Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Structural Relationships among High School Students’ Scientific Knowledge, Critical Thinking, Engineering Design Process, and Design Product

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

With an increased emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, educators have often adopted engineering projects for integrating interdisciplinary knowledge through engineering design process. However, there is scant research that has empirically documented the relationships among students’ understanding of the knowledge and their characteristics on the design product. This study uses structural equation modeling to examine the influence of students’ scientific knowledge, design process, and critical thinking on their design product of the engineering project. A theoretical model was constructed to identify the factors that affected the design product. Study data were collected from 613 high school students, aged 16–17 years, regarding their scientific knowledge, design processes, and critical thinking. The results showed that design process played a mediating role in the effects of knowledge and critical thinking on the final design product. Students who could deduce, explain, and evaluate had an increased ability to apply scientific knowledge during the design process. These results indicate that scientific knowledge has an effect on the process and products of engineering projects completed by high school students. This study also suggested that the science and technology education community should consider offering high school students learning opportunities to promote their cognitive skills and facilitate connections between knowledge and practice.

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

  • Ahern, A., O’Connor, T., McRuairc, G., McNamara, M., & O'Donnell, D. (2012). Critical thinking in the university curriculum – The impact on engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 37(2), 125–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, R. R., & Rott, R. K. (1969). The nature of critical thinking. report from the concepts in verbal argument project. Theoretical Paper No. 20.Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED036861.pdf. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anwari, I., Yamada, S., Unno, M., Saito, T., Suwarma, I. R., Mutakinati, L., & Kumano, Y. (2015). Implementation of authentic learning and assessment through STEM education approach to improve students’ metacognitive skills. K-12 STEM Education, 1(3), 123–136.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Academic of Marketing Science, 16(1), 76–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/009207038801600107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker D., Ganesh, A., Ganesh, T. G., Krause, S., Morrell, D., Roberts, C., & White-Taylor J. (2014). Engineering: an introduction for high school. Retrieved from https://www.ck12.org/book/Engineering:-An-Introduction-for-High-School/. Accessed 13 Dec 2018.

  • Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bermingham, M. (2015). Clearing up “critical thinking”: Its four formidable features. Creative Education, 6, 421–427. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2015.64042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K–12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. The Science Teacher, 78(9), 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301–309.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.

    Google Scholar 

  • Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cottrell, S. (2005). Critical thinking skills. Developing effective analysis and argument. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Crotty, E. A., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., Glancy, A. W., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Moore, T. J. (2017). Approaches to integrating engineering in STEM units and student achievement gains. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eder, W. E. (2013). Engineering design vs. artistic design: Some educational consequences. US-China Education Review A, 3(4), 259–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ennis, R. H. (1996). Critical thinking dispositions: Their nature and accessibility. Inform. Log., 18(2–3), 165–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Facione, N., Facione, P., & Giancarlo, C. A. (1994). Critical thinking disposition as a measure of competent clinical judgment: The development of the California critical thinking disposition inventory. Journal of Nursing Education, 33(8), 345–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fan, S. C., Yu, K. C., & Lou, S. J. (2018). Why do students present different design objectives in engineering design projects? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 1039-1060. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9420-5.

  • Fornell, C. (1982). A second generation of multivariate analysis methods. New York, NY: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gale, J., Koval, J., Ryan, M., Usselman, M., & Wind, S. (2018). Implementing NGSS engineering disciplinary core ideas in middle school science classrooms: Results from the field. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(1), 11–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grubbs, M., & Strimel, G. (2015). Engineering design: The great integrator. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 50(1), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., Ring-Whalen, E. A., Harwell, M., & Peralta, Y. (2019). Life STEM: A case study of life science learning through engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9860-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghparast, M., Abdullah, N., & Nasaruddin, F. H. (2018). Fog learning for cultivating critical thinking in information seeking process. Concurrency and Computation Practice and Experience, e5002, 1–13. Retrieved from doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpe.5002.

  • Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, D. (2008). Confirmatory factor analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoepfl, M. (2016). Teaching and learning in project-based learning, technology and engineering education, and related subjects. In M. Hoepfl (Ed.), Exemplary teaching practice in technology and engineering education (pp. 1–32). Reston, VA: Council on Technology and Engineering Teacher Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Householder, D. L., & Hailey, C. E. (Eds.). (2012). Incorporating engineering design challenges into STEM courses.Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED537386). Accessed 18 Mar 2019.

  • Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses.Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/ncete_publications/165. Accessed 8 Aug 2019.

  • International Technology and Engineering Educators Association [ITEEA]. (Ed.). (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: technology and engineering. Reston, VA: Author.

  • Jin, Y., & Chusilp, P. (2006). Study of mental iteration in different design situations. Design Studies, 27(1), 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2005.06.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johns, G., & Mentzer, N. (2016). STEM integration through design and inquiry. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 76(3), 13–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood, instrumental variables, and least squares methods. Hilllsdale, NJ: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hilllsdale, NJ: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, R. (2015). Integrating analysis and design in mechanical engineering education. Procedia CIRP, 36, 23–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2015.01.042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. The Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelloway, E. K. (1998). Using LISREL for structural equation modeling: A researcher's guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, A. D., Wozniak, A. V., & Kelly, A. V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology. London: Schools Examinations and Assessment Council and HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design™ classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3, 119–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1991). Science education and praxis: The relationship of school science to practical action. Studies in Science Education, 19(1), 43–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057269108559992.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magana, A. J. (2017). Modeling and simulation in engineering education: A learning progression. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, 143(4), 04017008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiorana, V. (1992). Critical thinking across the curriculum: Building the analytical classroom. Bloomington: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and EDINFO Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and procedural knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1–2), 141–159.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, C. V. (2016). STEM education: A review of the contribution of the disciplines of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Science Education International, 27(4), 530–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students' performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104, 417–432. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mentzer, N., Huffman, T., & Thayer, H. (2014). High school student modeling in the engineering design process. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(3), 293–316.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill, C., Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2008). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 48–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Education. (2018). Technology curriculum guidelines for 12-year basic education. Taipei, Taiwan: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mutakinati, L., Anwari, I., & Kumano, Y. (2018). Analysis of students’ critical thinking skill of middle school through STEM education project-based learning. Journal Pendidikan IPA Indonesia, 7(1), 54–65. https://doi.org/10.15294/jpii.v7i1.10495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, S. P., & Ennis, R. H. (1989). Evaluating critical thinking. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norström, P. (2013). Engineers’ non-scientific models in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(2), 377–390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renaud, R. D., & Murry, H. G. (2008). A comparison of a subject-specific and a general measure of critical thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 85–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1861–1887.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 323–338. https://doi.org/10.3200/joer.99.6.323-338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sidawi, M. M. (2009). Teaching science through designing technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 269–287.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sophia, S. (2008). Perceptions of students' learning critical thinking through debate in a technology classroom: A case study. Journal of Technology Studies, 34(1), 39–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strimel, G. J., Kim, E., Bartholomew, S. R., & Cantu, D. V. (2018). Examining engineering design cognition with respect to student experience and performance. International Journal of Engineering Education, 34(6), 1910–1929.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vieira, C., Seah, Y. Y., & Magana, A. J. (2018). Students' experimentation strategies in design: Is process data enough? Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26, 1903–1914. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, K. C., Lin, K. Y., & Fan, S. C. (2013). How high school students apply knowledge in engineering design projects. International Journal of Engineering Education, 29(6), 1604-1614.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Technology Application and Human Resource Development, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan

    Kuang-Chao Yu & Pai-Hsing Wu

  2. Department of Industrial Technology Education, National Kaohsiung Normal University, 82444 No.62, Shenjhong Rd., Yanchao District [Yanchao Campus], Kaohsiung City, Taiwan

    Szu-Chun Fan

Authors
  1. Kuang-Chao Yu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pai-Hsing Wu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Szu-Chun Fan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Szu-Chun Fan.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 50.9 kb)

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Table 5 Correlation Matrix of the Indicators (n = 613)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yu, KC., Wu, PH. & Fan, SC. Structural Relationships among High School Students’ Scientific Knowledge, Critical Thinking, Engineering Design Process, and Design Product. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 18, 1001–1022 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10007-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10007-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation