Enlighten Publications

In this section

Technological problem solving: an investigation of differences associated with levels of task success

Morrison-Love, D. (2022) Technological problem solving: an investigation of differences associated with levels of task success. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(3), pp. 1725-1753. (doi: 10.1007/s10798-021-09675-5)

Text
240170.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
1MB

Abstract

Research into technological problem solving has shown it to exist in a range of forms and draw upon different processes and knowledge types. This paper adds to this understanding by identifying procedural and epistemic differences in relation to task performance for pupils solving a well-defined technological problem. The study is theoretically grounded in a transformative epistemology of technology education. 50 pupils in small groups worked through a cantilever problem, the most and least successful solutions to which were identified using a Delphi technique. Time-interval photography, verbal interactions, observations and supplementary data formed a composite representation of activity which was analysed with successively less contrasting groups to isolate sustained differences. Analyses revealed key differences in three areas. First, more successful groups used better and more proactive process-management strategies including use of planning, role and task allocation with lower levels of group tension. Second, they made greater use of reflection in which knowledge associated with the technological solution was explicitly verblised. This was defined as ‘analytical reflection’ and reveals aspects of pupils’ qualitative technical knowledge. Third, higher-performing groups exhibited greater levels of tacit-procedural knowledge within their solutions. There was also evidence that less successful groups were less affected by competition and not as comprehensive in translating prior conceptual learning into their tangible technological solutions. Overall findings suggest that proactive management, and making contextual and technical connections, are important for pupils solving well-defined technological problems. This understanding can be used to support classroom pedagogies that help pupils learn to problem solve more effectively.

Item Type:	Articles
Keywords:	Technology education, well-defined problem solving, secondary school, secondary education, learning differences.
Status:	Published
Refereed:	Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:	Morrison-Love, Dr David
Authors:	Morrison-Love, D.
Subjects:	L Education > L Education (General) L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB1603 Secondary Education. High schools L Education > LB Theory and practice of education > LB2361 Curriculum
College/School:	College of Social Sciences > School of Education College of Social Sciences > School of Education > Pedagogy, Praxis & Faith
Research Group:	University of Glasgow Educational Assessment Network
Journal Name:	International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Journal Abbr.:	IJTDE
Publisher:	Springer
ISSN:	0957-7572
ISSN (Online):	1573-1804
Published Online:	02 June 2021
Copyright Holders:	Copyright © 2021 The Author
First Published:	First published in International Journal of Technology and Design Education 32(3): 1725-1753
Publisher Policy:	Reproduced under a Creative Commons License

