View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Development and Implementation of Engineering-Based Aircraft Unit: Middle School Students' Engineering Design Process Skills

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Development and Implementation of Engineering-Based Aircraft Unit: Middle School Students' Engineering Design Process Skills
Language: English
Authors: Merve Arik (ORCID 0000-0002-5863-0836), Mustafa Sami Topçu
Source: International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2024 34(2):603-628.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 26
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Junior High Schools
Middle Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Design, Learning Activities, Engineering Education, Aviation Technology, Skill Development, Middle School Students
DOI: 10.1007/s10798-023-09829-7
ISSN: 0957-7572
1573-1804
Abstract: This study examined the effects of the engineering design-based activities developed in the context of aircraft engineering on the engineering design process (EDP) skills of students. Through the notebooks that the students provided during the implementation process, their EDP skills for each engineering design phase (identification of the problem, generation of design ideas, and creation and improvement of the final design artefact) were analyzed. Focus group interviews were held to reveal their understanding of EDP and to elaborate on the findings, which indicated that the EDP skills of the students improved thanks to the engineering design-based activities. In addition, the focus group interviews indicated that the students had some difficulties while implementing EDP. This study investigated the implementation skills of students in EDP and revealed the skills that are open to and resistant to improvement in this process. It is believed that these findings will enable teachers and researchers to integrate engineering and science more effectively while developing engineering-based teaching activities and conducting classroom practices.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1415112
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFmjmf1sSVlSS9jfr31tXNNAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOTDIzSmilohLuln_QIBEICBm7UZPHfb9da-F81DDIcTRcGshIsLNH5SGf8yBaDV92oYD2mcyLkU1Z-fJG1F9Vb1WnyIGj5oDmkXq8H-Wtiw5nrKHuUrlVFiaLLt_y8n8A9QUd-Vc9yQMl3lz3LHmB7lTMCcoqDcoofnJ4_vjQFBhYp9htwalbHapzmZ3XChaR23dPRyv5G0-doQ4k_9g_zYeLxKbMzr8NlRssks
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0175831349;ogv01apr.24;2024Mar06.06:59;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0175831349-1">Development and implementation of engineering-based aircraft unit: middle school students' engineering design process skills </title> <p>This study examined the effects of the engineering design-based activities developed in the context of aircraft engineering on the engineering design process (EDP) skills of students. Through the notebooks that the students provided during the implementation process, their EDP skills for each engineering design phase (identification of the problem, generation of design ideas, and creation and improvement of the final design artefact) were analyzed. Focus group interviews were held to reveal their understanding of EDP and to elaborate on the findings, which indicated that the EDP skills of the students improved thanks to the engineering design-based activities. In addition, the focus group interviews indicated that the students had some difficulties while implementing EDP. This study investigated the implementation skills of students in EDP and revealed the skills that are open to and resistant to improvement in this process. It is believed that these findings will enable teachers and researchers to integrate engineering and science more effectively while developing engineering-based teaching activities and conducting classroom practices.</p> <p>Keywords: Engineering design process; Engineering education in K-12; Engineering design process skills; Learning progression</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Educators and policy makers hold a common view that the engineering discipline should be a part of K-12 curricula in order to meet the employment gap and the need for qualified laborthat the twenty-first century necessitates (Berland, Steingut & Ko, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref1">3</reflink>]). In addition, incorporating engineering design into instruction is effective on students' engineering career skills (Bybee, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref2">5</reflink>]), academic achievement and motivation in science (Dohn, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref3">10</reflink>]; Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref4">39</reflink>]; Schnittka & Bell, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref5">42</reflink>]), and attitudes towards engineering (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref6">49</reflink>]). Today, a lot of projects, research and lesson plans are developed in accordance with the engineering design approach. However, as for understanding the engineering design process (EDP), questions such as to what extent students can realize the EDP phases, how their skills in applying these phases change thanks to engineering activity, in which engineering phase or phases they are more open or resistant to improvement are still unanswered (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref8">49</reflink>]). In addition, it is observed that the EDP phases are not given enough considerationin the development of curricula integrating engineering and science (Chabalengula & Mumba, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]). Therefore, it is necessary to focus more on improving students' practical skills in EDP, which is one of the benefits offered by engineering education at the K-12 level (Bybee, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref10">5</reflink>]) and defined among the most important outcomes expected to be achieved (NAE & NRC, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref11">37</reflink>]).</p> <p>If understanding engineering design process is to be an educational goal in line with its educational benefits, students need uninterrupted and reiterative engineering design-oriented experiences (Cunningham & Carlsen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref12">7</reflink>]). In line with these experiences, it is necessary to reveal how students' EDP skillschanged, and in which phases out of identification of the problem, generation of design ideas and creation and improvement of the final design artefact students are more open or resistant to improvement. This would enable engineering activities and learning environments to be prepared with this focus in curriculum development studies, paving the way for a more effective integration of engineering and science. In the present study, the issues mentioned above are examined through an engineering- and science-based aircraft engineering unit developed for this purpose. It is aimed to reveal the changes in middle school students' EDP skillsthrough the engineering- and science-based aircraft engineering unit.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-3">Research Background</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175831349-4">Engineering Design Process (EDP)</hd> <p>EDP is typically a reiterative decision-making process in which fundamental science, mathematics, and engineering concepts are applied to develop optimal solutions to meet a set goal (Mangold & Robinson, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref13">32</reflink>]). Although many models have been put forward by various researchers (Brunsell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref14">4</reflink>]; Daugherty & Custer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref15">8</reflink>]; Hynes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref16">20</reflink>]; Mentzer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref17">33</reflink>]; Wendell et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref18">47</reflink>]) and institutions (i.e. ADDIE, IBED, MDOE, NRC) to explain EDPphases in science education at the K-12 level,all of them are basically based on three phases (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref19">3</reflink>]; Katehi et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref20">22</reflink>]; NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref21">38</reflink>]). These are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Identification of the problem,</item> <p></p> <item> Generation of design solutions,</item> <p></p> <item> Creation and improvement of the final design artefact.</item> </ulist> <p>For a better understanding of these phases in EDP, it is important to explain which skills these phases consist of and to reveal what is required for an effective EDP.</p> <p>The <emph>"identification of the problem"</emph> phase emerges as the initial step of any design project (Dym et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref22">12</reflink>]). This phase should include the design problem and a description of the criteria and constraints that characterize a successful design (NAE & NRC, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref23">37</reflink>]). <emph>Criteria</emph> can be defined as the qualities that the product or system to be designed must have in order to be successful, and <emph>constraints</emph> as possible obstacles to the successful design of the product or system (Brunsell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref24">4</reflink>]). Determining the criteria and constraints of the problem is in the forefront of EDP by nature and is among the indispensable skills of the engineering process (Authors, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref25">2</reflink>]). During EDP, students' ability to reveal the necessary criteria and constraints for the solution of a problem is considered vital for the successful execution of the engineering process (NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref26">38</reflink>]).</p> <p>Another skill of the identification of the problem phase is "research" (Daugherty & Custer, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]; Mentzer, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>]; NRC, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref29">36</reflink>]; Wendell et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref30">47</reflink>]). In order for the problem to be fully revealed, students need to conduct research. This component is also associated with the generation of design ideas.Therefore, the basic work that students are expected to carry out in this phase can be expressed as <emph>determining the criteria and constraints of the design problem completely and accurately.</emph></p> <p>The <emph>generation of design solutions</emph> phase accommodates two basic requirements of design. First, engineers must come up with multiple solutions; second, they should conduct analysis to choose between those solutions (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref31">3</reflink>]; Katehi et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>]). All skills related to the generation of design ideas are based on these two characteristics. There is no single right solution to engineering design problems in real life, there are usually many solutions, and the phase of generating possible solutions to needs manifests itself as a phase in which engineers develop solutions using their creativity (Dym et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref33">12</reflink>]). It is expected that valuable and multiple solutions are produced at this phase. After identifying many possible solutions, engineers must decide on the right one based on the design criteria and constraints (Silk et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref34">45</reflink>]). Evaluation of a proposed solution may not be a binary measure (yes/no) as projects and problems often have multiple sub-goals that may conflict with each other (Jonassen et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref35">21</reflink>]). In that case, engineers weigh up the advantages and disadvantages of meeting different criteria for each solution proposal and choose the best design solution (Brunsell, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]; NRC, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref37">36</reflink>]). They also compromise on some desired criteria. For this reason, <emph>brainstorming and discussion</emph> are essential to generate possible solutions and find the best one (Bybee, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref38">5</reflink>]). At this phase, in K-12 engineering education, students' EDP skills can be defined as <emph>the ability to produce possible solutions through brainstorming and to carry out decision-making processes that include analysis and evaluation in line with criteria and constraints</emph>.