Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Relationship between student designers’ reflective thinking and their design performance in bioengineering project: exploring reflection patterns between high and low performers

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between students’ patterns of reflective thinking and their performance in solving design problems. Reflective thinking is a critical element in the process of solving ill-defined design problems. Many educators are dedicated to finding ways to promote students’ reflection. Yet few empirical studies attempt to explore the relationship between reflective thinking and design performance. 44 students enrolled in a Biomedical Microelectromechanical Systems and Medical Devices course participated in this study. Through a self-assessed questionnaire, students’ reflection patterns were collected in three areas: timing of reflection, objects of reflection, and levels of reflection. Also, students’ performance scores on their team project in biomedical device design were collected. The results revealed a general pattern of student designers’ reflection behaviors and a number of significant different reflection patterns between high-performing and low-performing students as they approached a design problem-solving task. Implications for supporting students’ reflective thinking and enhancing their problem-solving abilities in design tasks were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R. S., Turns, J., & Atman, C. J. (2003). Educating effective engineering designers: The role of reflective practice. Design Studies, 24(3), 275–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. M. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. L. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boud, D., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (1985). Reflection, turning experience into learning. New York: Nichols Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buede, D. M., & Miller, W. D. (2016). The engineering design of systems: Models and methods. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi, I., Hong, Y.-C., Gattie, D. K., Kellam, N. N., Gay, M. G., Jensen, L. J., & Lee, Y. (2012, June). Promoting second-year engineering student’s epistemic beliefs and real-world problem solving abilities through case-based e-learning resources. 2012 ASEE Annual Proceedings. Washington D. C., American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Christiaans, H. H. C. M., & Dorst, K. H. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering: A protocol study. Design Theory and Methodology, 42, 131–140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process. Boston, MA: Heath and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eide, A. R., Jenison, R. D., Mashaw, L. H., & Northup, L. L. (2002). Introduction to engineering design and problem solving (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flood, R. L., & Romm, N. R. A. (1996). Diversity management: Triple loop learning. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosmire, M., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2012, June). Knowledge-enabled engineering design: Toward an integrated model. Paper presented at 2012 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, Texas. https://peer.asee.org/21631.

  • Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16(3), 395–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greeno, J. G., Korpi, M., Jackson, D., & Michalchik, V. (1990, July). Ill-structured problem solving in instructional design. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society.

  • Guindon, R. (1990). Knowledge exploited by experts during software system design. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33(3), 279–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haupt, G. (2016). Design in technology education: Current state of affairs. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 1–17). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y.-C., & Choi, I. (2011). Three dimensions of reflective thinking in solving design prolems: A conceptual model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 59(5), 687–710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y.-C., & Choi, I. (2015). Assessing reflective thinking in solving design problems: The development of a questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46(4), 848–863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jashapara, A. (2003). Cognition, culture and competition: An empirical test of the learning organization. Learning Organization, 11(1), 31–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2008). Instructional design as design problem solving: An iterative process. Educational Technology, 48(3), 21–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kant, I. (1781). In N. K. Smith (Trans.), Critique of pure reason. London: Macmillan.

  • Kember, D., Leung, D. Y. P., Jones, A., Loke, A. Y., Mckay, J., Sinclair, K., et al. (2000). Development of a questionnaire to measure the level of reflective thinking. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 25(4), 381–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 31(1), 9–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keppel, G., & Wickens, T. D. (2004). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook (4th ed.). Prentice Hall, NJ: Upper Saddle River.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, P. M., & Kitchener, K. S. (1994). Developing reflective judgment. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krick, E. V. (1969). An introduction to engineering and engineering design (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (2005). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Burlington, MA: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, P., & Scott, P. (1994). Discovering the design problem. Design Studies, 15(2), 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maier, J. R. A., & Fadel, G. M. (2009). Affordance based design: A relational theory for design. Research in Engineering Design, 20(1), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, J. R. (1997). The capture and utilization of experience in engineering design. UK: Cambridge University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mason, H. (2008). Levels of learning. Retrieved from http://www.evolutionarynexus.org/category/free_tags/single_loop_learning.

  • Mentzer, N. (2011). Engineering design thinking and information gathering. Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/162.

  • Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4), 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mezirow, J. (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morisano, D., Hirsh, J. B., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Shore, B. M. (2010). Setting, elaborating, and reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostow, J. (1985). Toward better models of the design process. AI Magazine, 6(1), 44–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstetter, W. C., & McCracken, W. M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. In C. M. Eastman, W. M. McCracken, & W. C. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 63–78). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (1996). Design as practiced. In T. Winograd (Ed.), Brining design to software (pp. 233–247). New York: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York: Basic Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reidsema, C., Goldsmith, R., & Mort, P. (2010, June). Enabling the reflective practitioner in engineering design courses. Paper presented at the Connected 2010—2nd International Conference on Design Education.

  • Rogers, C. (2002). Defining reflection: Another look at John Dewey and reflective thinking. Teacher College Record, 104(4), 842–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, G. (1993). Designing and instructional design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 41(1), 79–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, K. W., & Daudelin, M. W. (1999). The role of reflection in managerial learning: Theory, research, and practice. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3), 181–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tessmer, M., & Wedman, J. F. (1990). A layers-of-necessity instructional development model. Educational Technology Research and Development, 38(2), 77–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turns, J. A., Sattler, B., Yasuhara, K., Borgford-Parnell, J. L., & Atman, C. J. (2014, June). Integrating reflection into engineering education. Paper presented at 21st ASEE annual conference & expositions, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Usher, R., & Bryant, I. (1989). Adult education as theory, practice and research. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valkenburg, R., & Dorst, K. (1998). The reflective practice of design teams. Design Studies, 19(3), 249–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Visscher-Voerman, I., & Procee, H. (2007, October). Teaching systematic reflection to novice educational designers. Anaheim, CA: Paper presented at the Association for Educational Communications and Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walther, J., Sochacka, N. W., & Kellam, N. N. (2011, June). Emotional indicators as a way to initiate student reflection in engineering programs. Paper presented at the 118th ASEE annual conference and exposition, Vancouver, Canada.

  • Zoltowski, C. B., Oakes, W. C., & Cardella, M. E. (2012). Students’ ways of experiencing human-centered design. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our very great appreciation to Dr. Luke Lee, Arnold & Barbara Silverman Distinguished Professor at University of California, Berkeley, for his advice and support to our research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Educational Leadership & Innovation, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, MC3151, PO Box 37100, Phoenix, AZ, 85069-7100, USA

    Yi-Chun Hong

  2. The University of Georgia, Athens, GA, USA

    Ikseon Choi

Authors
  1. Yi-Chun Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ikseon Choi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yi-Chun Hong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

In addition, this study has approved by the IRB of the University of Georgia (IRB Approval #: 2008-10776-3) and the informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 35 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hong, YC., Choi, I. Relationship between student designers’ reflective thinking and their design performance in bioengineering project: exploring reflection patterns between high and low performers. Education Tech Research Dev 67, 337–360 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9618-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9618-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation