No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Comparing Two Approaches to Engineering Design in the 7th Grade Science Classroom
Abstract
In schools, design projects can be implemented at a variety of ways and with varying degrees of resources from teachers and schools. However, little work has been done on the differences between student learning outcomes and the type of design projects. This study compares two design projects implemented in 7th grade classrooms (n=677) at two different schools to explain affordances of each approach based on differences in project authenticity, scale, and depth of context in supporting student learning outcomes. The main data sources were an engineering science test and a design reasoning elicitation problem, administered at each school before and after the design project. To understand the relationship between students' science learning gains and school implementation, we conducted a sign test to compare between-group differences and a Mann Whitney Test to compare within-group differences. Then, we performed a content analysis to examine students' design reasoning and a two-way contingency table analysis to understand if a student's school implementation was related to the changes in design trade-off reasoning. Students at both schools exhibited statistically significant but small gains on their engineering science test scores. While students at the school with a more interdisciplinary, more authentic design project had higher scores on the engineering science test, students at the school with a smaller scale implementation discussed more trade-off factors in their design reasoning elicitation problem. These findings suggest that differences in project implementation appear to be associated with different learning outcomes, and there are potential benefits to both authenticity and simplicity in design projects. © 2018 International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology. All rights reserved.
... The design step is the second for the design process which involves the generation and evaluation of alternative solutions. Key aspects by Goldstein et al. (2018) and Walker et al. (2018) about the step is that it is characterised by describing the pros and cons, and by making decisions about the criteria and constraints. In the light of what is distinguished as important features in the step, some key studies (Lin et al. 2021;Mesutoglu & Baran, 2020) were developed for the design step. ...
... In view of what is highlighted from Lin et al. (2021); Mesutoglu and Baran, (2020) studies, a contrasting study by Ortega-Tudela et al. (2021) found that future teachers showed creativity to address problems emanating from the design step activities. Addressing problems in this section equates to what was earlier identified in (Goldstein et al. 2018;Walker et al. 2018) as a key aspect to effectively identify pros and cons in the design step. ...
... These results about the design step differ from the investigation stage which is a good sign. It means key aspects about the step of for an example making decisions about the criteria and constraints were understood as earlier indicated by (Goldstein et al. 2018;Walker et al. 2018). The results are similar to Ortega-Tudela et al. (2021) who found out that future teachers showed creativity in order to address problems emanating from the design step activities. ...
The technology curriculum is positioned to have the same status as those in mathematics and science curricula. This existence is supplied as a means of advancing knowledge and contributing to key insights into the subject's design process curriculum, particularly in the context of an ODeL. Innovative instructional methodologies are better positioned to develop design process knowledge within the needs of the ODeL environment to meet this requirement. "How did the e-tutors' gained pedagogical knowledge effect the students' learning of the design process?" was studied as a question to help the inquiry get more important insights. This work used a quantitative way to answer the main research question by allowing students to describe how they believe their e-tutor abilities to select instructional tactics to teach the design process. The quantitative data was employed as a scope and depth of comprehension and confirmation of the data gathered in the quantitative approach. Three hundred fifty postgraduate students were chosen from a year module of a degree as a sample. The instructional tactics of the e-tutors in teaching the design process in the virtual classroom were evaluated through an online survey. In the results of the study, in virtual classroom settings, e-tutors were found to have less ability to innovate and employ a broad educational style. It can be recommended to use an alternative model of e-tutor appointments instead of using the existing.
... The design step is the second for the design process which involves the generation and evaluation of alternative solutions. Key aspects by Goldstein et al. (2018) and Walker et al. (2018) about the step is that it is characterised by describing the pros and cons, and by making decisions about the criteria and constraints. In the light of what is distinguished as important features in the step, some key studies (Lin et al. 2021;Mesutoglu & Baran, 2020) were developed for the design step. ...
... In view of what is highlighted from Lin et al. (2021); Mesutoglu and Baran, (2020) studies, a contrasting study by Ortega-Tudela et al. (2021) found that future teachers showed creativity to address problems emanating from the design step activities. Addressing problems in this section equates to what was earlier identified in (Goldstein et al. 2018;Walker et al. 2018) as a key aspect to effectively identify pros and cons in the design step. ...
... These results about the design step differ from the investigation stage which is a good sign. It means key aspects about the step of for an example making decisions about the criteria and constraints were understood as earlier indicated by (Goldstein et al. 2018;Walker et al. 2018). The results are similar to Ortega-Tudela et al. (2021) who found out that future teachers showed creativity in order to address problems emanating from the design step activities. ...
Purpose: It is argued that Open and Distance eLearning (ODeL) institutions are expected to provide student support by focusing on critical aspects of content knowledge. Technology is a critical factor in student support through e-tutoring. The main question is ‘How are the varied procedural steps of the design process taught in the targeted ODeL institution”? It is assumed that ODeL institutions have competent e-tutors when supporting students through the teaching of content knowledge of the design process. Sample: The focus was on the postgraduate students who registered for two modules for a programme (n=250) in 2020. Method: The South African Ministry of Education for Curriculum and Assessment Policy Statement (CAPS) was used to investigate, design, make, evaluate, and communicate. A quantitative approach with an online survey was used in exploring the perceptions of students about e-tutors’ content knowledge. Data analysis: It was done numerically and thematically. Results: The procedural steps vary depending on the different ministries of education worldwide. E-tutors seem to lack content knowledge to teach at a distance learning mode. The teaching of the design process to student teachers requires insights into the procedural steps of the design process curriculum. Suggestions: E-tutors should be provided with training in the design steps.
... In summary, the approaches to integrating engineering in science education must recognize the pedagogical power, epistemological pluralism, and methodological flexibility of engineering. Moreover, a pluralist approach is necessary not only because it depicts the different facets of engineering as a field, but it is necessary from a pedagogical perspective because the use of different models supports different learning outcomes (Goldstein, Omar, Purzer, & Adams, 2018). The intersectionality of the approaches is important to recognize as each approach carries strengths and limitations with respect to the contextualized integration of engineering in K-12 education. ...
... In a middle school design project, Goldstein et al. (2017) have collaborated with a local homebuilder aiming to design a sustainable neighborhood. In this study, researchers found increased improvement in students' ability to apply science concepts to design scenarios (Chao et al., 2017;Goldstein et al., 2018). ...
... Undoubtedly, we recommend that the research community builds a research base that recognizes, expands, compares, critiques, and builds on the various approaches we have discussed earlier. There are emerging comparative studies like Goldstein et al. (2018) who found differences between realistic and simulated approaches with each resulting in significant learning outcomes. However, more of such research is needed. ...
This position paper is motivated by recent educational reform efforts that urge the integration of engineering in science education. We argue that it is plausible and beneficial to integrate engineering into formal K-12 science education. We illustrate how current literature, though often implicitly, discusses this integration from a pedagogical, epistemological, or methodological argumentative stance. From a pedagogical perspective, a historically dominant argument emphasizes how engineering helps make abstract science concepts more concrete. The epistemological argument is centered on how engineering is inherently interdisciplinary and hence its integrative role in support of scientific literacy and more broadly STEM literacy is natural. From a methodological perspective, arguments focus on the engineering design process, which is compatible with scientific inquiry and adaptable to answering different types of engineering questions. We call for the necessity of spelling out these arguments and call for common language as science and engineering educators form a research-base on the integration of science and engineering. We specifically provide and discuss specific terminology associated with four different models, each effectively used to integrate engineering into school science. We caution educators against a possible direction towards a convergence approach for a specific type of integrating engineering and science. Diversity in teaching models, more accurately represents the nature of engineering but also allows adaptations based on available school resources. Future synthesis can then examine student learning outcomes associated with different teaching models.
... Of these, most studies (n=20) focused on student's understanding of or enactment of design practices. For example, Wind et al. [33] investigated student conceptions of the engineering design process, while Goldstein et al. [34] identified rationales for design decisions. Several articles measured the ability of a prototype to meet design criteria by identifying improvement in design practices [35] - [39]. ...
