View in EDS

Defining and Evaluating Argumentation Quality in the Context of Design Thinking: Using High School Students' Design Critiques from Foundational Engineering Courses

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Defining and Evaluating Argumentation Quality in the Context of Design Thinking: Using High School Students' Design Critiques from Foundational Engineering Courses
Language: English
Authors: Wonki Lee, Nathan Mentzer, Andrew Jackson, Scott Bartholomew, Amiah Clevenger
Source: Design and Technology Education. 2024 29(3):11-35.
Availability: Design and Technology Association. 11 Manor Court, Banbury, OX16 5TB, UK. Tel: +44-1789-470007; Fax: +44-1789-470-007; e-mail: info@data.org.uk; Web site: https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/DesignTechnologyEducation
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 25
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: High Schools
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Engineering Education, Persuasive Discourse, Design, Thinking Skills, Logical Thinking, Evaluative Thinking, Interpersonal Communication, Student Attitudes, Skill Development, High School Students, Science Process Skills, Criticism, Science Instruction, Urban Schools, School Districts, Disproportionate Representation, Student Diversity, STEM Education, Critical Thinking
Geographic Terms: Georgia (Atlanta)
ISSN: 1360-1431
2040-8633
Abstract: This research investigates students' argumentation quality in engineering design thinking. We implemented Learning by Evaluating (LbE) using Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ), where students assess pairs of items to determine the superior one. In ACJ, students provided rationales for their critiques, explaining their selections. Fifteen students participated in an LbE exercise before starting their backpack design projects, critically evaluating multiple backpack designs and producing 145 comments. Writing comments required students to discern and justify the superior design, fostering informed judgment and articulation of their reasoning. The study used the Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) framework, adapted for engineering design thinking, to analyse these critiques. The framework emphasized three aspects: Empathy (understanding user needs), Ideation (deriving design inspiration), and Insight (gaining valuable understanding from evaluated designs). We employed both deductive and inductive content analysis to evaluate the argumentation quality in students' critiques. High-quality argumentation was identified based on six codes: user-focused empathy, design inspirations, logical rationalizations, multi-criteria evaluations, aesthetic considerations, and cultural awareness. Poor-quality argumentation lacked these elements and was characterized by vagueness, uncertainty, brevity, inappropriateness, irrelevance, gender bias, and cultural stereotyping. By identifying critical elements of effective argumentation and common challenges students may face, this study aims to enhance argumentation skills in engineering design thinking at the secondary education level. These insights are intended to help educators prepare students for insightful and successful argumentation in engineering design projects.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1459467
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ1459467
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1459467
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Defining and Evaluating Argumentation Quality in the Context of Design Thinking: Using High School Students' Design Critiques from Foundational Engineering Courses
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wonki+Lee%22">Wonki Lee</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Nathan+Mentzer%22">Nathan Mentzer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Andrew+Jackson%22">Andrew Jackson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Scott+Bartholomew%22">Scott Bartholomew</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Amiah+Clevenger%22">Amiah Clevenger</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Design+and+Technology+Education%22"><i>Design and Technology Education</i></searchLink>. 2024 29(3):11-35.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Design and Technology Association. 11 Manor Court, Banbury, OX16 5TB, UK. Tel: +44-1789-470007; Fax: +44-1789-470-007; e-mail: info@data.org.uk; Web site: https://openjournals.ljmu.ac.uk/DesignTechnologyEducation
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 25
– 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="%22High+Schools%22">High Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Thinking+Skills%22">Thinking Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Logical+Thinking%22">Logical Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Evaluative+Thinking%22">Evaluative Thinking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Communication%22">Interpersonal Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22High+School+Students%22">High School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Process+Skills%22">Science Process Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Criticism%22">Criticism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disproportionate+Representation%22">Disproportionate Representation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Diversity%22">Student Diversity</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22STEM+Education%22">STEM Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Critical+Thinking%22">Critical Thinking</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Georgia+%28Atlanta%29%22">Georgia (Atlanta)</searchLink>
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1360-1431<br />2040-8633
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This research investigates students' argumentation quality in engineering design thinking. We implemented Learning by Evaluating (LbE) using Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ), where students assess pairs of items to determine the superior one. In ACJ, students provided rationales for their critiques, explaining their selections. Fifteen students participated in an LbE exercise before starting their backpack design projects, critically evaluating multiple backpack designs and producing 145 comments. Writing comments required students to discern and justify the superior design, fostering informed judgment and articulation of their reasoning. The study used the Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) framework, adapted for engineering design thinking, to analyse these critiques. The framework emphasized three aspects: Empathy (understanding user needs), Ideation (deriving design inspiration), and Insight (gaining valuable understanding from evaluated designs). We employed both deductive and inductive content analysis to evaluate the argumentation quality in students' critiques. High-quality argumentation was identified based on six codes: user-focused empathy, design inspirations, logical rationalizations, multi-criteria evaluations, aesthetic considerations, and cultural awareness. Poor-quality argumentation lacked these elements and was characterized by vagueness, uncertainty, brevity, inappropriateness, irrelevance, gender bias, and cultural stereotyping. By identifying critical elements of effective argumentation and common challenges students may face, this study aims to enhance argumentation skills in engineering design thinking at the secondary education level. These insights are intended to help educators prepare students for insightful and successful argumentation in engineering design projects.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1459467
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1459467
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 25
        StartPage: 11
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Thinking Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Logical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Evaluative Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: High School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Process Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Criticism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Districts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disproportionate Representation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Diversity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: STEM Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Critical Thinking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Georgia (Atlanta)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Defining and Evaluating Argumentation Quality in the Context of Design Thinking: Using High School Students' Design Critiques from Foundational Engineering Courses
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wonki Lee
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Nathan Mentzer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Andrew Jackson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Scott Bartholomew
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Amiah Clevenger
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1360-1431
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2040-8633
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 29
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Design and Technology Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1