</p> <p> <emph>Creation and improvement of the final design artefact</emph> is the final phase, where students build their designs in accordance with the best solution. Engineers create prototypes to visually present or elaborate their designs, then test and evaluate their prototypes (NRC, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref39">36</reflink>]). Designs that are solutions to engineering design problems can be two- or three-dimensional (NAE & NRC, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref40">37</reflink>]). Tests and evaluations are made at this phase according to the criteria and constraints. Evaluations conducted on the data obtained as a result of the test are related to the success and improvement of the solution (Hynes et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref41">20</reflink>]). The data obtained fromthe test should be used to evaluate the design artefact or solution, identify the strengths and weaknesses of the solution, and apply this feedback to the redesign (Authors, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref42">2</reflink>]). The redesign step, which includes the improvement activities students carry out on the product according to the test results, corresponds to the "optimization" process. In this step, students can make changes on the appearance and capabilities of the design (King & English, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref43">25</reflink>]). Therefore, when the literature is reviewed, students' EDP skills at this phase are <emph>developing the solution proposal as a design product, testing it, and carrying out the redesign process in light of test data and evaluations.</emph></p> <p>EDP skillsare summarized in Table 1 based on the three phases mentioned in the literature in order to carry out an effective EDP. In addition, the framework presented in this table guides the current study. The students' EDP skillswere analyzed according to this framework.</p> <p>Table 1 EDP and basic requirements presented in the literature</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Phases of EDP</p></th><th align="left"><p>Basic requirements identified in the literature</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Identification of the problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>Skills to identify the problem</p><p>Skills to identify criteria and constraints</p><p>Skills to present the needs for the solution of the problem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Generation of design solutions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Skills to generate many and qualitatively strong possible solutions through brainstorming</p><p>Skills to carry out decision-making processes that include trade-off, analysis and evaluation</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Creation and improvement of the final design artefact</p></td><td align="left"><p>Skills to develop a solution proposal as a design product</p><p>Skills to test and evaluate the design product in line with the criteria</p><p>Skills to carry out redesign processes in the light of test data and evaluations</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175831349-5">Significance of the Study</hd> <p>It is necessary to ensure that students at the K-12 level understand and carry out engineering processes (Kolodner et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]; Peppler, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref45">40</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref46">49</reflink>]). Once students understand EDPand the performance requirements related to EDP, and once they begin to execute them, they can shift thefocus of their design from the superficial details of the design (e.g. material form, aesthetics, time constraints, etc.) to the basic elements (e.g. prototype meets criteria, generate and select possible solutions, etc.) (Atman et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref47">1</reflink>]; English et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>]; Mentzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref49">34</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>]). Thus, they can perform a more effective EDP. With the development of EDP skills, students develop engineering habits of mind and understand what it means to perform engineering (Daugherty, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref51">9</reflink>]). Otherwise, students may overlook the beneficial elements of engineering design, such as generating possible ideas and identifying the problem in the EDP, and focus only on building the design through trial and error (Authors, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>]; Dohn, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref53">10</reflink>]; Gerlach, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref54">18</reflink>]). When EDP is conducted efficiently, it also enables students to develop their understanding of scientific concepts (Cunningham & Carlsen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref55">7</reflink>]; Park et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref56">39</reflink>]; Schnittka & Bell, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref57">42</reflink>]). For this reason, it is necessary to allocate time to have the engineering processes understood in the courses conducted according to the engineering design approach (Leonard & Derry, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]) and the development of this understanding should be reinforced. In addition, students' ability to apply EDP is also important for conceptual learning, which is another basic requirement of science and engineering integration (NGSS, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref59">38</reflink>]; NRC, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref60">36</reflink>]). Engineering design includes phases that encourage students to learn science content. The knowledge-based decisions carried out in generating solutions and deciding on the best solution in an EDP provide conceptual learning by encouraging the analysis of the relationships between science concepts and the design (Purzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref61">41</reflink>]). In a similar vein, Cunningham and Carlsen ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref62">7</reflink>]) state that deciding on one of the design solutions encourages students to discuss the relationships between science concepts. In addition, reiterative testing and redesign processes within the design process are also effective in learning concepts (Levy, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref63">31</reflink>]). Therefore, for an effective integration of science and engineering, it is important for students to develop the skills to apply EDP.</p> <p>The number of studies that reveal students' understanding of EDP and examine changes or improvements in design skills is quite limited in the literature (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref64">49</reflink>]). More studies examining EDP over a longer period and within a wider design are needed to support the findings of the existing studies (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref65">49</reflink>]). In addition, questions such as which skills of EDP achieve the most improvement, at which skills the development is limited. There have been no detailed examination and evaluation of the process related to each phase and no analysis that covers the whole process. In addition, it has not been found how students' developed understanding is reflected in the teaching environment, at what level they apply each EDP phase, and at which engineering design phase they are more open or resistant to improvement. These shortcomings and the lack of studies in this regard in the literature have created the need for the present study.</p> <p>For these reasons, this study aims to examine the changes in students' EDP skillsfor each phase in aircraft engineering activities. Based on this viewpoint, the following research questions were formulated:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> How do students' EDP skillschange through science and engineering-based Aircraft Unit?</item> <p></p> <item> How does students' engineering design sub-process skill called <emph>identification of the problem</emph>change during the implementation of Aircraft Engineering oriented design activities?</item> <p></p> <item> How does students' engineering design sub-process skill called <emph>generation of design ideas</emph> change during the implementation of Aircraft Engineering oriented design activities?</item> <p></p> <item> How does students' engineering design sub-process skill called <emph>creation and improvement of the final design artefact</emph> change during the implementation of Aircraft Engineering oriented design activities?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0175831349-6">Method</hd> <p>This study investigatesthe learning progressionof the students related to EDP during the implementation of the design activities that form the context. Learning progressions are research-based descriptions of how students develop their knowledge or skills and gain greater expertise within a fundamental idea and over a wide period of time (Duschl, Schweingruber, & Shouse, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref66">11</reflink>]; Smith, Wiser, Anderson, & Krajcik, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref67">46</reflink>]). Learning progressions do not only provide insights into the teaching process employed, but also provide a theoretical explanation to related learning (Duschl et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref68">11</reflink>]). In order to explain the learning progressions regarding the EDP skills, the learning-goals-driven design model, one of the design-based research methods, was used in the present study (Shin, Stevens, & Krajcik, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref69">44</reflink>]). The learning-goals-driven design model includes three stages: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>) specifying learning goals, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref71">2</reflink>) developing materials, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>) gathering feedback (Krajcik, McNeill, & Reiser, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref73">28</reflink>]). These phases the researchers followed to develop aircraft engineering based activities and to examine the changesin skills related to EDP are detailed below:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> To specify learning goals related to EDP,the processes stated under EDP in the literature were determined and listed, and claims regarding learning performances were put forward (See Table 1).</item> <p></p> <item> Materials are learning materials that help students develop the knowledge and skills expected from them, and assessment products that measure whether students have the knowledge specified in the claim (Shin et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref74">44</reflink>]; Zangori & Forbes, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref75">16</reflink>]). In order to determine the activities based on aircraft engineering, the Ministry of National Education (Turkey) Science Curriculum ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref76">35</reflink>]) was analyzed, and technical concepts and information on flight principles were listed. Concepts and outcomes related to flight principles in the curriculum were determined. The science content determined accordingly is; (i) weight, (ii) air resistance, (iii) air pressure, (iv) balanced and unbalanced forces, and (v) thrust. While developing the activities, engineering tasks regarding the related science concepts were determined and are presented in Table 2:</item> <p></p> <item> Gathering feedback: Data collection and analysis processes were carried out with the two data collection tools.</item> </ulist> <p>Table 2 Aircraft engineering design unit concepts and engineering tasks</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Related science concept</p></th><th align="left"><p>Engineering task</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Design activity 1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Air pressure and Weight</p></td><td align="left"><p>To design an airfoil whose relative weight reduces the most when it encounters airflow</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design activity 2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Thrust</p></td><td align="left"><p>To develop a glider design that travels long distances in the same direction by using air thrust</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design activity 3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Air resistance</p></td><td align="left"><p>To design a paper airplane that is thrown to a target 4 m away and can move rapidly without being affected by air friction</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design activity 4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Balanced and unbalanced forces</p></td><td align="left"><p>To develop an innovative aircraft design that includes design solutions considering the four flight forces, and floats for a long time without falling by using simple materials</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Data collection tools were chosen as engineering notebooks and focus group interviews in order to examine the improvement of students' skills related to EDP during these activities. They are explained in the next section</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-7">Data Collection Tools</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175831349-8">Engineering Notebooks</hd> <p>Engineering notebooks are considered to be the most effective way to monitor students' cognitive processes related to engineering practices (Kelley, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref77">23</reflink>]). In this study, Engineering Notebooks aimed to record the students' implementations regarding EDP. Their main content was the open-ended 9-step engineering cycle, which Hynes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref78">20</reflink>]) introduced, and was incorporated in the notebooks to monitor the students' EDP skills to answer the related research question. It was ensured that the students filled this form reiteratively during the four design processes in the unit.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-9">Focus Group Interviews</hd> <p>Focus group interviews were used as a qualitative data source in order to explain and make sense of the possible findings related to the EDP skills of the students. Because of their dynamism and creativity, investigating cooperative group processes through focus group interviews provides access to deeper and richer information about problems (Krueger, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref79">29</reflink>]). For this purpose, the focus group interview form was designed in a "semi-structured" format and expert opinion was sought for its final version. There were 9 discussion questions structured around these three areas of focus to reveal (i) the student's impression of the overall process, (ii) the student's knowledge of EDP skills, (iii) the phases of the engineering process cycle performed and perceived (see Appendix 1).</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-10">Sample</hd> <p>The sample of the study consists of 20 (Female = 9; Male = 11) 8th grade students (aged 13–14) studying at a middle school in İstanbul, Turkey. The students voluntarily attended the implementation of Aircraft Engineering Unit within the scope of Science Practices Lesson and maintained attendance for 7 weeks. Science Practices Lesson is a selective course and includes scientific practices in Turkish Middle School Programme. The students participating in the study had not participated in an engineering course or experienced a teaching process in this regard before.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-11">Implementation Process</hd> <p>Before the start of the implementation process, 5 groups of 4 individuals were formed. In order for the students to follow the phases in practice more easily, the Student Engineering Notebook, which was also used as a measurement tool, was equipped with instructions to guide them. Activities and stimuli were added to attract their attention and motivate them to fill in the notebook. The students filled this notebook individually during each lesson in line with the instructions. The 9-phase process introduced by Hynes et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]) in engineering design activities was carried out by the students and their explanations of the work they carried out regarding these 9 phases were recorded by the students. The students structured knowledge through research and design-oriented activities and experienced the 9 phases of engineering reiteratively with 4 design tasks. Following the completion of the design activities, focus group interviews were held with the groups and the study was concluded. The timeline of the study process and the activities carried out are summarized in Table 3.</p> <p>Table 3 Study process timeline and activities carried out</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Week</p></th><th align="left"><p>Lesson</p></th><th align="left"><p>Time</p></th><th align="left"><p>Teaching Activity</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>Introduction to engineering</p></td><td align="left"><p>40 min</p></td><td align="left" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>Design activity 1: Let's take wing</p></td><td align="left"><p>80 min</p></td><td align="left"><p>What is lift in aircrafts? How is it generated? What are the design measures for lift in aircraft wings? What are the measures of weight force as force versus lift?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>Design activity 2: Thrust (Push! Push! Go to the Finish!)</p></td><td align="left"><p>80 min</p></td><td align="left"><p>How is thrust generated?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>Design activity 3: Are you in control? (Let's make a paper plane)</p></td><td align="left"><p>80 min</p></td><td align="left"><p>What is drag in aircrafts? How is it generated? What are the design measures for drag?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>Design activity 4: Hezarfen</p></td><td align="left"><p>80 min</p></td><td align="left"><p>How do the 4 types of force in aircrafts affect flight?</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>Focus group interview sessions</p></td><td align="left"><p>30–40 min</p></td><td align="left"><p>For each group</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The study process lasted a total of 6 weeks, including the focus group interview sessions</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-12">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The data were collected through the engineering notebooks and focus group interviews from twenty 8<sups>th</sups>grade students who were taught aircraft engineering design based unit.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-13">Engineering Notebooks</hd> <p>The "Engineering Notebooks" were analyzed based on the "Engineer's Notebook Rubric" developed by Kelley ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref81">24</reflink>]). The rubric was examined and analyzed in line with the phases of EDP and expected performances outcomes indicated in Table 1. The subheadings of the rubric were matched with the titles of performance indicators of EDP skills, which areexplained in Table 1 (Identification of the Problem,Generation of Design Ideas, Creation and Improvement of the Final Design Artefact). In the rubric consisting of 10 items, the last item was found to be unrelated (about notebook rules) to the EDP skills and was excluded. The remaining 9 items were used, and each engineering design phase is paired with three items (see Appendix 2).The rubric scoring was revised as low (1 point), medium (2 points) and high (3 points) for each item in order to ensure compatibility between the raters. Thus, the lowest score for each EDP phase was 3 (low for three items) and the highest score was 9 (high for three items).The students' engineering notebooks were evaluated and scored according to this rubric. To achieve reliability, 5 of the 20 notebooks (25%) were scored by another science expert who was continuing their doctoral studies in science education, and the scoring results were compared. Inter-rater reliability was found 97.2%, and a consensus was reached after evaluating the discrepancies together. The first author scored the remaining 15 notebooks.</p> <p>In the next step, the scores obtained using the rubrics were analyzed to determine whether there was a statistically significant increase in the scores of EDP skills between the first model and the fourth model. Selected descriptive statistics were analyzed for each phase and each activity. Since it was a repeated process with one participating student group, the Friedman test was used to analyze whether there was a significant difference between the scores. Then, the Wilcoxon test was applied to determine the difference between the scores of models 1–2, 2–3, 3–4, 1–3, 1–4 and 2–4.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-14">Analysis of Focus Group Interviews</hd> <p>Content analysis was carried out in the analysis of the interviews. First, the descriptive codes were determined and the codes were categorized according to the EDP phases (identification of the problem, generation of design ideas, creation and improvement of the final design artefact). In doing so, each category was looked into in all focus group interview questions. Because, in the natural course of an interview, a single statement can refer to more than one engineering design phase, and each phase can be discussed many times during the discussion (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref82">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, the types of information conveyed about each phase in the context of interview questions were examined (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref83">3</reflink>]). These are:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Identification of the engineering phase,</item> <p></p> <item> Importance of the engineering phase,</item> <p></p> <item> Operations carried out in the engineering phase.</item> </ulist> <p>In the focus group interviews, questions based on these three types of information were not asked directly. Instead, the researchers interpreted student responses to various questions (see Appendix 1) to address the three central types of information outlined above. The purpose of the analysis of the focus group interviews in this study is to obtain data that will help to discuss and make sense of the findings related to the EDP skills.</p> <p>While analyzing the focus group interviews, which provide qualitative data, codes about the difficulties the students encountered, and the components they considered as advantages in the EDP process were identified and presented under the findings since they are closely related to EDP.</p> <p>Table 4 Descriptive statistics for identification of the problem phase (N = 20)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (max = 9)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.75</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.97</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.66</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.76</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.79</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175831349-15">Findings</hd> <p>The findings are presented under separate headings for the three main phases of EDP.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-16">Findings on Identification of the Problem Phase</hd> <p>Engineering notebooks of the students were analyzed by considering the relevant rubric items within the "<emph>identification of the problem</emph>" phase. Table 4 shows the descriptive statistics for this phase and "mean" refers to the mean scores for each design activity.</p> <p>Table 5 Wilcoxon signed-rank test statistics of EDP skills about identification of the problem phase</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p>Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p>Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1,2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−2.871</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.004</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−2.975</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.003</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1,3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−3.816</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−3.043</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.002</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−3.689</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>3,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−.254</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.799</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The mean scores indicated that the rubric scores were highest in the fourth design (<emph>M</emph> = 6.60, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.79), followed by the third design (<emph>M</emph> = 6.50, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.76), the second design (<emph>M</emph> = 4.85, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.66), and the first design (<emph>M</emph> = 3.75, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.97) respectively. The Friedman test revealed a significant difference between the rubric scores in this phase, χ2 (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>, n = 20) = 28.93, <emph>p</emph>˂0.01. Therefore,the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, which is a post hoc test, was applied to deduce among which design activities differentiation takes place (Table 5).