Professional Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Assessing-Creative-Thinking-In-Design-B 👈

1. Abstract Infusing creative thinking competence through the design process of
authentic projects requires not only changing the teaching methods and learning
environment, but also adopting new assessment methods, such as portfolio assess-
ment. The participants in this study were 128 high school pupils who have studied
MECHATRONICS from 10th to 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 a creative design
process that had been introduced to them. Second, the projects were assessed
according to a creative thinking scale. This scale was designed to assist pupils in
documenting the design process. It could be used as a guideline for teachers and
pupils during the course of the project. The research examined pupils’ performance
during project-based learning. The research tools included: observations of class
activities, portfolio assessment, and external matriculation assessment. The findings
show first that pupils learned to document their design process. Second, pupils’
projects demonstrated various levels of creative thinking skill. Evidences for high-
level documentation of the projects were found in pupils’ portfolios. 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.
Keywords Engineering education Æ Design process Æ Project-based learning Æ
Creative thinking Æ Learning environment Æ Portfolio assessment
Introduction
This study explores the use of design-based learning (DBL) to support the docu-
mentation of an authentic project pupils are creating as a graduation project at high
school level.
Y. Doppelt (&)
University of Pittsburg, 815 LRDC, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, USA
e-mail: yaron@pitt.edu
123
Int J Technol Des Educ (2009) 19:55–65
DOI 10.1007/s10798-006-9008-y
ORIGINAL PAPER
Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning
Yaron Doppelt
Received: 24 November 2004 / Accepted: 5 July 2006 / Published online: 5 January 2007
Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

2. Engineering education in Israel
Engineering education in Israel is part of the comprehensive high school curriculum.
Engineering education in the high school level has a unique structure that combines
practical and theoretical knowledge, synthesizes vertical and lateral thinking, and
creates a rich and flexible learning environment (LE). At the end of junior high
school, pupils have to choose one or more areas as a major, such as Sciences,
Humanities or Engineering. The Engineering curriculum for the high school in Israel
contains several major subjects that are related to physics and mathematics, such as
civil engineering, computers and electronics, mechanics and control systems.
MECHATRONICS is a new sub-major in the mechanics and control subject. Pupils
study MECHATRONICS for 3 years, 10th– 12th grades. They learn Physics, System
Control, Mechanics and Programming for 5 h per week (h/w) altogether 20 h/w. This
syllabus is about half of their weekly schedule. The culmination of this curriculum is
a graduation project.
The MECHATRONICS curriculum has been implemented in nine schools since
2000/2001. In 2003, there were 15 schools that offered this major to their pupils. In
2005, 30 schools offered MECHATRONICS. This curriculum recommends pupils to
create a graduation project. If a pupil chooses to work on a graduation project it will
replace one external matriculation examination out of the three examinations that
are required in the MECHATRONICS major. The MECHATRONICS curriculum
is an integration of several scientific and engineering topics. Therefore, the gradu-
ation project deals with real-life situations. The pupils choose to explore, design,
construct, and create a program which controls the system. Educators may create
rich learning environments in which pupils have freedom to decide, to invent and/or
to choose the problem or the nature of their project. The assessment processes of
learning outcomes in a rich learning environment have an important impact on the
learning process (Doppelt & Barak, 2002). In addition pupils’ perspectives on the
most influential characteristics of the learning environment are important for
teaching and learning and for the designing of learning environments (Doppelt,
2004). This study suggests an infusing of creative thinking into a design process
during project-based learning (PBL).
Infusing creative thinking into the design process
Infusing the teaching of thinking skills into a specific disciplinary course may provide
a rich LE that will contribute not only to the development of thinking skills but also
to a better understanding of the discipline under study (Ennis, 1989; Glaser, 1993;
Zohar & Tamir, 1993). 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. Design-based learning (DBL) can be used creatively
using the system approach (Doppelt, 2005; Doppelt, Mehalik, & Schunn, 2005).
Active learning with objects can serve as an instrument to develop thinking and
can encourage teachers to design modern LE (Collings, 1985; Dewey, 1977). This
active experience in a science–technology LE enables a continuous passage between
motorized thinking, concrete thinking and formal thinking activities (Waks, 1995).
Pupils, who are given the opportunity to choose their own authentic project, think
about needs, decide about their priorities; they design, build, and assess their
56 Y. Doppelt
123

