Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yaron Doppelt
University of Pittsburg, USA
Abstract
Imparting creative thinking to pupils through the design process of their projects requires
not only changing the teaching methods and learning environment, but also adopting new
assessment methods, such as portfolio assessment.
The participants in this study were 128 high school pupils who have studied Mechatronics
from 10th 12th grades (16-18 years old). By the end of 12th grade, the pupils had created
57 authentic projects. The intervention program had two parts: first, the pupils
documented their project according to the creative design process (CDP) that had been
introduced to them. Second, the projects were assessed according to a creative thinking
scale (CTS). CDP was designed to assist pupils in documenting the design process. CTS
could be used as a guideline for teachers and pupils during course of the project.
The research examined pupils performance during project-based learning (PBL). Data
were collected using the researchers diary, pupils interviews, observations of class
activities and portfolio assessment.
The findings show first that pupils learned to document their design process according to
CDP. Second, pupils projects demonstrated creative thinking according to CTS.
Evidences for high-level documentation of CDP were found in pupils projects. On the
other hand, there is much to be learned about documenting teamwork and pupils
reflection. This research could assist researchers and teachers who are interested in
assessing engineering education outcomes.
Introduction
Infusing a specific disciplinary course with instruction in creative thinking skills results in
a rich learning environment that will contribute not only to the development of thinking
skills but also to a better understanding of the discipline under study.
Engineering
education in the high school level, which is common in Israel, has a unique structure that
combines practical and theoretical knowledge, synthesizes vertical and lateral thinking, and
creates a rich and flexible learning environment.
Project-based learning (PBL) through authentic issues, which are taken from the pupils
worlds, enables pupils from various backgrounds to study science-technology. PBL
enables pupils to research, plan, design and reflect on the creation of technological projects
(Doppelt, 2000). Imparting creative thinking to pupils through the design process of their
projects requires not only changing the teaching methods and learning environment (LE),
but also adopting new assessment methods, such as portfolio assessment, which is based
on records of pupils activities.
The CTT (Creative Thinking in Technology) program (Barak & Doppelt, 1999) integrates
Co.R.T. Thinking tools (De Bono, 1986) into the engineering curriculum using the LEGOLogo LE for creating authentic projects. Pupils learn to use lateral thinking tools in order
to consider alternatives and factors and refrain from hasty judgment. In this program,
pupils also use vertical thinking tools in order to document a design process. In addition,
they document their calculations and create a structural programming of the control of their
projects. The field research that was described elsewhere (Barak, Waks & Doppelt, 2000)
is a follow up of the CTT program, which began in 1994, and combines qualitative and
quantitative tools. Findings from this research showed that pupils prefer a LE that
emphasizes team projects, planning, and building activities. Pupils feel that the aspects of
such a LE create challenges, develop their imagination, and contribute to their success in
studying technological subjects (Doppelt & Barak, 2002). Over the course of the previous
research, a creative thinking scale (CTS) was developed for assessing pupils portfolios
(Barak & Doppelt, 2000). The current study continues the CTT program by detailing a
the stage of choosing a solution and developing it. Vertical thinking and lateral thinking
complement each other, and both are the essential elements of creative thinking (De Bono,
1986). Infusing pupils design process with instruction in creative thinking creates
opportunities to assess creative thinking in PBL.
Barak and Doppelt (1999) have shown that the pupils cope with complex problems and
find solutions that depend on creative thinking in the sense of synthesizing lateral and
vertical thinking. In that study, pupils created portfolios in which they collected evidence
of their own creative thinking and other outcomes of the learning process.
Over a period of several years, each class developed criteria for assessing the portfolios.
On the basis of these experiences, a scale for assessing pupils creative thinking through
their portfolios was developed (Barak and Doppelt, 2000).
The assessment scale of creative thinking proposed here can help educators strive for a
gradual development of higher-order thinking skills in two main areas. The first area,
designing and construction processes, involves the complexity, originality and creativity of
the project topics that the pupils have chosen, on the one hand, and the extent that pupils
used mathematical-logical and scientific thinking on the other hand. The second area,
learning and thinking processes, involves developing learning and thinking processes in
class, through problem solving, and via teamwork and reflection.