</p> <p>Table 6 Descriptive statistics for generation of design solutions phase (N = 20)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (max = 9)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.05</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.05</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.82</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.55</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.87</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.96</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>There were significant differences in the rubric scores of identification of the problem phase between the first and second design (Z = 2.871, p < 0.05), between the first and third design (Z = 3.816, p < 0.05), between the first and fourth design (Z = 3.689, p < 0.05), between the second and third design (Z = 2.975, p < 0.05), and between the second and fourth design (Z = 3.043, p < 0.05).On the other hand, there were not significant differences between the third and fourth design (Z = 2.254, p˃ 0.05). There was a statistically significant progress in terms of student performance in the identification of the design problem phase. There was an increase over the previous one in each measurement; only 4 and 3 can be interpreted here as a maturity level. The students' skills falling under the identification of the design problem phase got better at the end of the application of the aircraft engineering design unit compared to the initial level.</p> <p>In parallel with these findings, at the end of the process, the students frequently and strongly voiced the importance of identification of the problem during the focus group interviews. The students described "identification of the problem" as an important phase in the execution of the entire EDP:<emph>We can't work on something if we don't identify the problem.</emph>Group 1<emph>If the problem is not clear, we can neither develop an idea about it, nor can we know our purpose, nor can we solve the problem.</emph> Group 3<emph>First we need to identify the problem so we know what to do next.</emph>Group 4</p> <p>The statement "I think, for an engineer, identification of the problem forms the foundation of a construction" (Group 2), which was uttered in one of the interviews, reveals the students' ideas about the importance of this phase in the process. Therefore, it could be argued that as the necessity of this phase in EDP was realized, more and more accurate reflections were presented in the students' notebooks. Similarly, in the focus group interviews, the students frequently and strongly emphasized the necessity of identifying the criteria and constraints while stating their opinions about this phase:<emph>For instance, we want to solve the problem, but sometimes there are situations that prevent an engineer from solving it; for example, sometimes we could not find the best solution due to lack of material or time constraints.</emph>Group 2<emph>If we find out all these obstacles and necessary things together with the problem in the first place, we will see what we can do and what we cannot do.</emph> Group 5</p> <p>In the focus group interviews, the students emphasized the necessity of investigating the problem:<emph>Once we identify the problem, we need to do research to find out how to find a way out, learn the information needed to reach the solution of the problem</emph> Group 3<emph>We need to find out what we can do to solve the problem. We should do research to develop ideas by using the science concepts we have learned before.</emph> Group 5</p> <p>As can be seen, the students emphasized the necessity of the research process related to the identification of the problem phase in the focus group interviews. On the other hand, during the focus group interviews, the students stated that they were good at <emph>"identifying criteria"</emph>, and that they had difficulties such as <emph>"time/the need to move on to the other phases", "identifying constraints", "lack of knowledge about the problem"</emph> in the identification of the problem phase:<emph>At this phase we were good at laying out the criteria for success; however, we had difficulty in analyzing the incidents well that would hinder us. We noticed them while building.</emph><emph>(Identifying constraints) </emph> Group 1<emph>Our lack of knowledge about the problem made it difficult for us to understand the problem. We spared little time here to move on to designing.</emph><emph>(lack of knowledge about the problem/time/the need to move on to the other phases) </emph> Group 2<emph>Since we had little time, we rattled through this phase, and started to build right away. This was mistake. We were good at identifying the criteria.</emph><emph>(time/the need to move on to the other phases) </emph> Group 3<emph>It was difficult to find out the incidents that would hinder us. We had to make use of the time and materials one by one, but we could not due to haste and excitement.</emph><emph>(Identifying constraints/ time/ the need to move on to the other phases) </emph> Group 4<emph>We had a hard time figuring out what information was needed to meet the criteria. It was difficult to figure out what scientific knowledge to use. We could not make good use of it because we had little time.</emph><emph>(lack of knowledge about the problem/time/ the need to move on to the other phases) </emph> Group 5</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-17">Findings on Generation of Design Solutions Phase</hd> <p>The students' engineering notebooks were analyzed by considering the relevant rubric items under the "<emph>generation of design ideas</emph>" phase. Table 6 shows the descriptive statisticsfor this phase and "mean" refers to the mean scores for each design activity.</p> <p>Table 7 Wilcoxon signed-rank test scores of EDP skills about generation of design solutions phase</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p>Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p>Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1,2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−2.472</p></td><td char="0." align="char"><p>0.013</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.040</p></td><td char="0." align="char"><p>0.298</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1,3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−2.770</p></td><td char="0." align="char"><p>0.006</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−2.200</p></td><td char="0." align="char"><p>0.028</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−3.196</p></td><td char="0." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>3,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.942</p></td><td char="0." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The mean scores indicated that the rubric scores were the highest in the fourth design (<emph>M</emph> = 6.45, SD = 1.96), followed by the third design (<emph>M</emph> = 5.55, SD = 1.87), the second design (<emph>M</emph> = 5.05, SD = 1.82), and the first design (<emph>M</emph> = 4.05, SD = 1.05) respectively. The Friedman test revealed significant differences between the rubric scores in this phase, χ2 (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref85">3</reflink>, n = 20) = 13.82, <emph>p</emph> ˂ 0.01. Therefore, the Wilcoxon signed-rank testwas applied to deduce among which design activities differentiation takes place.</p> <p>There were significant differences in the rubric scores of generation of design solutions phase between the first and second design (Z = 2.472 <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), between the first and third design (Z = 2.770, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), between the first and fourth design (Z = 3.196, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), and between the second and fourth design (Z = 3.043, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). On the other hand, there were not significant differences between the third and fourth design (Z = 1.942, <emph>p</emph> ˃ 0.05), and between the second and third design (Z = 1.040, <emph>p</emph> ˃ 0.05). At the end of the application of the aircraft engineering design unit, the students' skills falling under the generation of design ideas phase got better compared to the initial level (Table 7).</p> <p>Table 8 Descriptive statistics for creation and improvement of the final design artefact phase (N = 20)</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Design Activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Mean (max = 9)</p></th><th align="left"><p>SD</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.42</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>2.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.83</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.39</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>An analysis of the students' opinions at the end of the process showed that the students emphasized the importance of generating possible design ideas in parallel with the rubric findings. The students often emphasized the need to generate a large number of ideas:<emph>It is necessary to develop possible solutions.</emph> Group 1<emph>We have to produce </emph><bold><emph>a lot of</emph></bold><emph> solutions.</emph> Group 2<emph>...we need to come up with </emph><bold><emph>many</emph></bold><emph> solutions so that we can choose the most suitable one in every respect.</emph> Group 3<emph>We </emph><bold><emph>analyze a host of ideas</emph></bold><emph> first and then we start. There may be just one idea, but then it becomes risky. When we say 'let's do this', what if it doesn't work.</emph> Group 4<emph>Besides, we wouldn't have listened to everyone's opinion then. We developed and sifted through </emph><bold><emph>a lot of</emph></bold><emph> ideas.</emph> Group 5</p> <p>In addition, the students frequently emphasized how important it is to analyze criteria and constraints in choosing the best solution:<emph>For the best solution, we thought of the one that best fits the success criteria. Sometimes, we had to give up on the solution we actually wanted. For example, we increased the weight to design the best wing.</emph> Group 4<emph>Maybe we have a good solution, but it does not work with the material or it does not meet the criteria or there are obstacles.</emph> Group 3</p> <p>In the focus group interviews, the students also revealed the necessity of brainstorming practice in this phase:<emph>We have to </emph><bold><emph>brainstorm</emph></bold><emph> to find out what will get us the best result.</emph> Group 3<emph>Thanks to </emph><bold><emph>brainstorming</emph></bold><emph>, for example, I come up with an idea, my group-mate comes up with an idea..Everyone makes suggestions such as 'this idea does not work; it does not fit the purpose of the work, let's eliminate it; or I found a solution, let's apply it.</emph> Group 1</p> <p>During the focus group interviews, the students stated that they had difficulties in generating possible solutions because they had trouble <emph>"brainstorming"</emph><emph>, </emph><emph>"fixed on one idea",</emph> and did not have enough <emph>"time"</emph>, and in deciding on one idea because they <emph>"failed to reach consensus"</emph> and had trouble <emph>"analyzing"</emph>:<emph>It is difficult for everyone to come up with a different idea. Not everyone in the group tried to generate ideas. When an idea makes sense to someone, he/she cannot offer anything new, everyone gets stuck with that idea.</emph><emph>(brainstorming/fixing on one idea) </emph> Group 1<emph>We had a hard time brainstorming. We started with an idea in a hurry. Although there were other ideas, we focused on one. (brainstorming/fixing on one idea) </emph> Group 2<emph>We rattled through this phase, and immediately focused on the first idea,fearing that there would not be enough time and we would not be able to complete the task. It was difficult to come up with different ideas, and even if we did, no one listened to anyone. We could not reach consensus.</emph><emph>(time/fixing on one idea/brainstorming/failure to reach consensus) </emph> Group 3<emph>It was difficult for everyone in the group to come up with useful ideas in limited time. There were disagreements within the group. We didn't know how to analyze different ideas and make decisions.</emph><emph>(brainstorming/ time/failure to reach consensus/analysis) </emph> Group 4<emph>Everyone defended their own opinion. Everyone said what they said was true. We quickly decided on one without considering all ideas. Decision-making was the hardest. We wouldn't know which one was right, how we could analyse. (failure to reach consensus/ analyse)</emph> Group 5</p> <p>At this phase, no meaningful codes could be determined regarding the advantages of the students as a group.