3. activities and products, thus realizing that much depends on themselves, not on
others. Through such experiences they gain self-esteem and personal responsibility
(Waks, 1995). In DBL the learner is required to deal with the real world. This
experience assists pupils in understanding the complexity of a real design process of
a real prototype. It enables them to engage in designing real experiments and not
only learning the theory. In this learning process, the learner is required to consider
real factors involved in such a design (de Vries, 1997).
Project-based learning has the potential to enable pupils to: research, plan, design
and reflect on the creation of technological projects (Doppelt, 2000). PBL could be
used as a tool to develop pupils’ competencies by working on integrated projects
(Barlex, 2002). Designing an authentic project means that pupils define their own
design problem, deal with needs, and decide on their requirements. This enables the
teaching of science–technology to pupils from various backgrounds (Seiler, Tobin &
Sokolic, 2001). An authentic project deals with real life situations and by definition
has an integrated nature. An authentic project enables pupils to combine ‘‘hands-
on‘‘ activities with what Papert (1980) has termed ‘‘heads-in’’ activities. Past
researchers have shown that PBL effect pupils’ motivation, thinking, achievements
and teachers’ development (Barak & Doppelt, 1999, 2000; Barak, Eisenberg &
Harel, 1995; Barlex, 1994; Doppelt, 2003, 2005; Doppelt & Barak, 2002; Kolodner,
Crismond, Gray, Holbrook, & Puntambekar, 1998; Resnick & Ocko, 1991).
A design process is similar to problem solving and has a general structure which
includes six stages: defining the problem and identifying the need, collecting infor-
mation, introducing alternative solutions, choosing the optimal solution, designing
and constructing a prototype, and evaluation. This approach towards technology
education has been criticized by researchers who have claimed that it is difficult for
pupils and even for teachers to learn how to use a general design process (McCor-
mick & Murphy, 1994). In order to avoid teaching a general design process, teachers
should assist pupils in integrating disciplines in their design process and to teach
standards, rules, and marketing in addition to a wide base of scientific knowledge (de
Vries, 1996). PBL encourages pupils to work in teams (Barak & Maymon, 1998;
Denton, 1994). One of the main keys for success in PBL is engaging the pupils in the
assessment process.
Assessing creative thinking in PBL
Imparting creative thinking to pupils through the design process of their projects
requires not only changing the teaching methods and the LE, but also adopting new
assessment methods, such as portfolio assessment, a method based on records of
pupils’ activities. The new methods of assessment use the ‘‘authentic outcomes’’ of
the learning process (Gredler, 1995). The portfolio reflects what pupils have learned,
how they question, analyze, synthesize, solve problems, and create new ideas or
design and build useful products or systems. The portfolio shows also how pupils
interact intellectually, emotionally and socially with others (Collins, 1991; Wolf,
1989).
The use of alternative assessment methods gives educators a chance to create
changes in teaching methods and to adapt it to pupils’ different learning styles
(Barak & Doppelt, 1999, 2000). The Creative Thinking in Technology program
(Barak & Doppelt, 1999) integrates thinking tools (De Bono, 1986) into the
MECHATRONICS curriculum using the Multi-Techno-Logo LE (Doppelt &
Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning 57
123

4. Armon, 1999) for creating authentic projects. Barak and Doppelt (1999) have shown
that the pupils cope with complex problems and find solutions that depend on cre-
ative thinking.
Barak, Waks, and Doppelt (2000) describe the implementation of the pro-
gram, which began in 1994, and combines qualitative and quantitative tools. The
findings showed that pupils prefer a LE that enables them to design and con-
struct projects in teams. Pupils feel that the aspects of such a LE create chal-
lenges, develop their imagination, and contribute to their success in studying
technological subjects (Doppelt & Barak, 2002). Engaging pupils in PBL and in
assessments processes created an accelerated LE for low-achievers that caused
them to succeed in the matriculation examination at the end of high-school, and
created for them a path to continue their education in college (Doppelt, 2003).
A creative design process (CDP) and De Bono’s framework (1996) for assessing
creative thinking were implemented in the MECHATRONICS department of
the high school the author has been teaching since 1993. Integrating a creative
design process with a creative thinking scale (CTS) was described previously in
two different research setting (Barak & Doppelt, 2000; Doppelt, 2005). The
current study expands the implementation of the CTS and validates the results
of its assessment against external assessment of pupils’ projects. The CTS is
presented in Table 1 in order to assist the reader in understanding how it was
implemented in this study.
Methods
This study consists of three stages. First, field research was designed to implement
the CDP 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 stage was to understand the way pupils design their
projects. The third stage was to field-test CTS as a method for assessing CDP and
validate it with the results of external assessment.
Participants
Over the course of 7 years, this study followed 128 pupils who studied MECHA-
TRONICS as their major subject in high school. They studied the MECHA-
TRONICS curriculum which was mentioned earlier. These pupils learned according
to the Creative Thinking in Technology program (Barak & Doppelt, 1999) during
their 10th grade year. In their 11th grade they studied mechanics and control system
and took external matriculation examination in these two subjects. In addition, they
were required to choose a topic for their project, to design, construct, program, and
present an authentic project as a graduation project. A graduation project is a
mandatory requirement in the MECHATRONICS curriculum and it takes place in
the 12th grade.
The CDP was introduced to these pupils in the 12th grade. The CDP has been
taught in the context of helping pupils to document their projects. The pupils were
not forced to use the CDP as a tool for designing their projects.
58 Y. Doppelt
123

5. Table 1 CTS: Creative thinking scale
Thinking layers Portfolio’s components
A. System or product design, construction and evaluation B. Learning, thinking and problem-solving
activities
Layer 1: Awareness Pupil’s 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.
Standard diagram of a system or product
taken from available literature.
An example of solving a simple problem in
planning and construction.
Basic explanation of the model and its construction. Division of tasks in the team.
Description of the model by means of pictures
or sketches.
Some examples of using lateral and vertical
thinking tools.
Layer 2: Observation The observation
of consequences of action and choice;
consider other people view; comparing
alternatives.
Original schematic diagram of system or product
designed by the pupil. Detailed drawings
of the model.
Justified examples of choices among a
number of alternatives
Information exchange and reciprocal help
in the team.
Specification of planning and construction stages
including calculations, specifications or
computer programs.
Various examples of using thinking tools.
Layer 3: Strategy The use of thinking tools;
organizing one’s thinking as a sequence
of steps; define goals.
Original system functional block diagrams, structural
tree or flow chart.
Examples of the contribution of individuals
and teamwork to solving complex problems.
Description of a number of iterations in the planning
and construction of the model.
Evidence of planned use of thinking tools,
open-mindedness and postponing decision
(lateral thinking); setting priorities, goals
and criteria (vertical thinking).
Comparison among and choosing from a number of models.
Layer 4: Reflection A systematic use of thinking
tools; awareness of reflective thinking;
evaluation of one’s own thinking;
designing thinking tasks
and methods to implement these tasks.
Examination of the final product’s features, compared to
the set goals.
Conclusions drawn about the influence of
the team’s functioning on the completion
of the project.
Conclusions about successes or difficulties during the
development process.
Pupils’ view on the influence of the team’s
functioning on thinking and learning
processes.
Suggestions for improvement in the planning and
construction process.
Assessment of the selected solution
compared to the goals.
Assessing
creative
thinking
in
design-based
learning
59
123

