Characterizing Students' Micro-Iterations Strategies through Data-Logged Design Actions

There has been a drive to incorporate design into K-12 programs in the form of engineering design projects. This presents a unique opportunity to study design cognition from a population that likely has minimal exposure to design. In this study we employ a method of utilizing finegrained computer logs to capture students’ design actions to better understand their design cognition in regards to iteration, which is an understudied but critical component of design. Twenty-seven 9 grade students from an urban high school in New England participated in the Solarize Your Home design project where they used Energy3D, a computer aided design platform, to build their home and design several solar array systems for it. Students’ computer logs were analyzed for micro-iteration patterns and it was found that 41% of the students engaged in some micro-iterations. These patterns were condensed into four different types: solar panel system capacity testing, solar panel location analysis, solar simulations with panel placements and investigating the suns path across seasons. The paper presents a series of alternative hypotheses and discussion on what these micro-iterations may represent cognitively. Finally the paper concludes on what computer-logged data may be able to assist with on the topic of design learning in K-12.

[1]  Patrick C. Shih,et al.  Teachers as Producers of Data Analytics: A Case Study of a Teacher-Focused Educational Data Science Program , 2016 .

[2]  Alex H. B. Duffy,et al.  A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition , 2017 .

[3]  Gautam Biswas,et al.  Analyzing the temporal evolution of students’ behaviors in open-ended learning environments , 2014 .

[4]  Craig Zimring,et al.  Defining Design between Domains: An Argument for Design Research á la Carte , 2001 .

[5]  Kristen E. DiCerbo,et al.  Detecting Player Goals from Game Log Files , 2013, EDM.

[6]  Ryan S. Baker,et al.  The State of Educational Data Mining in 2009: A Review and Future Visions. , 2009, EDM 2009.

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

[8]  K. A. Ericsson,et al.  Protocol Analysis and Expert Thought: Concurrent Verbalizations of Thinking during Experts' Performance on Representative Tasks , 2006 .

[9]  Leilah Lyons,et al.  Developing Computational Methods to Measure and Track Learners' Spatial Reasoning in an Open-Ended Simulation , 2015, EDM.

[10]  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.

[11]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[12]  Madara Ogot,et al.  Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction , 2004 .

[13]  John S. Gero,et al.  An approach to the analysis of design protocols , 1998 .

[14]  Alejandra J. Magana,et al.  Using Learning Analytics to Characterize Student Experimentation Strategies in Engineering Design , 2016 .

[15]  Marcelo Worsley,et al.  Analyzing Engineering Design through the Lens of Computation , 2014, J. Learn. Anal..

[16]  Rajkumar Roy,et al.  Comparing the cognitive actions of design engineers and cost estimators , 2008 .

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

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

[19]  J. Gero.  Generalizing Design Cognition Research , 2010 .

[20]  Shanna R. Daly,et al.  Design Heuristics in Engineering Concept Generation , 2012 .

[21]  Claudia Eckert,et al.  Modelling Iteration in Engineering Design , 2007 .

[22]  Nigel Cross,et al.  Design cognition: results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity , 2016 .

[23]  Samuel Greiff,et al.  Exploring Exploration: Inquiries into Exploration Behavior in Complex Problem Solving Assessment , 2013, EDM.

[24]  Cynthia J. Atman,et al.  Characterizing Engineering Student Design Processes An Illustration Of Iteration , 2000 .

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

[26]  Robin Adams,et al.  High School Students’ Ability to Balance Benefits and Tradeoffs While Engineering Green Buildings , 2015 .

[27]  Patricia Kristine Sheridan,et al.  Engineering Design ” : Understanding how freshman students develop their understanding of engineering , design , and engineering design , 2013 .

[28]  Steven Zemke.  Student Preconceptions And Heuristics In Learning Design , 2010 .

[29]  V. Shute.  SteAlth ASSeSSment in computer-BASed GAmeS to Support leArninG , 2011 .

[30]  Bertrand Schneider,et al.  Unraveling Students’ Interaction Around a Tangible Interface using Multimodal Learning Analytics , 2015, EDM 2015.

[31]  Sandra Milligan,et al.  Understanding Learning and Learning Design in MOOCs: A Measurement-Based Interpretation , 2016, J. Learn. Anal..

[32]  Yan Jin,et al.  Study of mental iteration in different design situations , 2006 .

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

[34]  Karen M. Bursic,et al.  Verbal Protocol Analysis as a Method to Document Engineering Student Design Processes , 1998 .

[35]  Christopher McComb,et al.  Utilizing Markov Chains to Understand Operation Sequencing in Design Tasks , 2017 .