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-18">Findings on Creation and Improvement of the Final Design Artefact Phase</hd> <p>Engineering notebooks of the students were analyzed by considering the relevant rubric items under the "<emph>creation and improvement of final design artefact</emph>" phase. Table 8 shows the descriptive statisticfor this phase and "mean" refers to the average scores for each design activity.</p> <p>Table 9 Wilcoxon signed-rank test scores of EDP skills about creation and improvement of final design artifact phase</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p>Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Design activity</p></th><th align="left"><p>Z</p></th><th align="left"><p>Asymp. sig. (2-tailed)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>1,2</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.948</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.051</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.434<sup>a</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.152</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1,3</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−3.444</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.001</p></td><td align="left"><p>2,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−2.218<sup>a</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.027</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−3.552</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td align="left"><p>3,4</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>−1.235<sup>a</sup></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.217</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The mean scores indicated that the rubric scores were the highest in the fourth design (<emph>M</emph> = 7.65, SD = 1.39), followed by the third design (<emph>M</emph> = 7.10, SD = 1.83), the second design (<emph>M</emph> = 6.35, SD = 2.01), and the first design (<emph>M</emph> = 5.15, SD = 1.42) respectively.</p> <p>The Friedman test revealed significant differences between the rubric scores in this phase, χ2 (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref86">3</reflink>, n = 20) = 18.07, <emph>p</emph> ˂ 0.01. Therefore, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was applied to deduce among which design activities differentiation takes place (Table 9).</p> <p>Table 9 shows that there were significant differences in the rubric scores of creation and improvement of final design artifact phase between the first and third design (Z = 3.444 <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), between the first and fourth design (Z = 3.552, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), and between the second and fourth design (Z = 2.218, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). On the other hand, there were not significant differences between the third and fourth design (Z = 1.235, <emph>p</emph> ˃ 0.05), and between the first and second design (Z = 1.948, <emph>p</emph> ˃ 0.05). At the end of the implementation of the aircraft engineering design unit, the students' skills falling under the creation and improvement of final design artefact phase got better compared to the initial level.</p> <p>When the students' opinions were examined at the end of the process, it was found that the students emphasized the importance of prototype, testing and re design at this phase:<emph>Developing a prototype is necessary for us to see the deficiencies. We can't tell if it's useful until we try it. We tested to identify shortcomings and take them into account.</emph> Group 3<emph>Thanks to the prototype, we have a chance to test our vehicle. Sometimes it's hard for an engineer to build a car in a short time, for example. He/She can make a small model of it and check it. He/She might make the car, but it might never run. It is necessary to test and see this in a small scale. Thus, we save a lot of time and money.</emph> Group 2<emph>Then there is the testing phase. When we test, we see the errors and rights. We redesign if there are errors. If we test, we can see how well it fits the success criteria. If we don't, we can't.</emph> Group 5</p> <p>In this phase, the groups stated in the focus group interviews that they were good at <emph>"testing"</emph> and <emph>"redesign"</emph>, and they had difficulties such as <emph>"indecision", "deficiencies from the previous phases",</emph> and <emph>"time management"</emph>:<emph>We wouldn't have spent so much time here if we had laid out in the previous phases what we were going to do. The most challenging thing for us was that we constantly changed our minds as we passed through without deciding on an idea. We found the right thing to do by testing.</emph><emph>(difficulties:time management/ deficiencies from the previous phases/indecision; advantage: testing) </emph> Group 1<emph>That we spent very little time on the process before building our product, were not able to plan well, and hastily started building with excitement. There is actually nothing difficult at this phase. We were good at testing and redesign. But, you need to make up your mind when starting out. Since we could not decide clearly what to do, we couldn't use both time and materials well.</emph><emph>(difficulties:time management/indecision; advantages:testing/redesign) </emph> Group 3<emph>The building phase challenged us. But, that was due to our failure in planning. If we had known exactly what we were going to do, we would have somehow improved it and then tried and fixed it. But, we kept changing our minds because we didn't get the idea right. Then the materials were wasted, things got messy. We got the most accurate idea by testing.</emph><emph>(difficulties:time management/indecision/deficiencies from the previous phases; advantages: testing) </emph> Group 4</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-19">Discussion</hd> <p>This study aimed to monitor the EDP skills of the students through an aircraft engineering design unit. The EDP skills are discussed separately under the 3 phases of EDP, in line with the findings of the data collected with the engineer notebooks and the focus group interviews during the 4 engineering activities:</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-20">Engineering Design Process Skills Related to Identification of the Problem</hd> <p>The first phase of EDP is the identification of the problem. It was observed in the statements that the students mentioned in their notebooks that as the skills falling under this phase progressed, they could identify the problem and put forward the constraints and criteria better. There was an increase over the previous one in each measurement. While this increase was statistically significant in the first three activities; no significant increase was observed between the 3rd and 4th activities. This situation for 4 and 3 can be interpreted here as a maturity level. The focus group interviews revealed that the students strongly emphasized the importance and necessity of this phase in carrying out the other phases of EDP following the implementation. This supports the performance levels that improved throughout the process and shows that the students gained skills about the identification of the problem. The following statement from the focus group interviews exemplifies this situation:<emph>The problem must be identified. Because it is necessary to know exactly what to work on. Otherwise, we might digress from the purpose and focus on different issues. We have to concentrate on the problem so that it can be solved. We determined the criteria and constraints of the problem by reading the information we have. For example, we want to solve the problem, but sometimes there are circumstances that prevent an engineer from solving it. For instance, sometimes we could not find the best solution due to lack of material or time constraints. If we find out all these with the problem in the first place, we will see what we can do and what we cannot do.</emph> Group 1</p> <p>In the study conducted by Zhou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref87">49</reflink>]) with an engineering design-based toy design workshop at the secondary school level, the participants stated their goals for the design problem less frequently in each design activity compared to the previous one. When the findings were interpreted, this was found surprising and the reasons could not be explained. Contrary to this finding, in the present study, the students' skills regarding the identification of the problem improved in each engineering activity compared to the previous one during the aircraft engineering design activities. This can be explained by the fact that the design activities were associated with science concepts and the study extended over a longer period of time. The literature holds that teaching science content encourages students to make sense of EDP (Schnittka & Bell, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref88">42</reflink>]). In addition, unlike similar studies, all activities were developed under the theme of aircraft engineering in the present study. In that case, it can be argued that within the framework of the same thematic area, students' repetitive use of similar concepts and producing solutions to similar problems improve their skills regarding the phase of identification of the problem.</p> <p>Berland et al. ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref89">3</reflink>]) revealed through the interviews they conducted with the students after the engineering implementation that the students comprehended the process of identification of the problem and placed emphasis on this phase. Similarly, English et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref90">14</reflink>]) performed an engineering activity of designing a catapult with secondary school students and asked them to self-assess their performance in the design process following the activity. In their self-assessment, the students mostly referred to the determination of constraints and criteria of the problem. Likewise, in the present study, the students uttered statements revealing the importance of this phase in the interviews held after the implementation of the engineering unit.</p> <p>Although the scores the students obtained in the identification of the problem phase improved significantly in the first three activities, the scores could not exceed a maturity level. As they stated, incidents such as time, the need to move on to the other phases, failure to identifying constraints, lack of knowledge about the problem affected the students' performance negatively. <emph>"Time"</emph> is a common limitation of engineering design processes, and it causes haste and anxiety to move on to the other phases. Although students think that they can have a more successful EDP when they spend more time in identification of the design problem phase, they state that they spend less time due to the need to move on to the other phases. However, Yang ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref91">48</reflink>]) showed that the time spent on a design is not a key factor in the success of the design, but the time spent on identifying the problem is effective in creating more successful designs. Therefore, it is necessary to encourage students to spend more time at this phase. If students cannot identify the constraints, they conduct a process based on 'design-test-redesign'. Hence, students might be able to find out the constraints of a design artefact by themselves during the design process through empirical observation, or they might build the final design artefact correctly by chance. In addition,they may not make sense of the contents associated with the disciplines of science and mathematics. (Authors, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref92">2</reflink>]).Therefore, measures should be taken to make it easier for students to identify constraints (clues, discussion, etc.), and the lack of knowledge about the problem should be eliminated.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-21">Engineering Design Process Skills Related to Generation of Design Ideas</hd> <p>The second fundamental phase of EDP is the generation of design ideas. This phase includes two basic features of design: <emph>brainstorming to produce multiple possible solutions;</emph> following systemic processes such as <emph>analysis</emph> and <emph>evaluation to choose one among possible solutions</emph>. It was observed that the process skills scores the students obtained in this phase improved throughout the implementation. In addition, in the focus group interviews regarding this phase, the students explained the sub-components related to the phase and presented opinions showing that they were aware of the importance of the phase within the process. A quotation from the focus group interviews exemplifies these views:<emph>We have to generate lots of ideas because we have to brainstorm to find out what will get us the best result. Maybe we have a good solution, but it does not work with the material or it does not meet the criteria or there are obstacles. That's why we have to identify many solutions so that we can determine the most suitable one for us in every respect. We analyze a host of ideas first and then we start. There may be just one idea, but then it becomes risky. When we say 'let's do this', what if it doesn't work. Besides, we wouldn't have listened to everyone's opinion then. We developed and sifted through a lot of ideas. At first, after looking at the results of what we researched and finding various solutions, we discussed which one is closest to our goal. We tried to choose the most suitable one so that we can succeed. How did we choose it, for instance? We considered the success criteria, chose the best. We made important decisions here to achieve the best outcome.