6. 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.
Observations of class activities were documented in the researcher diary. The
researcher was the teacher who tutored these pupils since 1996 until 2003. Each year
the researcher documented in his diary the pupils’ progress, problems, and evalua-
tive criteria that were developed with various classes.
Analyses of pupils’ portfolios assisted in validating the findings. Each year the
researcher interacted with five to ten teams of pupils who conducted projects for 2 h
a week during the school year.
A total of 57 team-projects were assessed according to CTS (Barak & Doppelt,
2000; Doppelt, 2005). In addition, every pupil has to take an external matriculation
examination at the end of the 12th grade. The examination stages are: the school
sends all the projects’ portfolios to an instructor from the Ministry of Education
2 weeks prior to the date of the examination. The instructor reads the portfolios and
prepares questions that are related to the graduation project. On the examination
date, the pupils perform a 20-min presentation in front of the instructor. The
instructor directs different questions to each of the pupils about the project and each
pupil need to answer individually. Then the instructor decides upon the final grade of
each individual pupil in the MECHATRONICS graduation project.
Findings
The findings are presented in two sections. First, a representative example of an
authentic project demonstrates how a graduation project in the MECHATRONICS
curriculum might look like. Second, the implementation of CDP during PBL will be
presented as it was documented in pupils’ portfolios. And, third, a portfolio
assessment of the projects using CTS will be presented.
What is an authentic graduation project in MECHATRONICS?
Two pupils chose to design and create a prototype of a system that will enable a boat
to cross a waterfall in both directions. Figure 1 show the final prototype they built.
This is an authentic project not only because it was their own idea. The teacher
did not offer them an idea and did not suggest a ready-made, well-defined problem
to solve. They chose it because they were curious about how such a system works.
From that minute their whole free time, in between lessons and after school, was
devoted to search information on such systems. In Israel there is not even one
example of such a system so all the information they have collected came from
websites from Europe and the U.S.
They designed their prototype according to no formal design process. They
constructed a prototype without any information about how to build it. They used
the LEGO system in order to construct the main subsystems of their prototype. In
addition, they created a program that controls the system and enables it to identify a
boat approaching the waterfall. The boat enters a section of the system in which the
water starts to elevate it to the upper level or vice versa.
60 Y. Doppelt
123

7. The pupils have accomplished a sophisticated graduation project. They solved
mechanical problems beyond the high school curriculum. They solved problems in
system control beyond that curriculum. They programmed and used sensors—some
ready made from LEGO but some they created especially for their system.
This is a representative example of what happened each year when freedom to
choose an authentic project had been given to pupils (Doppelt & Barak, 2002).
Therefore, why we need to teach high school pupils a formal design process?
We want pupils to graduate high school with presentation skills. Pupils need to
know how to present their ideas to others and explain the process they went through.
It does not necessary need to be a design process it could be simply their thinking
processes. The CDP is just one possible option that is simple enough to support the
documentation of the graduation project. It can serve also as guidelines for the
pupils to prepare their presentation in the external matriculation examination.
Pupils apply CDP in their projects
One hundred and twenty-eight pupils conducted authentic projects since 1996. There
were 37 projects conducted by teams (2–4 pupils) and 20 projects that were done by
an individual pupil.
Table 2 presents an assessment of pupils’ implementation of CDP.
These findings reveal the strong and weak aspects of pupils’ implementation of
CDP as reflected in documentations found in their portfolios. Educators should be
interested in more then a final graduation grade. It is important to identify what
skills pupils gained through the creation of a graduation project. It is even more
important to identify what skills pupils are less competent with. The creative
thinking scale could assist in such assessment.
Assessing pupils’ project according to CTS
Figure 2 presents a summative description of the portfolios assessment according to
the CTS layers of achievements compared to external assessment of the supervisor
who has examined the projects. The external assessment (matriculation grades) in
Israel is scaled such that scores above 55 indicate a passing grade. According to the
external assessment all the 128 pupils received grades above 80 (Figure 2).
Fig. 1 A representative
example for authentic project:
A water-fall crossing system
Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning 61
123

