DOCSLIB.ORG

A Reexamination of Brainstorming Research: Implications for Research and Practice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Reexamination of Brainstorming Research: Implications for Research and Practice A REEXAMINATION OF BRAINSTORMING RESEARCH A Reexamination of Brainstorming Research: Implications for Research and Practice Scott G. Isaksen and John P. Gaulin Creativity Research Unit, The Creative Problem Solving Group, Inc. storming should not be used for group idea generation ABSTRACT (Diehl & Stroebe, 1991; Nickerson, 1999). The purposes of this article are to reexamine the Brainstorming may be the best-known tool for empirical literature surrounding this group procedure group idea generation and is widely taught in gifted and to offer some suggestions for improving this line of and talented programs. Many empirical studies have inquiry. We will discuss the results of an exploratory been conducted regarding the effectiveness of brain- study that investigated the importance of the role of the storming, and they have provided useful insights into group facilitator. This article will conclude with impli- the salient barriers facing groups who use this tool. cations for those interested in teaching, learning, and Although a great deal of this literature focuses on the applying brainstorming. limitations of brainstorming, the exploratory study included in this article sheds light on approaches that can enhance the value of this tool by examining the Background impact of the facilitator’s role within group idea gen- eration. Finally, this article outlines recommenda- tions for teaching, learning, and applying Osborn (1953) outlined specific procedures for cre- brainstorming. ative problem solving, including one tool he called brain- storming for the creative collaboration of groups. Osborn PUTTING THE “The creative process does not end with an idea, it RESEARCH T O USE only starts with an idea.” —John Arnold The purpose of this article is to help educators appreciate the brainstorming procedure as a power- Creativity and productive thinking are stated goals ful and valuable addition to any learning program. of most programs designed for the gifted and talented Since brainstorming is a group procedure, teachers (Feldhusen & Treffinger, 1985; Gowan, Khatena, & can respond to the necessity of helping groups work Torrance, 1979). Creative learning and creative prob- better together, jointly create solutions to complex lem solving are well established programming areas for problems, and create common support for imple- those who provide differentiated, as well as regular mentation of those ideas. classroom instruction (Costa, 2001; McGrane & Teachers can use the information presented here Sternberg, 1992; Pfeiffer, 2003). Brainstorming has to design effective brainstorming sessions. Many arguably become the most widely known and used critical researchers have discovered that brainstorm- (and, all too frequently, misused) term associated with ing—limited simply to four basic rules—does in fact creativity and creative problem solving. have limitations. This article reviews these limita- A great deal of brainstorming research appears to tions and explains how the entire brainstorming pro- narrowly focus on four “guidelines.” This problem is cedure mitigates these issues. Teachers can pursue compounded by an overwhelming focus on the ques- the best practices included in this article to help tion: Are individuals or groups more productive when them teach about brainstorming and to design effec- brainstorming (Rickards, 1999)? Many who read this tive brainstorming sessions. research are led to the misguided conclusion that brain- GIFTED CHILD QUARTERLY • FALL 2005 • VOL 49 NO 4 315 A REEXAMINATION OF BRAINSTORMING RESEARCH (1953, 1963) outlined four guidelines for brainstorming: brainstorming groups. The productivity of brainstorming (a) criticism is ruled out—group members should defer groups may be inhibited by fear of critical evaluation and judgment until after the session; (b) freewheeling is wel- the participants’ desire to go along with the dominant comed—because it is easier to tame down ideas, partici- pattern of idea generation. Some studies (Dunnette, pants are encouraged to share their wild ideas; (c) quantity Campbell, & Jaastad, 1963; Vroom, Grant, & Cotton, is wanted—the more ideas participants have, the better 1969) found that the lack of participation by those who the chances they will have good ideas; and (d) combina- were more influenced by the fear of evaluation allowed tion and improvement are sought—participants should others (presumably less inhibited) to dominate the dis- feel free to build on ideas from others. Beyond providing cussion, especially in the early phases of the session. the four guidelines, Osborn outlined detailed procedures Other studies (Camacho & Paulus, 1995; Diehl & for making brainstorming work, including the preparation Stroebe, 1987, 1991; Maginn & Harris, 1980) have con- of the group, the task to be worked on, the climate for the firmed that fear of evaluation inhibits the productive gen- session, and the role of the group leader. eration of ideas. Some studies were supportive of brainstorming. Cognitive inertia, which occurs when group mem- Meadow and Parnes (1959) compared trained subjects bers pursue the same line of thinking, has been identified working in real groups using brainstorming to an alterna- in several studies (Bouchard, Barsaloux, & Drauden, tive group approach calling for critical evaluation. 