</emph> Group 3</p> <p>As seen above, the students emphasized the importance of <emph>generation of possible solutions, brainstorming, and analysis</emph> components that should be carried out at this phase. On the other hand, the students stated in the focus group interviews that <emph>brainstorming</emph><emph>, </emph><emph>fixing on one idea, time, failure to reach consensus, analysis</emph> forced them at this phase. Mentioned during the focus group interviews as well, systematic processes such as generation of possible solutions, making decisions to reach the best solution from possible solutions, and evaluation are considered high-level skills supported by the EDP (Ercan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref93">15</reflink>]). Generating more than one solution in the design process is of significance and prevents students from focusing on a single idea throughout the process (NRC, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref94">36</reflink>]). That students perform analysis, evaluation, and decision-making processes enables them to use science content and review the constraints and criteria of the problem. However, the literature shows that students tend to focus on a single idea in EDP (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref95">3</reflink>]), during which students generally focus on developing the design artefact and ignore the other design phases (Authors, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref96">2</reflink>]; Dohn, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref97">10</reflink>]; Gerlach, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref98">18</reflink>]). Similarly, in the present study, although a continuous increase was observed in the daily total scores for the design idea generation phase, the students stated in the focus group interviews that they could not carry out this process properly. This can be explained with the following statement uttered in one focus group interview:<emph>Actually, this happened because we ran through the ideas, and decided on the best solution quickly. Since we could not make a clear decision at that phase, we always changed our minds while making the prototype and were not sure. It was wrong to attempt to make immediately. Running through the brainstorming quickly finished us off. Before making the prototype, we need to finish all thinking, and should not remain undecided. We continued brainstorming at the prototype phase too. This was wrong.</emph> Group 2</p> <p>As understood from the statement, the student highlights the necessity of brainstorming, criticizes their team for running through this component quickly, express that they have difficulty deciding on the best idea, and thinks they could not achieve the design goals as a result. To support students, tools for generating ideas, decision matrices (cost, time, material, etc.), creative problem solving activities can be carried out at this phase. Difficulties in brainstorming, generating multiple solutions, finding the best solution, and making decisions can be solved with pre-development activities related to these skills.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-22">Engineering Design Process Skills Related to Creation and Improvement of the Final Design Art...</hd> <p>The creation and improvement of the final design artefact is known as the final phase of EDP. At this phase, the mean scores the students received from the engineering notebooks increased in each activity, respectively. It was found that the students showed a steady progress at this phase, and this progress was reflected in their explanations at the end of the process. The phase of creation and improvement of the final design artefact was found to be the one in which the students had the highest score in all design activities. The students were willing to explain and reflect on their design products. In the literature, encouraging students to increase their participation in engineering design-oriented learning environments is often associated with this phase (Fortus et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref99">17</reflink>]; Kolodner, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref100">26</reflink>]; Kolodner et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref101">27</reflink>]). In this phase, while testing and redesign, students can organize their own processes, learn from their mistakes and mostly do not need a teacher (Cunningham & Carlsen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref102">7</reflink>]). For example, students who observe that their plane is not flying or are not covering the required distance do not often expect an encouragement to try again. Defined as "productive failure", this encourages students to learn by providing both informative and concrete challenges (Cunningham & Carlsen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref103">7</reflink>]). Therefore, the fact that the students' scores are higher in this phase compared to the other phases during the process can be explained by this self-encouragement.</p> <p>According to focus group interviews, the students think that they are good at this phase and they think that they can perform the construction, test and redesign. They emphasized these as advantage in this phase. They associate the problems they experience at this phase with their deficiencies in the previous phases (identification of the problem or generation of design solutions). Students are usually highly excited about creating final design artefact, and try to complete the previous phases in EDP quickly to get to this phase (Dohn, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref104">10</reflink>]; Gerlach, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref105">18</reflink>]). In order to prevent this situation, instead of giving a total time to the students for EDP, independent time can be given for each phase; at the end of the period, it can be ensured that they move to other phase.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-23">Exposure to EDP</hd> <p>The findings of the present study are consistent with previous research showing that greater exposure to engineering design leads to more effective design practices (Atman et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref106">1</reflink>]; Cunningham & Carlsen, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref107">7</reflink>]; Ercan, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref108">15</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref109">49</reflink>]). Gaining more experience in engineering design can help students focus on the fundamental aspects of the design process and improve their understanding of the design process (Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref110">49</reflink>]). In addition, the students could have realized the role of different phases of the design process in engineering education that was carried out over a wide period of time with different design tasks under the same theme. Their attainment of such awareness may enable them to give equal importance to each phase in their subsequent engineering activities. The students who had difficulty in determining the criteria and constraints in the first design activity determined all of them correctly towards the final design activity. Similarly, in the first design activity, only a few students included the specifications of the design, while in the final design activity, many of the students detailed them. The following statements of a student during the focus group interviews support this argument:<emph>I think when we first started this process, we aimed to move more directly to design. But, in the process, we gradually learned to identify the problem, then to put forward our ideas, and then to develop the solution. In other words, we learned the engineering steps. As a result, we have an idea about how we could solve a problem better when we encounter one.</emph> Group 5</p> <p>Increasing experience in design allows to focus on the other phases of the design process (Mentzer et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref111">34</reflink>]),as can be seen in the student's statement above. Similarly, Zhou et al. ([<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref112">49</reflink>]) revealed that as the design activities progress, different phases of the design process are mentioned in student explanations. The improvements in the students' EDP skills identified throughout the process in this study also support the claim that students become competent in managing design complexity as their experience in design increases (English et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref113">13</reflink>]). Likewise, Hollers ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref114">19</reflink>]) conducted a three-stage action research with high school students in a technology lesson, and revealed that the students' ability to implement EDP improved at each stage compared to the previous one. In the study conducted by Ercan ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref115">15</reflink>]), the practices carried out by the students in EDP were examined through individual interviews, and some qualitative data were presented showing that the students implemented components such as decision-making, trade-off, analysis, identification of criteria and constraints in EDP. However, Ercan ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref116">15</reflink>]) did not reveal a process-based change in how engineering practices affect EDP skills.</p> <p>There is a gap in the literature regarding the changes in EDP skills in teaching environments where science and engineering are integrated. Existing studies revealing students' views on EDP were mostly carried out with undergraduate students (e.g. Atman et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref117">1</reflink>]; Shah, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref118">43</reflink>]), and limited number of studies were conducted at the middle school level (e.g. Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref119">3</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref120">49</reflink>]). These limited number of studies focused on what students understand from EDP, but did not investigate the change of process application skills with a teaching practice. The findings obtained in these studies regarding the fact that engineering design practices improve students' understanding of EDP (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref121">3</reflink>]; Zhou et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref122">49</reflink>]) are in line with the present study. Students understand the importance of identifying user needs with engineering practices, finding multiple possible solutions to address a problem, and testing and improving a solution reiteratively (Berland et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref123">3</reflink>]). Students' understanding of what engineering design is and how it is carried out and appreciation of its processes enable them to manage the complexities associated with engineering design and conduct effective implementation processes.