8. Table 3 reveal that most of the pupils created portfolios that reflected a high level
of achievement in the first domain as measured by CTS. Pupils learned to use CDP
and implemented it well according to various aspects of their system or product. On
the other hand, only 13.7% of the portfolios reflected a high level of achievements in
the second domain as measured by CTS. In addition, 21.6% of the portfolios were
assessed only in the first level of the second domain. This leads me to believe that we
need to strengthen the development of pupils’ reflection skills in the second domain
of the CTS.
Discussion and conclusions
A wealth of experience about how CTS contributes to the assessment of pupils’
projects was collected over a 7-year investigation. The results demonstrate how this
assessment methodology can help educators to develop and evaluate learning
assignments aimed at fostering creative thinking. Through CDP and systematic
reflection on it, pupils can develop awareness of their internal thinking processes and
learn to direct their own thinking and document it. These are the main reasons for
using CDP-not to educate pupils to design according to a general procedure (de
Table 2 CDP summative: n = 57 projects
CDP
stages
Percentages
(%)
Explanations
Purpose 90 Most of the portfolios document instances of defining the problem,
describing the need, explaining the demands from the system.
Inquiry 70 There were pupils’ portfolios in which the pupils did not document
information they have collected. Some of the portfolios were not
organized according to the suggestions in CDP.
Solutions 80 In most of the pupils’ portfolios various alternative solutions were
well-documented.
Choice 40 There is much to study and practice before the pupils’ portfolios will
reflect the way pupils choose their solution.
Operations 100 In all the portfolios evidences were found for comprehensive operations
steps. Detailed and justify design process.
Evaluation 30 High school pupils lack the maturity to evaluate their own thinking.
Table 3 Percentages of portfolios in various CTS layer
Achievements’ layers Portfolio’s components
A. System or product
design, construction
and evaluation
B. Learning, thinking
and problem-solving
activities
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
62 Y. Doppelt
123

9. Vries, 1996), but to document their design process. It is not essential that pupils
construct their ideas, solutions and products following a specific design process. It is
an educational goal to teach them to document properly and to reflect on their
creation.
Pupils should not repeat the methods in this design process slavishly, because it 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 creative thinking in their engineering projects. Fostering pupils’
reflection on their design process as part of developing creative thinking skills in
engineering is an important goal for educators (Doppelt, 2005; Doppelt & Barak,
2002; Doppelt, Mehalik, & Schunn, 2005).
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 problems. 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).
The developed CTS enabled teachers and researchers to set goals for the pupils
(and for the teachers) during the learning process. CDP and CTS are useful and can
be implemented by teachers who have participated in a relevant in-service training
(Doppelt, 2005). The assessment of engineering education can be very instructive to
teachers and pupils when it is highly integrated in engineering education—education
that allows pupils to combine and integrate various knowledge and skills (de Vries,
1997).
0.0%
15.7%
29.4%
54.9%
0.0%
7.8%
39.2%
52.9%
21.6%
41.2%
23.5%
13.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
55-80 80-87 88-93 98-100
Thinking Layers & Matriculation Grades
Matriculation Examination
System or product design, construction and evaluation
Learning, thinking and problem-solving activities
Awareness Strategy Reflection
Students=128
Projects=57
Observation
Fig. 2 A comparison between CTS layers and the external supervisor’ grades
Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning 63
123