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record

References

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The archiecture of cognition.: Cambridge University Press. Argyle, M. (1972). Anlaysis of the behaviour of an interactor. In A. Morrison, & D. McIntyre (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Teaching. London, UK: Cox & Wyman Ltd. Bartholomew, S. R., & Strimel, G. J. (2018). Factors influencing student success on open-ended design problems. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(3), 753-770, doi:10.1007/s10798-017-9415-2. Brown, D. (2001). Cognitive Science Concepts and Technology Teacher Education. The Journal of Technology Studies, 27(1), 33-42, doi:10.21061/jots.v27i1.a.7. Buckley, J., Seery, N., & Canty, D. (2019). Investigating the use of spatial reasoning strategies in geometric problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 341-362, doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9446-3. Conwell, C. R., Griffin, S., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Gender and racial differences in unstructured learning groups in science. International Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 107-115, doi:10.1080/0950069930150109. Custer, R. L. (1995). Examining the dimensions of technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(3), 219-244, doi:10.1007/BF00769905. Custer, R. L., Valesey, B. G., & Burke, B. N. (2001). An Assessment Model for a Design Approach to Technological Problem Solving. Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), 5-20, doi:10.21061/jte.v12i2.a.1. de Vries, M. J. (2005). The Nature of Technological Knowledge: Philosophical Reflections and Educational Consequences. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(2), 149-154, doi:10.1007/s10798-005-8276-2. DeLuca, V. W. (1991). Implementing Technology Education Problem-Solving Activities. Journal of Technology Education, 2(2), 1-10, doi:10.21061/jte.v2i2.a.2. Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of Learning: Connecting Concepts During Problem Solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 2-17, doi:10.21061/jte.v24i1.a.1. Doornekamp, B. G. (2001). Designing Teaching Materials for Learning Problem Solving in Technology Education. Research in Science & Technological Education, 19(1), 25-38, doi:10.1080/02635140120046204. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 16 107-115, doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. Erkip, F., Demirkan, H., & Pultar, M. Knowledge acquisition for design education. In IDATER 97 Conference, 1997 (pp. 126-132). Loughborough: Loughborough University Everton, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching. (3rd ed., pp. 192-213). New York: MacMillan. Frey, R. E. (1989). A philosophical framework for understanding technology. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 27(1), 23-35. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational Research: an introduction (7th ed.): Allyn and Bacon. Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). A sampled literature review of design-based learning approaches: a search for key characteristics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(3), 717-732, doi:10.1007/s10798-012-9212-x. Gordon, T. J. (1994). The Delphi Method. Futures research methodology, 2(3), 1–30. Grubbs, M. E., Strimel, G. J., & Kim, E. (2018). Examining design cognition coding schemes for P-12 engineering/technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(4), 899-920, doi:10.1007/s10798-017-9427-y. Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach. Doctoral Thesis, West Virginia University, West Virginia. Hamel, R., & Elshout, J. J. (2000). On the development of knowledge during problem solving. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12(3), 289-322. Harkins, S. G. (1987). Social loafing and social facilitation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 23(1), 1–18. Haupt, G. (2018). Hierarchical thinking: a cognitive tool for guiding coherent decision making in design problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 207-237, doi:10.1007/s10798-016-9381-0. Hennessy, S. & Murphy, P. (1999). The Potential for Collaborative Problem Solving in Design and Technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 9(1), -36, doi: 10.1023/A:1008855526312. Hill, R. B., & Wicklein, R. C. (1999). A Factor Analysis of Primary Mental Processes for Technological Problem Solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(2), 83-100. Hong, J.-C., Hwang, M.-Y., Wong, W.-T., Lin, H.-C., & Yau, C.-M. (2012). Gender differences in social cognitive learning at a technological project design. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(4), 451-472, doi:10.1007/s10798-011-9152-x. Jackson, A., & Strimel, G. (2018). Toward a Matrix of Situated Design Cognition. CTETE - Research Monograph Series, 1(1), 49-65, doi:10.21061/ctete-rms.v1.c.3. Johnson, S. D. (1997). Learning Technological Concepts and Developing Intellectual Skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2), 161-180. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65-94, doi:10.1007/BF02299613. Jones, A. (1997). Recent Research in Learning Technological Concepts and Processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2), 83-96, doi:10.1023/A:1008813120391. Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A. & Alexander, P. A. (2020). Modeling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(4), 709-735, doi: 10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9. Kelley, T., & Kellam, N. (2009). A Theoretical Framework to Guide the Re-Engineering of Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education, 20(2), 37-49, doi:10.21061/jte.v20i2.a.3. Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive Processes of Students Participating in Engineering-focused Design Instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 15. Lavonen, J., Meisalo, V., & Lattu, M. (2002). Collaborative Problem Solving in a Control Technology Learning Environment, a Pilot Study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(2), 139-160, doi:10.1023/A:1015261004362. Lewis, T. (2005). Creativity A Framework for the Design/Problem Solving Discourse in Technology Education. Journal of Technology Education, 17(1), doi:10.21061/jte.v17i1.a.3. Lewis, T. (2009). Creativity in technology education: providing children with glimpses of their inventive potential. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(3), 255-268, doi:10.1007/s10798-008-9051-y. Liddament, T. Design and Problem-Solving. In IDATER 1996 Conference, 1996 1996 (pp. 1-5). Loughborough: Loughborough University Lomax, H., & Casey, N. (1998). Recording social life: Reflexivity and video methodology. Sociological research online, 3(2), 121–146. Lousberg, L., Rooij, R., Jansen, S. van Dooren, E. & van der Zaag, E. (2020). Reflection in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(5), 885-897, doi: 10.1007/s10798-019-09532-6. Luppicini, R. (2003). Reflective Action Instructional Design (RAID): A Designer's Aid. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(1), 75-82, doi: 10.1023/B:ITDE.0000039569.05754.a8. MacPherson, R. T. (1998). Factors Affecting Technological Trouble Shooting Skills. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 35(4), 1-29. Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond `The Design Process': An Alternative Pedagogy for Technology Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117-128, doi:10.1023/A:1024186814591. McCade, J. (1990). Problem Solving: Much More Than Just Design. Journal of Technology Education, 2(1), 1-13, doi:10.21061/jte.v2i1.a.5. McCormick, R. (1994). The problem solving in technology education (PSTE) project. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 5(2), 173-175, doi:10.1007/BF00766816. Mccormick, R. (1997). Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2), 161-180. McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of Learning and Knowledge in Technology Education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 21-44, doi:10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007359.81781.7c. McLellan, R., & Nicholl, B. (2011). “If I was going to design a chair, the last thing I would look at is a chair”: product analysis and the causes of fixation in students’ design work 11–16 years. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(1), 71-92, doi:10.1007/s10798-009-9107-7. Middleton, H. (2009). Problem-solving in technology education as an approach to education for sustainable development. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(2), 187-197, doi:10.1007/s10798-008-9075-3. Mioduser, D. (1998). Framework for the Study of Cognitive and Curricular Issues of Technological Problem Solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, (2), 167-184, doi:10.1023/A:1008824125352. Mioduser, D. (2002). Evaluation/Modification Cycles in Junior High Students' Technological Problem Solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(2), 123-138, doi:10.1023/A:1015256928387. Mioduser, D., & Dagan, O. (2007). The effect of alternative approaches to design instruction (structural or functional) on students’ mental models of technological design processes. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 17(2), 135-148, doi:10.1007/s10798-006-0004-z. Morgan, K. Does Polanyi’s Tacit Knowledge Dimension Exist? In Polanyi Society Conference, 2008 2008. Chicago: Loyola University Morrison-Love, D. (2017). Towards a Transformative Epistemology of Technology Education: An Epistemology of Technology Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education, 51(1), 23-37, doi:10.1111/1467-9752.12226. Murphy, P., & McCormick, R. (1997). Problem solving in science and technology education. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 461-481, doi:10.1007/BF02461765. Nevo, B. (1985). Face Validiy Revisited. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22(4), 287-293, doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1985.tb01065.x. Norman, E. W. L., & Roberts, P. H. The nature of learning and progression in Design and Technology. In IDATER 1992 Conference, 1992 1992. Loughborough: Loughborough University. Odiri Amatari, V. (2015). The Instructional Process: A Review of Flanders’ Interaction Analysis in a Classroom Setting. International Journal of Secondary Education, 3(5), 43-49, doi:10.11648/j.ijsedu.20150305.11. Parker, L. H., & Rennie, L. J. (2002). Teachers' implementation of gender-inclusive instructional strategies in single-sex and mixed-sex science classrooms. International Journal of Science Education, 24(9), 881-897, doi:10.1080/09500690110078860. Ploetzner, R., Fehse, E., Hermann, F., & Kneser, C. Modeling the knowledgebased exchange of information during collaborative problem solving on the basis of deductive self-diagnosis. In B. du Boulay, & R. Mizoguchi (Eds.), AI-ED 97 World Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education, 1997 1997 (pp.223-230, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications). Kobe, Japan: IOS Press Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London.: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Rauscher, W. (2011). The technological knowledge used by technology education students in capability tasks. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(3), 291-305, doi:10.1007/s10798-010-9120-x. Sherif, M. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment (Vol. 10): University Book Exchange Norman, OK. Rennie, L. J., & Parker, L. H. (1987). Detecting and Accounting for Gender Differences in Mixed‐ sex and Single‐ sex Groupings in Science Lessons. Educational Review, 39(1), 65-73, doi:10.1080/0013191870390107. Ropohl, N. (1997). Knowledge Types in Technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7(1-2), 56-72. Rowe, G., & Wright, G. (1999). The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. International Journal of Forecasting, 15(4), 353-375, doi:10.1016/S0169-2070(99)00018-7. Rowell, P. M. (2002). Peer Interactions in Shared Technological Activity: A Study of Participation. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 12(1), 1-22, doi:10.1023/A:1013081115540. Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International journal of Educational research, 13(1), 89–99. Schaafstal, A., Schraagen, J. M., & van Berl, M. (2000). Cognitive Task Analysis and Innovation of Training: The Case of Structured Troubleshooting. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42(1), 75-86, doi:10.1518/001872000779656570. Schön, D. A. (1992). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Routledge. Scrivener, S. A. R., Liang, K. C., & Ball, L. J. (2002). Extending the Design Problem-Solving Process Model: Requirements and Outcomes. 13. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 4(3), 292-316. Strimel, G. J. (2014). Engineering design: A cognitive process approach. Doctoral Thesis, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA. Strong, J. T., & Anderson, R. E. (1990). Free-riding in group projects: Control mechanisms and preliminary data. Journal of marketing education, 12(2), 61–67. Sung, E., & Kelley, T. R. (2019). Identifying design process patterns: a sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 283-302, doi:10.1007/s10798-018-9448-1. Theodore, L. (1999). Content or Process as Approaches to Technology Curriculum: Does It Matter Come Monday Morning? Journal of Technology Education, 11(1), doi:10.21061/jte.v11i1.a.4. Twyford, J., & Järvinen, E.-M. (2000). The Formation of Children’s Technological Concepts: A Study of What it Means To Do Technology from a Child’s Perspective. Journal of Technology Education, 12(1), 17. Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study: Qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405, doi:10.1111/nhs.12048. van Niekerk, E., Ankiewicz, P., & de Swardt, E. (2010). A process-based assessment framework for technology education: a case study. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20(2), 191-215, doi:10.1007/s10798-008-9070-8. Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Wainwright, M. (2010, 2010). Using NVivo Audio-Coding: Practical, Sensorial and Epistemological Considerations. Social Research Update, pp. 1-4. Webb, N. M. (1984). Stability of small group interaction and achievement over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 211. Welch, M. (1998). Students' Use of Three-Dimensional Modelling While Designing and Making a Solution to a Technological Problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 8(3), 241-260, doi:10.1023/A:1008802927817. Whyte, J. (1984). Observing Sex Stereotypes and Interactions in the School Lab and Workshop. Educational Review, 36(1), 75-86, doi:10.1080/0013191840360107. Wicklein, R. C., & Schell, J. W. (1995). Case Studies of Multidisciplinary Approaches to Integrating Mathematics, Science and TechnologyEducation. Journal of Technology Education, 6(2), 18. Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The Only Methodology of Technology. Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), doi:10.21061/jte.v11i2.a.4. Winkelmann, C., & Hacker, W. (2011). Generic non-technical procedures in design problem solving: Is there any benefit to the clarification of task requirements? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21(4), 395-407, doi:10.1007/s10798-010-9131-7. Xu, M., Williams, P. J., Gu, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Hotspots and trends of technology education in the International Journal of Technology and Design Education: 2000–2018. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, doi:10.1007/s10798-019-09508-6.

Deposit and Record Details

ID Code:	240170
Depositing User:	Dr David Morrison-Love
Datestamp:	27 Apr 2021 09:04
Last Modified:	27 Jul 2022 13:44
Date of acceptance:	25 April 2021
Date of first online publication:	2 June 2021
Date Deposited:	26 April 2021
Data Availability Statement:	No