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-24">Recommendations and Implications of the Study</hd> <p>In the current study, the students' ability to implement the engineering design phases during the four design activities within the theme of aircraft engineering was revealed through the engineering notebooks and focus group interviews. One of the most important requirements of integrating the engineering design approach with science teaching environments is to realize the goal of understanding and implementing EDP (NRC, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref124">36</reflink>]). The findings of the study show that the students explained their EDP with strong expressions at the end of the process. The students' ability to implement EDP has also improved. However, this improvement was made possible through long-term exposure, but the progression was still limited. Therefore, this study reveals the necessity of reiterative and long-term activities to develop EDP skills. In addition, although the students emphasized the necessity of EDP in the focus group interviews, they might be more resistant to implement some (e.g. research, brainstorming), while they improve more rapidly in the others (e.g. identification of constraints and criteria, prototype). Knowing in which EDP phase students are open or resistant to improvement will help teachers and researchers design better EDPs. Taking precautions for the EDP phases such as generation of design ideas in which students are more resistant to improvement is of significance for a more effective integration of engineering and science. Before EDP, activities can be done to make students realize the importance of each phase. After each EDP, self-assessments, discussions may be carried out, and it can be pointed out that possible failures may occur due to not giving equal time for each phases. Sometimes, although students are aware of the importance of all phases, they tend to ignore some phases during the implementation. To prevent this, teachers and researchers can create verbal or written instructions that will enable students to carry out all phases of the design process, and apply independent time for each phase instead of the total time for EDP. The present study provides an example of how to monitor EDP skills. This provides insights into skill development for an engineering education integrated with science concepts. Further research may investigate how engineering and science integration-based applications are reflected in students' EDP skills by performing a comparative evaluation of different structured engineering design units with a similar method, or a detailed analysis of the sub-components of the EDP phases.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-25">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We would like to thank dear Yaşar Erdin, who works at School of Foreign Languages at Beykent University, for his support and contribution in delivering this study in English.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-26">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0175831349-27">Conflict of interest</hd> <p>The authors declare that they have no confict of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0175831349-28">Appendix 1</hd> <p></p> <ulist> <item> You have had a learning process based on Aircraft Engineering. You have experienced a knowledge- and design-oriented process about aircrafts. What have you learnt during this process?</item> <p></p> <item> Can you describe the steps that an engineer must carry out from start to finish in the process of designing a technological tool one by one?</item> <p></p> <item> What did you do during the <emph>phase of identification of the problem</emph> you mentioned? Can you explain the importance of this phase in the process? What were the difficulties you faced during this process and what were the advantages as a group?</item> <p></p> <item> What did you do during the <emph>phase of generation of design ideas</emph> you mentioned? Can you explain the importance of this phase in the process? What were the difficulties you faced during this process and what were the advantages as a group?</item> <p></p> <item> What did you do during the <emph>phase of creation and improvement of the final design artefact</emph> you mentioned? Can you explain the importance of this phase in the process? What were the difficulties you faced during this process and what were the advantages as a group?</item> <p></p> <item> At which phase in the process were you <emph>stronger</emph>/<emph>more advantageous</emph> than the other groups? Why?</item> <p></p> <item> Which step did you find <emph>most difficult</emph> while designing your aircraft? Why? What solutions can you suggest in the face of these difficulties?</item> <p></p> <item> What would you advise students who will carry out the same design process in the future to pay attention to during these phases? Why?</item> <p></p> <item> If you consider becoming an engineer, what skills/characteristics of yours do you need to improve? Why?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0175831349-29">Appendix 2</hd> <p></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Related design process practices</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Related phase</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Performance level</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Low (1p)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Medium (2p)</p></th><th align="left"><p>High (3p)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Identification of the problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>Identification of the problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains a design problem statement that <bold>requires further</bold> explanation of the problem and <bold>lacks</bold> strong rationale of the need</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains a design problem statement that provides a <bold>limited</bold> explanation of the problem but provides <bold>rationale</bold> of the need</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains a design problem statement that provides a <bold>clear</bold> explanation of the problem and provides <bold>in-depth rationale</bold> of the need</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Constraints/criteria</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains a <bold>few</bold> constraints and criteria for the designed solution but limited or <bold>no rationale</bold> for the constraints and criteria</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains <bold>some</bold> constraints and criteria necessary for the designed solution and provides <bold>some rationale</bold> for the constraints and criteria</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains <bold>all</bold> necessary constraints and criteria for designed solutions and provides <bold>clear rationale</bold> for the constraints and criteria later to be used to assess the final design decision</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Research</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>No details as to how and why the constraints and criteria were identified</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains some important details of how and why the constraints and criteria were identified</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains all important details of how and why the constraints and criteria were identified</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Brainstorming</p></td><td align="left"><p>Generation of design solutions</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains 0–3 preliminary design ideas to solve the problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains 4–7 preliminary design ideas to solve the problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains 7 or more preliminary design ideas to solve the problem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Generate possible solutions</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains a few possible solutions generated; considering size of design team and time allotted, solutions are not all feasible for the course or skill level of design team</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains some possible solutions presented with consideration of size of design team, feasibility for the course, and design team skill level</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains multiple possible solutions that are appropriate for the skill level; time allotted; and use of available resource. Proper analyses of the solution are considered in the final design selection</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Analysis (including optimization, decision)</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains a rationale for final design solution evaluated against some but not all identified constraints and criteria Limited use of data to make informed decisions about the selection of a design solution</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains rationale for final design solution evaluated against most identified constraints and criteria. Some use of data to make informed decisions about the selection of a design solution</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains rationale for final design solution evaluated against all identified constraints and criteria. Solution is selected by using multiple data-driven decisions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Prototype</p></td><td align="left"><p>Creation and improvement of final design artefact</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains evidence that the prototype meets some specifications Prototype has limited functionality; random or inappropriate use of building materials</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains evidence that the prototype meets most specifications with moderate functionality. Most materials and construction are appropriate for prototype</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains evidence that the prototype meets <bold>all</bold> specifications identified with <bold>complete</bold> functionality <bold>All</bold> materials used and construction techniques are appropriate for a quality prototype</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Testing</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains evidence that <bold>no</bold> testing was done, or prototype tests yielded <bold>limited or no</bold> evidence of the performance of the design solution based upon identified constraints and criteria</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains evidence that prototype tests were conducted, yielding evidence of the performance of the design solution based upon <bold>some</bold> identified constraints and criteria</p></td><td align="left"><p>The notebook contains evidence that prototype tests were conducted, yielding strong evidence of the performance of the design solution based upon <bold>all</bold> identified constraints and criteria. Appropriate tests yielded numerical data, field notes, and stakeholder surveys</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Specifications</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>2D or isometric drawing of solution. <bold>Incomplete</bold> parts list and materials list. The process flow chart documenting the construction is incomplete. Limited documentation of equipment used</p></td><td align="left"><p>Parametric modeling drawing of solution and 2D drawings of prototype. <bold>Complete</bold> parts list and materials list, but <bold>limited details</bold>. A complete process flow chart documenting step-by-step construction. Documentation of equipment used</p></td><td align="left"><p>Parametric modeling drawing of solution and 2D drawings of prototype. <bold>Complete</bold> parts list and materials list, including data safety sheets, product life-cycle <bold>details</bold>, manufacturing codes. A complete process flow chart documenting step-by-step construction with photos of the manufacturing process in action. Documentation of equipment used</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0175831349-30">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0175831349-31"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref47" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Atman CJ, Adams RS, Cardella ME, Turns J, Mosborg S, Saleem J. Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education. 2007; 96; 4: 359-379. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref25" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Autors (2020). Implementation of engineering design process in the K-12 science classrooms: trends and issues. Research in Science Education, 1–23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref1" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Berland L, Steingut R, Ko P. High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2014; 23; 6: 705-720. 2014JSEdT.23.705B. 10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref14" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Brunsell, E. (2012). The engineering design process. Brunsell, E. (Ed.) Integrating engineering + science in your classroom (3–5). National Science Teacher Association [NSTA] Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref2" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bybee RW. K-12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers. Technology and Engineering Teacher. 2011; 70; 5: 21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Chabalengula VM, Mumba F. Engineering design skills coverage in K-12 engineering program curriculum materials in the USA. International Journal of Science Education. 2017; 39; 16: 2209-2225. 2017IJSEd.39.2209C. 10.1080/09500693.2017.1367862</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref12" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cunningham CM, Carlsen WS. Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2014; 25; 2: 197-210. 