Search for: All records

Abstract The current study explores the quality of students’ argumentation within the context of Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ) and Learning by Evaluation (LbE), focusing on the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) framework. The aim is to understand what students consider essential for superior engineering design journals and why, particularly examining evidence and reasoning components. Thirty-five students from four high schools participated in LbE, justifying their preferences for selected options. These schools were part of a broader five-school project, though one did not conduct the relevant session and was excluded from the study. Utilizing the CER framework, the study analyzed the structure of scientific argumentation, supplemented by thematic analysis to elucidate students' reasoning. Three response models emerged: Claim-Evidence (CE), Claim-Reasoning (CR), and CER. CE responses lacked reasoning, while CR responses lacked evidence. Students favored design portfolios with visual aids, detailed content, documentation of design failures, and clearly stated challenges. For reasoning, students highlighted the value of clear explanations of the design process, facilitation of group and individual work, idea generation, and instructional clarity. The study underscores the importance of teacher-led scaffolding to help students articulate comprehensive claims and suggests structured group discussions and modeling as effective supports. 

Classroom research has demonstrated the capacity for significantly influencing student learning by engaging students in evaluation of previously submitted work as an intentional priming exercise for learning; we call this experience Learning by Evaluating (LbE). Expanding on current LbE research, we set forth to investigate the impact on student learning by intentionally differing the quality of examples evaluated by the students using adaptive comparative judgement. In this research, university design students (N = 468 students) were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups; while each group evaluated previously collected student work as an LbE priming activity, the work evaluated by each group differed in quality. Using a three-group experimental design, one group of students only evaluated high quality examples, the second only evaluated low quality examples, and the third group of students evaluated a set of mixed-quality examples of the assignment they were about to work on. Following these LbE priming evaluations, students completed the assigned work and then their projects were evaluated to determine if there was a difference between student performance by treatment condition. Additional qualitative analysis was completed on student LbE rationales to explore similarities and differences in student cognitive judgments based on intervention grouping. No significant difference was found between the groups in terms of achievement, but several differences in group judgement approach were identified and future areas needing investigation were highlighted. 

In design courses, reviewing how others have solved design problems or completed projects is common practice and often encouraged by educators. Using student work as examples can provide context for assessment criteria and help students approach new design problems. While studies have explored the use of exemplars in various disciplines, little research has focused on which exemplars to use (e.g., high-quality, low-quality) in design, technology, and engineering fields. To address this gap, researchers conducted a literature review of 33 articles on exemplar use in secondary and post-secondary education. The analysis revealed nine themes related to exemplar use and their impact on student learning, including (1) Clarity of instruction, (2) Learner focus, (3) Motivation for learning, (4) Student reflection on learning, (5) Building student self-efficacy, (6) Identifying instructional challenges, (7) Providing contrasting cases, (8) The relationship between exemplar quality and student work quality, and (9) Raising the bar for learning outcomes. Findings suggest that simply providing an exemplar is not enough and that the selection of an exemplar can have positive or negative impacts on student motivation, understanding, and application. Carefully selecting exemplars and engaging in dialogue with students can help them identify expectations, recognize quality work, and identify potential misconceptions. These findings have implications for those involved in design, technology, and engineering education. Educators can use these findings to guide their selection of exemplars and engage students in meaningful dialogue to aid their learning. Researchers can also use these findings to further investigate the use of exemplars in these fields. 

Adaptive comparative judgment (ACJ) has been widely used to evaluate classroom artifacts with reliability and validity. In the ACJ experience we examined, students were provided a pair of images related to backpack design. For each pair, students were required to select which image could help them ideate better. Then, they were prompted to provide a justification for their decision. Data were from 15 high school students taking engineering design courses. The current study investigated how students’ reasoning differed based on selection. Researchers analyzed the comments in two ways: (1) computer-aided quantitative content analysis and (2) qualitative content analysis. In the first analysis, we performed sentiment analysis and word frequency analysis using natural language processing. Based on the findings, we explored how the design thinking process was embedded in student reasoning, and if the reasoning varied depending on the claim. Results from sentiment analysis showed that students tend to reveal more strong positive sentiment with short comments when providing reasoning for the selected design. In contrast, when providing reasoning for those items not chosen, results showed a weaker negative sentiment with more detailed reasons. Findings from word frequency analysis showed that students valued the function of design as well as the user perspective, specifically, convenience. Additionally, students took aesthetic features of each design into consideration when identifying the best of the two pairs. Within the engineering design thinking context, we found students empathize by identifying themselves as users, define user’s needs, and ideate products from provided examples.