Resumen de Task interpretation, cognitive, and metacognitive strategies of higher and lower performers in an engineering design project: an exploratory study of college freshmen
Oenardi Lawanto, Deborah Butler, Sylvie Cartier, Harry B. Santoso, Wade Goodridge
This paper examines the task interpretation and strategy use of higher- and lower-performing college freshmen while engaged in anengineering design project using a self-regulated learning (SRL) framework. Our goals were to consider how students’interpretation of task demands could be associated with their use of planning, cognitive, and monitoring/fix-up strategies, both aspart of the design process and when managing their time, resources and teamwork. The main research question that guided thestudy was: In what ways did higher- vs. lower-performing students differ when engaged in an engineering design project? Withregards to this question, we specifically explored how these two groups of students were similar or different in their: (1) taskinterpretation in relation to reported strategy use during the design process; and (2) task interpretation in relation to reportedstrategy use in project management. Seventy freshman engineering students enrolled in an introductory engineering design course atUtah State University were recruited for the study. From among that group, data from 20 higher- and 12 lower-performers wereselected for analysis. Survey instruments and Web-based design journal entries were used to capture students’ task interpretation,reported strategy use, including planning (PS), cognitive (CS), and monitoring/fix-up strategies (MF), and perceptions of importantperformance criteria (CR). Students’ design performance was evaluated by the teacher. Descriptive and nonparametric statistics andgraphical views were used to analyze student SRL profiles. Entries from students’ design journals were coded using an SRL modeland interpreted to triangulate and complement survey data to achieve deeper insight about SRL between the two groups. Thefindings suggested that both higher- and lower-performers were highly aware of important task requirements. However, higher-performing students had a greater awareness and reported greater use of monitoring and fix-up strategies associated with success inthe design process. The higher-performing students also obtained higher scores on criteria for performance than lower-performingstudents, both in the design process and project management. Furthermore, journal writings revealed that higher performers weremore thorough in identifying and describing design requirements and strategies for their projects than were the lower performers.This paper discusses the potential implication for design instruction in engineering college freshmen.