Intervention Program
The intervention program lays out a new design process and assessment scale, which were
both used in this study.
Six Stages of a Creative Design Process (CDP)
The creative thinking tools, which are suggested in this design process, are part of the
Co.R.T thinking program (De Bono, 1986), P.M.I (Plus, Minus, Interesting), C.F.A
(Consider All Factor), F.I.P (First Important Priority) and O.P.V (Other People View). The
creative thinking framework was developed originally by De Bono (1986). He founded this
framework on five thinking steps which he named PISCO Purpose, Input, Solutions,
Choice and Operations. The creative design process (CDP) which is presented in this
article adopts this creative thinking framework and extends it to be implemented in project-
based learning (PBL) in engineering education. Furthermore, the assessment scale is based
on the four layers of creative thinking (De Bono, 1996).
The problem and the need: Describe the reasons which motivated you to choose
this project. Define the problem and the needs the system you will design will
satisfy.
2.
The target clientele and restrictions: Describe target clientele and define the
restrictions you are going to take into consideration.
3.
The design goals: Define the necessary demands from the system.
problem Express your opinion about how the information addresses, or doesnt
address, the design problem or how your system is a better solution than existing
similar systems.
Third stage: Solutions: Alternatives, Ideas and Factors
The third step in the design process is to consider alternative solutions to the design
problem. This is a lateral thinking stage which has three parts: Ideas, Factors and Opinions
(of other people). Pupils must learn to give their thought freedom and to temporarily avoid
judgment or friends ideas. This strategy increases the likelihood that pupils will generate
a rich set of possibilities or a creative idea that nobody has tried before. There are no bad
ideas in this stage. Judgment will come later.
1.
Idea Documentation:
P.M.I (Plus, Minus, Interesting) thinking tool is useful at this stage for helping
the pupil generate as many ideas as possible and consider them from as many
sides as possible.
2.
Minus
Plus
Pupils are encouraged to write all the factors involved in the system they
design. They can change Thinking Hats to consider different points of view.
For example, the pupil may imagine their design from the point of view of the
consumer, the planner, the designer, the manufacturer and the marketer.
Pupils learn to check all the consequences of each idea in the short term, the
medium term and the long term.
3.
Pupils ask other peoples advice regarding the documentation of their ideas.
They consult with their colleagues.
2
Weak
3
Average
4
Good
5
Very
Good
Factors Involved
Consequences
Short/Long Term
Other Peoples View
Necessary Demands
Desirable Demands
The F.I.P (First Important Priority) thinking tool is also helpful during this stage in order
to set priorities and arrive at the optimal solution.
Sometimes the chosen solution is a system. Dividing the system to its subsystems may assist in defining the steps which are needed to apply the solution.
In many cases, choosing materials, parts, mechanisms are a central part of the
design process.
The CAD/CAM, sketches and drawings are important to the presentation of the
design process.
Choosing machines, tools and manufacturing processes are also necessary steps
to create a prototype.
Planning how you make the prototype should also be considered, for example:
timetable, availability of materials, parts, machines, human resources etc.
The strength of CDP is the integration of the lateral thinking tool with reflection and
evaluation of each of the stages in a non-linear process.
The first layer addresses the pupils awareness that thinking is a skill that can be
developed; that the pupil can prepare his or her mind to reason about something, to
inquire, and to listen to other people opinions.
The second layer concerns the observation of consequences of action and choice;
consider other peoples views; compare alternatives.
The third layer addresses the use of thinking tools; organizing ones thinking as a
sequence of steps; define goals.
The fourth layer concerns the pupils systematic use of thinking tools; awareness of
reflective thinking; evaluation of ones own thinking; designing thinking tasks and
methods to implement these tasks.
CTS is applied in two domains of the portfolio: (a) System or product design, construction
and evaluation which the pupils design create and control. Lateral thinking products:
Originality, authenticity, usefulness, unique design. Vertical thinking products:
Functionality, reliability, accuracy, geometric structure, scientific principle. (b) Processes
of learning, thinking, problem-solving and teamwork during the performance of CDP.
