Turning Experiments into Objects: The Cognitive Processes Involved in the Design of a Lab‐on‐a‐Chip Device

Background Increasingly, modern engineers are designing miniature devices that integrate complex activities, actions, processes, or operations involving many steps, persons, and equipment; a good example is a microfluidic lab-on-a-chip device. The design of such devices is cognitively demanding and requires the generation of multiple model representations, which are used in an iterative fashion to analyze and improve prototype designs. Purpose This study addresses two questions: How are various representations and prototypes used in the iterative design and building of a microfluidic lab-on-a-chip device in a systems biology laboratory? In this design process, what cognitive functions did the representations serve? Design/Method This case study employed mixed methods. We utilized the standard ethnographic methods of participant observation, open-ended interviewing of participants, and artifact collection in an integrated systems biology research lab. Data were analyzed using open and axial coding. We also used cognitive-historical analysis to collect and analyze data from traditional historical sources (publications, grant proposals, laboratory notebooks, and technological artifacts) to recover how the salient representational, methodological, and reasoning practices were developed and used by the researchers. Results The device design involved complex interactions among mental models, computational models, and building and testing prototypes; tagging and visualizations were used to query and validate the prototypes as well as the computational models; all these were integrated to meet stringent experimental and fabrication constraints. Integration takes place across many different kinds of representations. The building of external representations helped not just to off-load cognitive load but also to add detail and constraints to the mental model. Conclusions Representational fluency and flexibility are required to manage the complexity of modern bioengineered devices. To support the development of such fluency and flexibility, engineering students must understand the function and the use of such representations, an instructional goal that has implication for new models of learning.

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

[2]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[3]  Susan Bell Trickett,et al.  "What if...": The Use of Conceptual Simulations in Scientific Reasoning , 2007, Cogn. Sci..

[4]  Wendy C. Newstetter,et al.  Problem-driven learning on two continents: Lessons in pedagogic innovation across cultural divides , 2012, 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings.

[5]  Kim B. Clark,et al.  Design Rules: The Power of Modularity , 2000 .

[6]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Spontaneous analogising in engineering design: a comparative analysis of experts and novices , 2004 .

[7]  Anselm L. Strauss,et al.  Basics of qualitative research : techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory , 1998 .

[8]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  Designing Engineers , 1994 .

[9]  Edwin Hutchins,et al.  How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  How Do Engineering Scientists Think? Model-Based Simulation in Biomedical Engineering Research Laboratories , 2009, Top. Cogn. Sci..

[11]  N. Nersessian The Cognitive Basis of Science: The cognitive basis of model-based reasoning in science , 2002 .

[12]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  Guided discovery in a community of learners. , 1994 .

[13]  John S. Gero,et al.  Drawings and the design process , 1998 .

[14]  Maria C. Yang,et al.  Concept Generation and Sketching: Correlations With Design Outcome , 2003 .

[15]  James D. Hollan,et al.  Distributed cognition: toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research , 2000, TCHI.

[16]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Design Principles for Problem-Driven Learning Laboratories in Biomedical Engineering Education , 2010, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[17]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Mapping between design activities and external representations for engineering student designers , 2006 .

[18]  David Kirsh,et al.  Thinking with external representations , 2010, AI & SOCIETY.

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

[20]  Abbie Brown,et al.  Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in c , 1992 .

[21]  N. Nersessian,et al.  The distribution of representation , 2006 .

[22]  Wendy C. Newstetter,et al.  Designing Cognitive Apprenticeships for Biomedical Engineering , 2005 .

[23]  Louis L. Bucciarelli,et al.  An ethnographic perspective on engineering design , 1988 .

[24]  Bo T. Christensen,et al.  The relationship of analogical distance to analogical function and preinventive structure: the case of engineering design , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[25]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  Creating Scientific Concepts , 2008 .

[26]  Nancy J. Nersessian,et al.  The Cognitive-Cultural Systems of the Research Laboratory , 2006 .

[27]  Matthew M. Mehalik,et al.  What Constitutes Good Design? A Review of Empirical Studies of Design Processes* , 2006 .

[28]  N. Nersessian Opening the Black Box: Cognitive Science and History of Science , 1995, Osiris.

[29]  Edwin Hutchins How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds , 1995 .

[30]  Alice M. Agogino,et al.  Insights on Designers’ Sketching Activities in New Product Design Teams , 2004 .

[31]  Anne Römer,et al.  Support value of sketching in the design process , 2003 .

[32]  Sanjay Chandrasekharan,et al.  Building to Discover: A Common Coding Model , 2009, Cogn. Sci..

[33]  David Craig,et al.  The importance of drawing in the mechanical design process , 1990, Comput. Graph..

[34]  N. Hoffart Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory , 2000 .

[35]  N. Nersessian,et al.  Science as Psychology: Sense-Making and Identity in Science Practice , 2010 .

[36]  青島 矢一,et al.  書評 カーリス Y. ボールドウィン/キム B. クラーク著 安藤晴彦訳『デザイン・ルール:モジュール化パワー』 Carliss Y. Baldwin & Kim B. Clark/Design Rules, Vol. 1: The Power of Modularity , 2005 .

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