1974; Vroom et al., 1969). This notion is similar to cog- Significantly more high-quality solutions were produced nitive uniformity, where individuals feel pressure to sup- in the brainstorming condition. A number of other port and maintain the direction of a discussion and not scholars have confirmed these results (Gerlach, Schutz, stray too far from the current theme (Taylor et al., 1958). Baker, & Mazer, 1964; Parloff & Handlon, 1964; Price, Fear of being judged and pressure to stay within the 1985; Weisskopf-Joelson & Eliseo, 1961). Other propo- bounds of existing options clearly have an inhibiting nents have expanded on these results (Brown & Paulus, effect on the performance of groups when their task is 2002; Firestien & McCowan, 1988; Meadow, Parnes, & generating many, varied, and unusual ideas. It also under- Reese, 1959; Parnes, 1961). scores the notion that there may be other significant fac- Taylor, Berry, and Block (1958) provided the first tors that impact group performance. comparison between nominal and real brainstorming groups. Since nominal groups allow for individuals to Giving Up on the Group work alone and then pool their results after the fact, they minimize any of the potential process losses of real inter- Individuals give up on a group during brainstorming acting groups. By comparing real groups to nominal for a number of reasons. Studies have pointed out that free groups in this way, numerous studies have identified riding, social loafing, matching of effort, or the sucker many of the possible barriers to productivity in brain- effect can limit the productivity of real brainstorming storming groups. groups (Henningsen, Cruz, & Miller, 2000; Kerr & Bruun, 1983). These barriers lower motivation and effort when individuals work collectively. When these barriers Barriers to Effective are present, the individual gives up on the group and syn- Brainstorming ergy is minimized (Latané, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). Karau and Williams (1993) defined social loafing as Three major categories of barriers explain the “the reduction in motivation and effort when individuals improved performance of nominal groups over real work collectively compared with when they work indi- groups. These are: the emergence of judgments during vidually or coactively” (p. 681). Working coactively is generation, members giving up on the group, and an when individuals work in the real or imagined presence inadequate structure of the interaction. We will review of others, but their inputs are not combined with the each of these below. inputs of others. Social loafing has received a great deal of attention in Applying Judgment Inappropriately the literature (e.g., Harkins, Latané, & Williams, 1980; Jackson & Williams, 1985; Paulus, 1983; Shepperd, Numerous studies have pointed out the existence of 1993). Factors purported to explain social loafing include uniformity pressure and evaluation apprehension in a lack of accountability and decreased influence. 316 GIFTED CHILD QUARTERLY • FALL 2005 • VOL 49 NO 4 A REEXAMINATION OF BRAINSTORMING RESEARCH Social loafing results when there is a loss of personal get to know each other did not take full advantage of the accountability for performance. Individuals are not as diverse knowledge of other members. likely to be held personally accountable for the results Giving up on the group can be caused by the quality (positive or negative) when working in a group. Typical of the interaction among group members. The failure to behavior manifested by reduced accountability includes listen during group interaction (Jablin & Seibold, 1978), less focus on performance standards or greater reliance on the mismanagement of time (Bouchard, 1972), and the an individual high performer in the group (Kerr & ability of the group to keep judgment separate from idea Bruun, 1983). Thus, people can “hide in the crowd” generation (Osborn, 1953) can all affect the quality of the with less concern over being held personally accountable interaction. for (poor) group performance (Davis, 1969). The amount of training participants received to pre- Social loafing may also be caused by the perception pare for effective group interaction may also influence of decreased personal
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Jackson: Choosing a Methodology: Philosophical Underpinning