2014JSTEd.25.197C. 10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref15" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Daugherty, M, & Custer, R. (2003). STEM flow chart. <ulink href="http://1.usa.gov/1o0Bbhi.Retrieved">http://1.usa.gov/1o0Bbhi.Retrieved</ulink> 15.12.2019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref51" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Daugherty, J. L. (2012). Infusing engineering concepts: Teaching engineering design.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dohn NB. Situational interest in engineering design activities. International Journal of Science Education. 2013; 35; 12: 2057-2078. 2013IJSEd.35.2057D. 10.1080/09500693.2012.757670</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duschl RA, Schweingruber HA, Shouse AW. Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8,. 2007; National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD, Leifer LJ. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education. 2005; 94; 1: 103-120. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> English LD, Hudson PB, Dawes L. Engineering design processes in seventh-grade classrooms: Bridging the engineering education gap. European Journal of Engineering Education. 2012; 37; 5: 436-447. 2012EJEE.37.436E. 10.1080/03043797.2012.708721</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> English LD, Hudson PB, Dawes LA. Engineering based problem solving in the middle school: Design and construction with simple machines. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research. 2013; 3; 2: 1-13</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ercan, S. (2014). Fen eğitiminde mühendislik uygulamalarının kullanımı: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi (Doctoral dissertation, Marmara University, 2014).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Forbes CT, Zangori L, Schwarz CV. Empirical validation of integrated learning performances for hydrologic phenomena: 3rd-grade students' model-driven explanation-construction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2015; 52; 7: 895-921. 2015JRScT.52.895F. 10.1002/tea.21226</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fortus D, Dershimer RC, Krajcik JS, Marx RW, Mamlok-Naaman R. Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004; 41; 10: 1081-1110. 2004JRScT.41.1081F. 10.1002/tea.20040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerlach JW. Elementary design challenges. Science and Children. 2010; 47; 7: 43</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hollers, K. B. (2016). Incorporating engineering design in the technology education classroom through action research (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hynes, M, Portsmore, M, Dare, E, Milto, E, Rogers, C, Hammer, D, & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. Available online at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537364.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jonassen D, Strobel J, Lee CB. Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education. 2006; 95; 2: 139-151. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00885.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katehi L, Pearson G, Feder M. Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. 2009; National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley, T. R. (2011). Engineer's notebook-A design assessment tool. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(7), 30.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kelley TR. Construction of an engineer's notebook. Technology and Engineering Teacher. 2014; 73; 5: 26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> King D, English LD. Engineering design in the primary school: Applying STEM concepts to build an optical instrument. International Journal of Science Education. 2016; 38; 18: 2762-2794. 2016IJSEd.38.2762K. 10.1080/09500693.2016.1262567</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolodner JLSawyer RK. Case-based reasoning. The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. 2006; Cambridge University Press: 225-242</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kolodner JL, Camp PJ, Crismond D, Fasse B, Gray J, Holbrook J, Puntambekar S, Ryan M. Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2003; 12; 4: 495-547. 10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krajcik J, McNeill KL, Reiser BJ. Learning-goals-driven design model: Developing curriculum materials that align with national standards and incorporate project-based pedagogy. Science Education. 2008; 92; 1: 1-32. 2008SciEd.92.1K. 10.1002/sce.20240</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Krueger, R. A. (2014). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Sage publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Leonard, M. & Derry, S. J. (2011). What's the science behind it? The interaction of engineering and science goals, knowledge, and practices in a design-based science activity (No. 2011-5).WCER Working Paper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Levy, S. T. (2013). Young children's learning of water physics by constructing working systems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23, 537–566.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mangold, J. & Robinson, S. (2013). The engineering design process as a problem solving and learning tool in K-12 classrooms. Paper presented at 2013 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Atlanta, Georgia. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--22581</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mentzer N. High school engineering and technology education integration through design challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education. 2011; 48; 2: 103-136. 10.30707/JSTE48.2Mentzer</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mentzer N, Becker K, Sutton M. Engineering design thinking: High school students' performance and knowledge. J EngEduc. 2015; 104; 4: 417-432</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı [MEB]. (2018). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı, (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8.Sınıflar). [Turkish Ministry of National Education (MoNE). Science Curriculum for primary and secondary schools]. Ankara: Talim ve Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a Conceptual Framework of New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council [NAE & NRC]. Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. 2009; National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. Next generation science standards: For states, by states. 2013; The National Academies Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park DY, Park MH, Bates AB. Exploring young children's understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2018; 16; 2: 275-294. 2018IJSME.16.275P. 10.1007/s10763-016-9776-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peppler K. STEAM-powered computing education: Using e-textiles to integrate the arts and STEM. IEEE Annals of the History of Computing. 2013; 46; 09: 38-43. 10.1109/MC.2013.257</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Purzer S, Goldstein MH, Adams RS, Xie C, Nourian S. An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. International Journal of STEM Education. 2015; 2; 1: 9. 10.1186/s40594-015-0019-7</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schnittka C, Bell R. Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education. 2011; 33; 13: 1861-1887. 2011IJSEd.33.1861S. 10.1080/09500693.2010.529177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shah, J. J. (2005). Identification, measurement and development of design skills in engineering education. In DS 35: Proceedings ICED 05, the 15th International Conference on Engineering Design, Melbourne, Australia, 15.-18.08. 2005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shin, N, Stevens, S. Y, & Krajcik, J. (2010). Tracking student learning over time using Construct-Centered Design. In S. Routledge (Ed), Using analytical frameworks for classroom research: collecting data and analysing narrative. Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Silk EM, Schunn CD, Cary MS. The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2009; 18; 3: 209-223. 2009JSEdT.18.209S. 10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Smith CL, Wiser M, Anderson CW, Krajcik J. Implications of research on children's learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter and the atomic molecular theory. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2006; 4; 1: 1-98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wendell, K. B, Connolly, K. G, Wright, C. G, Jarvin, L, Rogers, C, Barnett, M, &Marulcu, I. (2010). Incorporating engineering design into elementary school science curricula.In American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Louisville, KY.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yang MC. Observations on concept generation and sketching in engineering design. Research in Engineering Design. 2009; 20; 1: 1-11. 2490171. 10.1007/s00163-008-0055-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhou N, Pereira NL, George TT, Alperovich J, Booth J, Chandrasegaran S, Tew JD, Kulkarni DM, Ramani K. The influence of toy design activities on middle school students' understanding of the engineering design processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2017; 26: 481-493. 2017JSEdT.26.481Z. 10.1007/s10956-017-9693-1</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Merve Arık and Mustafa Sami Topçu</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref118"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1415112
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Development and Implementation of Engineering-Based Aircraft Unit: Middle School Students' Engineering Design Process Skills
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Merve+Arik%22">Merve Arik</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5863-0836">0000-0002-5863-0836</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mustafa+Sami+Topçu%22">Mustafa Sami Topçu</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Technology+and+Design+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Technology and Design Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 34(2):603-628.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 26
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Junior+High+Schools%22">Junior High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Middle+Schools%22">Middle Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Activities%22">Learning Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aviation+Technology%22">Aviation Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Middle+School+Students%22">Middle School Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10798-023-09829-7
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0957-7572<br />1573-1804
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examined the effects of the engineering design-based activities developed in the context of aircraft engineering on the engineering design process (EDP) skills of students. Through the notebooks that the students provided during the implementation process, their EDP skills for each engineering design phase (identification of the problem, generation of design ideas, and creation and improvement of the final design artefact) were analyzed. Focus group interviews were held to reveal their understanding of EDP and to elaborate on the findings, which indicated that the EDP skills of the students improved thanks to the engineering design-based activities. In addition, the focus group interviews indicated that the students had some difficulties while implementing EDP. This study investigated the implementation skills of students in EDP and revealed the skills that are open to and resistant to improvement in this process. It is believed that these findings will enable teachers and researchers to integrate engineering and science more effectively while developing engineering-based teaching activities and conducting classroom practices.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1415112
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1415112
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10798-023-09829-7
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 26
        StartPage: 603
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Aviation Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Middle School Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Development and Implementation of Engineering-Based Aircraft Unit: Middle School Students' Engineering Design Process Skills
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Merve Arik
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mustafa Sami Topçu
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0957-7572
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1804
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 34
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Technology and Design Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1