Evidence for: Individual and group efforts in project development and problem solving.
Processes of teamwork decision making and leadership.
B. Learning, thinking
and problem-solving
activities
Standard diagram of a
system or product taken
from available literature.
An example of solving a
simple problem in planning
and construction.
Justified examples of
choices among a number of
alternatives.
Specification of planning
and construction stages
including calculations,
specifications or computer
programs.
Examples of the
contribution of individuals
and teamwork to solving
complex problems.
Thinking Layers
Layer 1: Awareness
pupils awareness that
thinking is a skill that
can be developed; that
the pupil can prepare
his or her mind to
reason about
something, to inquire,
and to listen to other
people opinions
Layer 2: Observation
The observation of
consequences of
action and choice;
consider other people
view; comparing
alternatives.
Layer 3: Strategy
A systematic use of
thinking tools;
awareness of reflective Conclusions about
thinking; evaluation of successes or difficulties
Methods
This study consists of three stages: First, field research was designed to implement an
intervention program that would assist pupils in designing creative and authentic projects.
The pupils had to choose a subject or search for a need or define a goal, design a prototype,
construct it, create a program that controls the prototype and document their design
process. The second goal was to understand the way pupils design their projects. The
third goal was to field-test CTS as a method for assessing CDP.
Participants
Over the course of seven years, this study followed 128 pupils who studied
MECHATRONICS as their major subject in high school. These pupils learned according
to the CTT program during their 10th grade year. In addition they studied according to the
Mechatronics syllabus which was mentioned earlier. In 12th grade, the pupils chose an
authentic project to design, construct, program and present.
CDP was also introduced to these pupils. CDP has been taught in the context of helping
pupils to document their projects. The pupils have not used CDP as a tool for planning
their projects.
Data Collection and Analysis
The data collection and analysis methods used in the current research rely on the use of
naturalistic observation in order to gain a wide perspective on the performance of the
pupils using CDP. Various research tools were used in order to validate the findings.
Observations of class activities were documented in the researcher diary. The researcher
was a teacher who had been tutoring these pupils since 1996. Each year the researcher
documented in his diary the pupils progress, problems, and evaluative criteria that were
developed with various classes.
Interviews with pupils and analyses of pupils portfolios assist in validating the findings.
Each year the researcher interacted with five to ten teams of pupils who conducted projects
for two hours a week during the school year.
A total of 57 team-projects were assessed according to CTS (Barak & Doppelt, 2000).
Every pupil has to take an expanded examination at the end of the 12th grade. These
projects were presented to an outside instructor from the Ministry of Education who tested
the pupils and gave them their final grades in Mechatronics.
Findings
The findings are presented in two sections. First, the implementation of CDP during PBL
will be presented as it was documented in pupils portfolios. Second, a portfolios
assessment of the projects using CTS will be presented.
Pupils apply CDP in their projects
One hundred and twenty-eight pupils conducted projects since the CTT program was
initiated in 1994. There were thirty-seven projects conducted by teams (two to four pupils)
and twenty projects that were done by an individual pupil. Table 4 presents an evaluation
of pupils implementation of CDP.
Table 4: CDP Summative: N=57 Projects
CDP Stages Percentages
Explanations
Purpose
90 %
Inquiry
70 %
80 %
Choice
40 %
Operations
100 %
Evaluation
30 %
These findings reveal the strong and weak aspects of pupils implementation of CDP as
was reflected from their documentations that were found in their portfolios.
Achievements Layers
Percentages
Percentages
Layer 1: Awareness
0.0%
21.6%
Layer 2: Observation
7.8%
41.2%
Layer 3: Strategy
39.2%
23.5%
Layer 4: Reflection
52.9%
13.7%
These findings reveal that most pupils created portfolios that reflect a high level of
achievement in the first domain as measured by CTS. Pupils learned to use CDP and
implemented it well regarding various aspects of their system or product. On the other
hand, only 12% of the portfolios reflected a high level of achievements in the second
domain as measured by CTS.