    JACKSON: CHOOSING A METHODOLOGY: PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNING Choosing a Methodology: Philosophical Practitioner Research Underpinning In Higher Education Copyright © 2013 University of Cumbria Vol 7 (1) pages 49-62 Elizabeth Jackson University of Cumbria [email protected] Abstract As a university lecturer, I find that a frequent question raised by Masters students concerns the methodology chosen for research and the rationale required in dissertations. This paper unpicks some of the philosophical coherence that can inform choices to be made regarding methodology and a well-thought out rationale that can add to the rigour of a research project. It considers the conceptual framework for research including the ontological and epistemological perspectives that are pertinent in choosing a methodology and subsequently the methods to be used. The discussion is exemplified using a concrete example of a research project in order to contextualise theory within practice. Key words Ontology; epistemology; positionality; relationality; methodology; method. Introduction This paper arises from work with students writing Masters dissertations who frequently express confusion and doubt about how appropriate methodology is chosen for research. It will be argued here that consideration of philosophical underpinning can be crucial for both shaping research design and for explaining approaches taken in order to support credibility of research outcomes. It is beneficial, within the unique context of the research, for the researcher to carefully
    [Show full text]
  • Applications of Systems Engineering to the Research, Design, And
    Applications of Systems Engineering to the Research, Design, and Development of Wind Energy Systems K. Dykes and R. Meadows With contributions from: F. Felker, P. Graf, M. Hand, M. Lunacek, J. Michalakes, P. Moriarty, W. Musial, and P. Veers NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-52616 December 2011 Contract No. DE -AC36-08GO28308 Applications of Systems Engineering to the Research, Design, and Development of Wind Energy Systems Authors: K. Dykes and R. Meadows With contributions from: F. Felker, P. Graf, M. Hand, M. Lunacek, J. Michalakes, P. Moriarty, W. Musial, and P. Veers Prepared under Task No. WE11.0341 NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Technical Report NREL/TP-5000-52616 1617 Cole Boulevard Golden, Colorado 80401 December 2011 303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 NOTICE This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof.
    [Show full text]
  • Choosing a Mixed Methods Design
    04-Creswell (Designing)-45025.qxd 5/16/2006 8:35 PM Page 58 CHAPTER 4 CHOOSING A MIXED METHODS DESIGN esearch designs are procedures for collecting, analyzing, interpreting, and reporting data in research studies. They represent different mod- R els for doing research, and these models have distinct names and procedures associated with them. Rigorous research designs are important because they guide the methods decisions that researchers must make dur- ing their studies and set the logic by which they make interpretations at the end of studies. Once a researcher has selected a mixed methods approach for a study, the next step is to decide on the specific design that best addresses the research problem. What designs are available, and how do researchers decide which one is appropriate for their studies? Mixed methods researchers need to be acquainted with the major types of mixed methods designs and the common variants among these designs. Important considerations when choosing designs are knowing the intent, the procedures, and the strengths and challenges associated with each design. Researchers also need to be familiar with the timing, weighting, and mixing decisions that are made in each of the different mixed methods designs. This chapter will address • The classifications of designs in the literature • The four major types of mixed methods designs, including their intent, key procedures, common variants, and inherent strengths and challenges 58 04-Creswell (Designing)-45025.qxd 5/16/2006 8:35 PM Page 59 Choosing a Mixed Methods Design–●–59 • Factors such as timing, weighting, and mixing, which influence the choice of an appropriate design CLASSIFICATIONS OF MIXED METHODS DESIGNS Researchers benefit from being familiar with the numerous classifications of mixed methods designs found in the literature.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Research Philosophy and Research Design
    Research Philosophy 3 and Research Design Introduction In the introductory chapter, developing self-awareness was a key pro- cess outlined and it was stated that it is possible you have assumed that the way you view the world is the same as the way that everybody else views the world. The term ‘common sense’ was used in this discussion. We noted then, you could believe it is common sense that the way you look at the world is the same way that others look at it. However, we also saw earlier that one person’s common sense is not necessarily the same as another’s! If we accept that there are likely to be differences between people’s view of the world, it may not come as a surprise that the way some researchers view the world, is very different from other’s views. Research philosophies The idea that there are different views of the world, and the processes that operate within it, is part of what is known as philosophy. Philosophy is concerned with views about how the world works and, as an academic subject, focuses, primarily, on reality, knowledge and existence. Our individual view of the world is closely linked to what we perceive as reality. On a day-to-day basis outside of your academic work, it would be unusual to think often about the way you perceive reality and the world around you. However, in relation to your dissertation, it is very important to realise how you perceive reality. Your individual percep- tion of reality affects how you gain knowledge of the world, and how you act within it.
