experimental observation of iteration in engineering design , 1998 .

[22]  Sean Brophy,et al.  Advancing Engineering Education in P‐12 Classrooms , 2008 .

[23]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes , 1999 .

[24]  Clive L. Dym,et al.  Engineering Design: A Synthesis of Views , 1994 .

[25]  Robin Adams,et al.  Assessment of an International Freshmen Research and Design Experience: A Triangulation Study* , 2002 .

[26]  R. Weisberg,et al.  Following the wrong footsteps: fixation effects of pictorial examples in a design problem-solving task. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[27]  Brigitte Moench,et al.  Engineering Design A Systematic Approach , 2016 .

[28]  David H. Jonassen,et al.  Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes , 1997 .

[29]  David Radcliffe,et al.  Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design , 2009, Comput. Aided Des..

[30]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Educating effective engineering designers: the role of reflective practice , 2003 .

[31]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[32]  Neil T. Heffernan,et al.  Addressing the assessment challenge with an online system that tutors as it assesses , 2009, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[33]  Janet L. Kolodner,et al.  Designing to Learn About Complex Systems , 2000 .

[34]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design and other types of fixation , 1996 .

[35]  Philip M. Sadler,et al.  Engineering Competitions in the Middle School Classroom: Key Elements in Developing Effective Design Challenges , 2000 .

[36]  Jeffrey V. Nickerson,et al.  A fix for fixation? Rerepresenting and abstracting as creative processes in the design of information systems , 2010, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[37]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution , 2001 .

[38]  Amy Pallant,et al.  On the instructional sensitivity of CAD logs , 2014 .

[39]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  A Study of Design Fixation, Its Mitigation and Perception in Engineering Design Faculty , 2010 .

[40]  Jody Clarke,et al.  Predicting Successful Inquiry Learning in a Virtual Performance Assessment for Science , 2013, UMAP.

[41]  Walter G. Vincenti,et al.  What Engineers Know and How They Know It: Analytical Studies from Aeronautical History , 1990 .

[42]  Jonathan Cagan,et al.  The role of timing and analogical similarity in the stimulation of idea generation in design , 2008 .

[43]  Reid Bailey,et al.  Assessing Engineering Design Process Knowledge , 2006 .

[44]  Maria M. Ferreira,et al.  The Impact of Problem Based Learning (PBL) on Student Attitudes toward Science, Problem-Solving Skills, and Sense of Community in the Classroom. , 2012 .

[45]  Mary Hill,et al.  Making Classroom Assessment Work , 2000 .

[46]  Oded Maimon,et al.  The design process: properties, paradigms, and structure , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[47]  L.J. Leifer,et al.  Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning , 2005, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[48]  Matti Perttula,et al.  The idea exposure paradigm in design idea generation , 2007 .

[49]  Polly Brown,et al.  CAD: Do Computers Aid the Design Process After All? , 2009 .

[50]  Julie S. Linsey,et al.  Physical Models in Idea Generation: Hindrance or Help? , 2010 .

[51]  Steven M. Smith,et al.  Incubation and the persistence of fixation in problem solving. , 1991, The American journal of psychology.

[52]  M. Trow American Higher Education , 1988 .