Analyzing materials in order to find design opportunities for the classroom

Taking Design Thinking to School: How the Technology of Design Can Transform Teachers, Learners, and Classrooms

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 204-220

  Cox, Charles ^a   Apedoe, Xornam ^b   Silk, Eli ^c   Schunn, Christian ^d  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO   (United States)

^c Rutgers Graduate School of Education   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85022005602     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781317327585     Document Type: Chapter

References (27)

1. Apedoe, X., & Schunn, C. (2009, April). Understanding how students solve novel design challenges. Poster session presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST) Annual International Conference, Garden Grove, CA.
2. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org.
3. Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
4. Dym, C., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.
5. Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.
6. Faste, R. (1987). Perceiving needs (Society of Automotive Engineers Technical Report 871534). Warrendale, PA:SAE International. Retrieved from http://www.fastefoundation.org/publications/perceiving_needs.pdf.
7. Gubrium, J., & Holstein, J. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) (pp. 487-508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8. Günther, J., & Ehrlenspiel, K. (1999). Comparing designers from practice and designers with systematic design education. Design Studies, 20(5), 439-451.
9. Hewitt, J., & Scardamalia, M. (1998). Design principles for distributed knowledge building processes. Educational Psychology Review, 10(1), 75-96.
10. Kolodner, J., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
11. Krippendorff, K. (1989). On the essential contexts of artifacts or on the proposition that “design is making sense (of things)." Design Issues, 5(2), 9-39.
12. Lattuca, L., Terenzini, P., & Volkwein, J. (2006). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. Baltimore: ABET.
13. Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591-646). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Louridas, P. (1999). Design as bricolage: Anthropology meets design thinking. Design Studies, 20(6), 517-535.
15. Mehalik, M., & Schunn, C. (2006). What constitutes good design? A review of empirical studies of design processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 519-532.
16. Next Generation Science Standards. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org
17. Nicolai, L. (1998). Viewpoint: An industry view of engineering design education. International Journal of Engineering Education, 14(1), 7-13.
18. Norman, D. (1990). The design of everyday things. New York: Doubleday/Currency. Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/23317082/Design-of-Everyday-Things-by-Donald-Norman.
19. Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2011). Learning and Innovation Skills. Retrieved from http://www.p21.org/overview/skills-framework/60.
20. Popper, K. (1957). Philosophy of science: A personal report. In C. Mace (Ed.), British philosophy in mid-century (pp. 155-189). London: Allen & Unwin.
21. Rittel, H., & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155-169.
22. Rosson, M., & Carroll, J. (2009). Scenario-based design. In A. Sears & J. Jacko (Eds.), Human computer interaction: Development process (pp. 145-164). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
23. Sara, R., & Parnell, R. (2004). The review process. CEBE Transactions, 1(2), 56-69.
24. Schön, D. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation. Knowledge-Based Systems, 5(1), 253-264.
25. Seely, B. (1993). Research, engineering, and science in American engineering colleges: 1900-1960. Technology and Culture, 34(2), 344-386.
26. Simon, H. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. New York, NY: Wiley.
27. Tschirgi, J. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51(1), 1-10.