    [Show full text]
  • Fashion Designers' Decision-Making Process
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Graduate Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 2013 Fashion designers' decision-making process: The influence of cultural values and personal experience in the creative design process Ja-Young Hwang Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd Part of the Art and Design Commons Recommended Citation Hwang, Ja-Young, "Fashion designers' decision-making process: The influence of cultural values and personal experience in the creative design process" (2013). Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 13638. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd/13638 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Fashion designers’ decision-making process: The influence of cultural values and personal experience in the creative design process by Ja -Young Hwang A dissertation submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Major: Apparel, Merchandising, and Design Program of Study Committee: Mary Lynn Damhorst, Co-Major Professor Eulanda Sanders, Co-Major Professor Sara B. Marcketti Cindy Gould Barbara Caldwell Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2013 Copyright © Ja Young Hwang, 2013. All rights
    [Show full text]
  • CBPR Charrette Fact Sheet
    CBPR Charrette Fact Sheet CBPR Charrettes: An Expert Guided Process for Strengthening Community-Academic Partnerships University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) Project Background The NC Translational and Clinical Sciences Institute (TraCS), home of UNC’s Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) and the UNC Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (HPDP), home of UNC’s CDC-funded Prevention Research Center (PRC), received two supplement grants to launch Community Leadership and Reciprocal Development: Advancing Community-Engaged Research at Two CTSA Institutions in collaboration with Vanderbilt’s Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (VICTR). The goal of this project was to expand and accelerate both institutions’ capacity to advance community-engaged research, by 1) drawing on the expertise of community partners working with our respective institutions, and, 2) initiating a cross-institution partnership to share expertise, develop resources, and disseminate new knowledge and approaches. At UNC we provide technical assistance through a “charrette” process to advance the adoption and successful implementation of community- based participatory research (CBPR) among community and academic partnership teams. What is a charrette? A “charrette” is a collaborative planning process most often used in design and architecture that harnesses the talents and energies of all interested parties to create and support a feasible plan to bring about community development and transformation (www.nationalcharretteinstitute.org). This project adapts the charrette concept to build the capacity of community-academic partnerships to use a CBPR approach to address the health needs of communities. Our “CBPR Charrettes” are comprised of focused guidance sessions for community-academic partnership (CAP) teams to address issues or questions identified by the partnership.
    [Show full text]
  • RESEARCH DESIGN Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches
    THIRD EDITION RESEARCH DESIGN Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches JOHNW. CRESWELL UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA-LlNCOLN ~SAGE Los Angeles • London • New Delhi • Singapore Copyright © 2009 by SAGEPublicatíons, Inc. Al! rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanícal, including photocopying. recording. or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Por iniormation: SAGEPublications. Inc. SAGEPublications India Pvt. Ltd. 2455 Tel!er Road B 1/1 1 Mohan Cooperative Thousand Oaks, California 91320 Industrial Area E-mail: [email protected] Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044 India SAGEPublications Ltd. SAGEPublications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd. 1 Oliver's Yard 33 Pekin Street #02-01 55 City Road Far East Square London ECl y ISP Singapore 048763 United Kingdom Printed in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloqinq-in-Publicaticn Data Creswell,[ohn W. Research design: Qualítative, quantitative. and mixed methods approaches/john W. Creswell. -3rd ed. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4129-6556-9 (cloth) ISBN 978-1-4129-6557-6 (pbk.) l. Social sciences-Research-Methodology. 2. Social sciences-Statistical methods. 1. Title. H62.C6963 2009 300.n-ac22 2008006242 Prinied on acid-free paper 08 09 10 11 12 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Acquiring Editor: Vicki Knight Associate Editor: Sean Connelly Editorial Assistant: Lauren Habib ;. Production Editor: Sarah K. Quesenberry Copy Editor: Marilyn Power Scott Typesetter: C&MDigitals (P) Ltd. Proofreader: Marleis Roberts Indexer: RickHurd Cover Designer: [anet Foulger Marketing Manager: Stephanie Adams Brief Contents Analytic Contents of Research Techniques xv Preface xix Acknowledgments xxvii About the Author xxix ~ Part 1:Preliminary Considerations 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Design: a Meta- Theoretical Structure for Design Theory
    Philosophy of design: a meta- theoretical structure for design theory Terence Love, Praxis Education, 21 Spiers Rd, Quinns Rocks, Western Australia This paper focuses on the structure and dynamic of theory in design research. Problems with existing theory are explored, and a new meta- theoretical method is suggested for assisting the critical analysis, comparison and formulation of design theories and concepts. This meta- theoretical method contributes to building a simplifying paradigm of design research by providing a means to clarify the existing state of design theory in the field, to assist with the establishment of coherence and compatibility between concepts in disparate theories, to validate theory and concepts, and to uncover ‘hidden’ aspects of design theories. 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved Keywords: philosophy of design, design theory, epistemology, ontology, design philosophy his paper is a contribution to the study of Philosophy of Design. In it, a critical overview is taken of the structure and dynamic of Tdesign theory. This overview leads to a method to assist with the critical analysis of design theories and their associated concepts. If we consider ‘design theory’ as an artefact to be designed, this paper’s role is in the part of the design process often called ‘problem analysis’. Under- pinning what is presented in this paper is an assumption that the act of designing by human agents is central to the academic study of design. This theoretical standpoint, that what is described as design always implicates humans, together with the understanding that any theories, theorising or theory interpretation has meaning only in a human context, is the basis for the analyses presented below.
    [Show full text]
  • Value Sensitive Design of Unmanned Aerial Systems As ”The Main Research Questions Are ’How’ Or ’Why’”, and ”The Focus of the Study Is a Contemporary Phenomenon” [85]
    Supervisors: Author: Alf Rehn Dylan Cawthorne Marianne Harbo Frederiksen Douglas Cairns Contents List of Figures 7 List of Tables 13 Acronyms 14 1 ABSTRACT IN ENGLISH 16 2 RESUMEP´ A˚ DANSK 17 3 DEDICATION 18 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 19 5 INTRODUCTION 20 5.1 Drones . 20 5.2 Value Sensitive Design . 22 5.3 Research gap . 22 5.4 Reading guide . 24 5.4.1 Overview of Case Studies . 24 5.4.2 Overview of Papers . 25 5.5 Context . 28 5.6 Scope . 28 5.6.1 Within scope . 28 5.6.2 Outside of scope . 29 5.7 Audience . 30 6 METHODOLOGY 31 6.1 Philosophical world view - pragmatism . 31 6.2 Research approach - mixed methods . 32 6.3 Research design - abduction . 32 6.4 Research strategy - experimental and non-experimental . 33 6.5 Research methods - various . 33 7 CASE STUDY I - THE HUMANITARIAN CARGO DRONE IN PERU 35 1 8 PAPER 1 - Value Sensitive Design of a Humanitarian Cargo Drone 36 8.1 Introduction . 36 8.1.1 Background . 37 8.1.2 Embodied values . 37 8.1.3 Technology in a social context . 37 8.1.4 Non-epistemic values . 38 8.1.5 Prior Art . 38 8.2 Value Sensitive Design Methdology . 38 8.2.1 The three phases of VSD . 38 8.2.2 Conceptual phase . 38 8.2.3 Empirical phase . 39 8.2.4 Technological phase . 39 8.2.5 Interactions . 41 8.2.6 Iteration . 41 8.2.7 Basis of analysis . 41 8.2.8 Applications . 41 8.3 Retrospective Analysis .