10. 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 study 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 their collaboration on improving Engineering
Education. Furthermore, I have studied many years with different teachers, but I have learned the
most from my pupils. Their authentic projects inspired me and encouraged me to continue my
research on how to develop thinking and assist all learners to learn. In addition, thanks are due to Dr.
Eliza Littleton for her thoughtful comments on this paper.
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 Tech-
nology Studies, 26(2), 16–24.
Barak, M., Eisenberg, E., & Harel, O. (1995). ‘What’s in the calculator?’ An introductory project for
technology studies. Research in Science and 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.
Barak, M., Waks, S., & Doppelt Y. (2000). Majoring in technology studies at high school and
fostering learning. Learning Environment Research, 3, 135–158
Barlex, D. (1994). Organising project work, In: F. Banks (Ed.), Teaching technology, (pp. 124–143).
London: Routledge.
Barlex, D. (2002). The relationship between science and design and technology in the secondary
school curriculum in England. In: I. Mottier, & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of the PATT12
Conference, 3–12.
Collings, J. E. (1985). Scientific thinking through the development of formal operation training, in
the cognitive restructuring aspect of field-independence. Research in Science and Technological
Education, 3, 145–152.
Collins, A. (1991). Portfolio for biology teacher assessment. Journal of School Personnel Evaluation
in Education, 5, 147–167.
De Bono, E. (1986). The CoRT thinking program (2nd ed.). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
De Bono, E. (1996). Master workshop of de Bono’s thinking course. Jerusalem: Branco Weiss
Institute for the Development of Thinking.
de Vries, M. J. (1993). Design methodology and relationships with science: Introduction. In: M. J.
deVries, N. Cross, & D. P. Grant (Eds.), Design methodology and relationship with science (pp.
1–14). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers (in cooperation with NATO Scientific Affairs
Division).
de Vries, M. J. (1996). Technology education: Beyond the ‘‘technology is applied science’’ paradigm.
Journal of Technology Education, 8(1), 7–15.
64 Y. Doppelt
123

11. de Vries, M. J. (1997). Technology assessment and the assessment of technology education. In:
I. Mottier & M. J. de Vries (Eds.), Proceedings of PATT8 Conference: Assessing Technology
Education (pp. 373–378). PATT Foundation, Eindhoven University of Technology, The
Netherlands.
Denton, H. (1994). The role of group/team work in design and technology: Some possibilities and
problems. In: F. Banks. (Ed.), Teaching technology (pp. 145–151). London: Routledge.
Dewey, J. (1977). Experience and education (20th printing), New York: Macmillan Collier.
Doppelt, Y. (2000, June). Developing pupils’ competencies through creative thinking in techno-
logical projects, Paper presented to The 28th Israel Conference on Mechanical Engineering,
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Beer-Sheva, Israel.
Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementing and assessing project-based learning in a flexible environment.
The International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 255–272.
Doppelt, Y. (2004). The impact of the characteristics of science–technology learning environment:
Pupils’ perceptions and gender differences. Learning environment Research, 7(3), 271–293.
Doppelt, Y. (2005). Assessment of project-based learning in a MECHATRONICS context. Journal
of Technology Education, 16(2), 7–21.
Doppelt, Y., & Armon, U. (1999, August). LEGO/Logo (Multi-Techno-Logo) as an authentic
environment for improving learning skills of low-achievers, Paper presented at the Euro-Logo
Conference, Sofia, Bulgaria.
Doppelt, Y., & Barak, M. (2002). Pupils identify key aspects and outcomes of a technological
learning environment. Journal of Technology Studies, 28(1), 12–18.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., & Schunn, D. C. (2005, April). A close-knit collaboration between
researchers and teachers for developing and implementing a design-based science module.
National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Dallas, TX.
Ennis, R. H. (1989). Critical thinking and subject specificity: Clarification and needed research.
Educational Researcher, 18(3), 4–10.
Glaser, R. (1993). Education and thinking: The role of knowledge. In: R. McCormick, P. Murphy, &
M. Harrison (Eds.), Teaching and Learning Technology (pp. 91–111). Wokingham, England:
Addison-Wesley in association with The Open University.
Gredler, E. M. (1995). Implications of portfolio assessment for programme evaluation. Studies in
Educational Evaluation, 21, 431–437, Elsevier Science Ltd.
Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design
from theory to practice. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences
(ICLS 98) (pp. 16–22). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
McCormick R., & Murphy P. (1994) Learning the processes in technology, Paper presented to the
British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, Oxford University, England.
NSPE, 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: I. Harel, &
S. Papert (Eds.), Constructionism (pp. 141–150). New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation
Norwood.
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. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg: Tempus Publicationss.
Wolf, D. (1989). Portfolio assessment: Sampling student’s 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 Mathmatics, 93(3), 136–140.
Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning 65
123