Pupils should not repeat the methods in this design process slavishly, as this is contrary to
creative thinking. Pupils are expected to internalize the principles of the design process,
modify the process in their own way and in new situations, and demonstrate general
patterns of lateral thinking and vertical thinking in their engineering projects. Not less
important is fostering pupils meta-cognition, or thinking of thinking. The way pupils
begin and complete their project demonstrates that creative thinking in engineering is a
combination of vertical and lateral thinking (Waks, 1997; Barak & Doppelt, 2002).
In addition, the projects showed that pupils in high-school can create, design, control and
document an authentic real-life project instead of solving only well-defined problem. A
major criticism of current science and engineering education is that there is an
overemphasis on solving well-defined, closed problems (NSPE, 1992).
Furthermore, pupils have proven through their projects that they are capable of dealing
with the large definition of DESIGN. The DESIGN activity is, in fact, the entire process
of planning, designing, constructing and managing the development of a product (De
Vries, 1993).
CTS enabled teachers and researchers to set goals for the pupils (and for the teachers)
during PBL. CDP and CTS are useful and can be implemented by teachers who have
participated in relevant in-service training (Doppelt, 2004b). The assessment of
engineering education can be very instructive to teachers and pupils when it is highly
integrated in engineering educationeducation that allows pupils to combine and integrate
various knowledge and skills (De Vries, 1997).
Final Remarks
The field research in which CDP and CTS were implemented with 128 high-school pupils
has revealed that most of the pupils created portfolios reflecting a high level of
achievements in the first domain as measured by CTS. Pupils have learned to use CDP
and implemented it well regarding various aspects of their system or product. On the other
hand, there is much to be practiced in the domain of learning processes, thinking and
problem-solving activities and team-work.
The implementation of CTS in assessing the outcomes of CDP has important consequences
for the development of pupils skills. Teachers can use CTS as the goal of their teaching.
When CTS is introduced together with CDP to pupils, pupils become competent in various
learning styles. This research also contributes to the body of knowledge about assessment
of engineering education.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr. Nadav Betzer, Mr. Ron Eizenberg, Mr. Haim Dribin, Mr. Oded
Richsefeld and Mrs. Irena Glikin for our continuous work aimed at improving Engineering
Education.
References
Barak, M. & Doppelt, Y. (1999). Integrating the CoRT program for creative thinking into a
project-based technology curriculum, Research in Science and Technological
Education, 17 (2), 139-151.
Barak, M. & Doppelt, Y. (2000). Using portfolios to enhance creative thinking, Journal of
Technology Studies, 26 (2), 16-24.
Barak, M., Eisenberg, E. & Harel, O. (1995). Whats in the calculator? An introductory
project for technology studies, Research in Science & Technological Education, 12
(2), 147-154.
Barak, M., & Maymon, T. (1998). Aspects of teamwork observed in a technological task in
junior high schools, Journal of Technology Education, 9 (2), 3-17.
Mioduser, D. (1998). Framework for the study of cognitive and curricular issues of
technological problem solving, International Journal of Technology and Design
Education, 8, 167-184.
National Society of Professional Engineers, (1992). Engineering Education Issues: Report
on surveys of opinions by engineering deans and employers of engineering graduates
on the first professional degree, NSPE Publication No. 3059, NSPE, 1420 King Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314-2794.
Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms, Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas, New York: Basic
Books.
Resnick, M. & Ocko, S. (1991). LEGO/Logo: Learning through and about design, In:
Harel I. & Papert S. (Eds.), Constructionism, 141-150, Ablex Publishing Corporation
Norwood, New Jersey.
Seiler, G., Tobin, K. & Sokolic, J. (2001). Design, technology and science: Sites for
learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools, Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 38 (7), 746-767.
Waks, S. (1997). Lateral thinking and technology education. Journal of Science Education
and Technology, 6 (4), 245-255.
Welch, M., Barlex, D. & Lim, H. S. (2000(. Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice
designer?, International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 125-148.
Wolf, D. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling students work, Educational Leadership,
45(4), 35-39.
Zohar, A., & Tamir, P. (1993). Incorporating critical thinking within a regular high school
biology curriculum, School Science and Mathematics, 93 (3), 136-140.