    [Show full text]
  • Research Design Construction the Research Design Is a Framework for Planning Your Research and Answering Your Research Questions
    Research Design Construction The research design is a framework for planning your research and answering your research questions. Creating a research design means making decisions about: The type of data you need The location and timescale of the research The participants and sources The variables and hypotheses (if relevant) The methods for collecting and analyzing data The research design sets the parameters of your project: it determines exactly what will and will not be included. It also defines the criteria by which you will evaluate your results and draw your conclusions. The reliability and validity of your study depends on how you collect, measure, analyze, and interpret your data. A strong research design is crucial to a successful research proposal, scientific paper, or dissertation. Table of contents 1. Consider your priorities and practicalities 2. Determine the type of data you need 3. Decide how you will collect the data 4. Decide how you will analyze the data 5. Write your research proposal Step 1: Consider your priorities and practicalities For most research problems, there is not just one possible research design, but a range of possibilities to choose from. The choices you make depend on your priorities in the research, and often involve some tradeoffs – a research design that is strong in one area might be weaker in another. A qualitative case study is good for gaining in-depth understanding of a specific context, but it does not allow you to generalize to a wider population. A laboratory experiment allows you to investigate causes and effects with high internal validity, but it might not accurately represent how things work in the real world (external validity).
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Research Design? 1
    PART I WHAT IS RESEARCH DESIGN? 1 THE CONTEXT OF DESIGN Before examining types of research designs it is important to be clear about the role and purpose of research design. We need to understand what research design is and what it is not. We need to know where design ®ts into the whole research process from framing a question to ®nally analysing and reporting data. This is the purpose of this chapter. Description and explanation Social researchers ask two fundamental types of research questions: 1 What is going on (descriptive research)? 2 Why is it going on (explanatory research)? Descriptive research Although some people dismiss descriptive research as `mere descrip- tion', good description is fundamental to the research enterprise and it has added immeasurably to our knowledge of the shape and nature of our society. Descriptive research encompasses much government spon- sored research including the population census, the collection of a wide range of social indicators and economic information such as household expenditure patterns, time use studies, employment and crime statistics and the like. Descriptions can be concrete or abstract. A relatively concrete descrip- tion might describe the ethnic mix of a community, the changing age pro®le of a population or the gender mix of a workplace. Alternatively 2 WHAT IS RESEARCH DESIGN? the description might ask more abstract questions such as `Is the level of social inequality increasing or declining?', `How secular is society?' or `How much poverty is there in this community?' Accurate descriptions of the level of unemployment or poverty have historically played a key role in social policy reforms (Marsh, 1982).
    [Show full text]
  • Identifying Indicators Related to Constructs for Engineering Design Outcome
    Journal of Technology Education Vol. 27 No. 2, Spring 2016 Identifying Indicators Related to Constructs for Engineering Design Outcome Cheryl A. Wilhelmsen & Raymond A. Dixon Abstract This study ranked constructs articulated by Childress and Rhodes (2008) and identified the key indicators for each construct as a starting point to explore what should be included on an instrument to measure the engineering design process and outcomes of students in high schools that use the PLTW and EbDTM curricula in Idaho. A case-study design was used. Data were collected in two stages. In the first stage, a content analysis was conducted for PLTW and EbDTM curricula to identify the indicators that are associated with the six constructs articulated by Childress and Rhodes (2008). In the second stage, the constructs and key indicators or concepts were placed on a survey and sent to experts for them to rate their importance for assessment and their difficulty to assess. Main findings included engineering and human values and the application of engineering design being ranked as first and second, respectively, for inclusion on an instrument to measure the engineering design process and outcomes. In addition, a total of 141 indicators were identified for all constructs. The indicators identified provide a useful list of measures that can be used by technology and engineering teachers. Selected indicators can be used by math, science, technology, and engineering education teachers as they coordinate in the teaching of STEM concepts and collaborate in the designing of project-based activities that they engage students in solving. Keywords: assessment; EbDTM; engineering design process; PLTW; problem- based learning; project-based learning; STEM.
    [Show full text]