The DOI matches its Crossref record; 72 of the 72 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners
Abstract
In this paper we report on an in‐depth study of engineering design processes. Specifically, we extend our previous research on engineering student design processes to compare the design behavior of students and expert engineers. Nineteen experts from a variety of engineering disciplines and industries each designed a playground in a lab setting, and gave verbal reports of their thoughts during the design task. Measures of their design processes and solution quality were compared to pre‐existing data from 26 freshmen and 24 seniors. The experts spent significantly more time on the task overall and in each stage of engineering design, including significantly more time problem scoping. The experts also gathered significantly more information covering more categories. Results support the argument that problem scoping and information gathering are major differences between advanced engineers and students, and important competencies for engineering students to develop. Timeline representations of the expert designers' processes illustrate characteristic distinctions we found and may help students gain insights into their own design processes.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
(1999) · Cited by 12,812
(2014) · The Reflective Practitioner in Professional Education · doi:10.1057/9781137399595.0007 · Cited by 8,325
Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering
Marler, R. T., & Arora, J. S. (2004) · Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization · doi:10.1007/s00158-003-0368-6 · Cited by 4,710
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Venkatesan, M., Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1986) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3151491 · Cited by 4,347
Knowledge engineering: Principles and methods
Studer, R., Benjamins, V. R., & Fensel, D. (1998) · Data & Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.1016/s0169-023x(97)00056-6 · Cited by 3,686
Protocol Analysis: Verbal Reports as Data
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/5657.001.0001 · Cited by 3,537
Bransford, J. D. (2000) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 2,530
Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution
Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001) · Design Studies · doi:10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00009-6 · Cited by 2,357
(2014) · doi:10.4324/9781315799681 · Cited by 2,174
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.30-0323 · Cited by 2,159
Cited by
How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices
Fan, S.-C., & Yu, K.-C. (2017) · International Journal of Technology and Design Education · doi:10.1007/s10798-015-9328-x · Cited by 206
Spikol, D., Ruffaldi, E., Dabisias, G., & Cukurova, M. (2018) · Journal of Computer Assisted Learning · doi:10.1111/jcal.12263 · Cited by 180
(2013) · TU/e Research Portal · Cited by 41
Professional development for design-based learning in engineering education: a case study
Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2015) · European Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1080/03043797.2014.903228 · Cited by 38
The role of learning style in engineering design thinking via project-based STEM course
Chang, C.-C., & Yen, W.-H. (2023) · Asia Pacific Journal of Education · doi:10.1080/02188791.2021.1957776 · Cited by 22
Metadata
- Authors
- Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-10
- Volume
- 96
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 359-379
- ISSN
- 1069-4730 (ISSN-L)
- 2168-9830
- OpenAlex
- W2006091010
- Cited by
- 891
- References
- 72
- FWCI
- 24.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x
- The paper
- Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering Design Processes: A Comparison of Students and Expert Practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