... For example, several articles emphasized collaboration during design challenges [40], [62], [63], [64], [65]. Others focused on creativity in the design process [34], [53], [66]. Systems thinking was the primary focus of the study by Gomoll et al. [49], where students explored the interconnectedness of social and technical problems during a robotics design challenge. ...
... Several studies mentioned above (Hsiao et al., 2022;Lin et al., 2018;Schnittka and Bell, 2011) included a control group that received standard teaching. Studies missing a control group were excluded (Changtong et al., 2020;Goldstein et al., 2018). Changtong et al. (2020), for example, worked with ninth-grade students, assisting them in the creation of racing cars and examining their content gains in the area of forces. ...
... Changtong et al. (2020) compared students working in three separate groups to explore the differences between different STEM approaches. In another study, Goldstein et al. (2018) provided different challenges to students in two different schools, but the authors focused on making comparisons between schools. One of the schools in this study did not serve as a control group and we also eliminated this study. ...
Design‐based learning (DBL) offers opportunities to support students' content understanding. Previous DBL studies reported different effect sizes by using the data from one participant group. The goal of this study was to conduct a meta‐analysis that would give a comprehensive picture of how DBL is connected to student achievement in different disciplines. In addition, we explored the moderators influencing achievement in DBL for K‐12 education. After investigating content‐related gains in our meta‐analysis on 37 individual articles with 52 effect sizes, we found that DBL had a positive and large effect (g¯ = 0.602) on achievement in K‐12 education, and the effect size for science (g¯ = 0.703) was higher than mathematics (g¯ = 0.418) education. When considering the strong emphasis on science education in different DBL related frameworks and STEM (science, engineering, technology, and mathematics) education studies, this cumulative understanding could play an important role in the difference between science and mathematics. Studies that had control groups in the same school (g¯ = 0.703) had statistically significantly higher effect sizes compared to studies that included control groups from different schools (g¯ = 0.447). Studies with random assignment (g¯ = 0.258) had statistically significantly smaller effect sizes compared to studies with non‐random assignment (g¯ = 0.623). In addition, the effect of DBL on achievement showed statistically significant differences among different countries. The remaining moderators (school level, content support, measurement type, and experimental design) did not show statistically significant differences in terms of the effect of DBL on student achievement. Our review presents evidence that participating in DBL activities supports student achievement after the intervention, but how students transfer their content gains in other situations needs convincing evidence. To overcome this challenge, future studies can prioritize how to support achievement in state mandated tests to understand DBL's effect on students' content gains in different learning situations.
... Previous work has investigated design rationale of students in classroom settings [6] and analyzed engineering decision-making [7] [8] [9] [10]. In this study, we explore design rationale in the context of generative design while utilizing the framework for assessing patterns of informal reasoning set by Sadler & Zeidler [2]. ...
... Based on the figures and table above, which design do you think is the best starting place? Q2: Rank the seven outcome characteristics from most (1) to least (7) important (keeping in mind that these designs are a starting place, not a finished product) and explain: Q3: How did your design from Part 1(hand sketch) compare to the computer-generated design? (What did the generated designs do well, and what could they improve on?) ...
... Engineering design process steps are identification of a problem, plan, development of possible solutions, selection of the best solution, construction of a prototype, test solution, redesign, and communication (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006;NRC, 2012, p. 203). The practice of describing pros and cons, making design decisions considering criteria and constraints are part of optimizing the design solution (Goldstein, Omar, Purzer, & Adams, 2018;Walker et al., 2018). While there are multiple conceptualizations to it, engineering design process assist engineers in developing solutions (Mathis, Siverling, Moore, Douglas, & Guzey, 2018). ...
... The top level of the progression was defined by examining core ideas that define engineering design process (Goldstein et al., 2018;Kang et al., 2018;NRC, 2009;Yasar, Baker, Robinson-Kurpius, Krause, & Roberts, 2006), key indicators of a quality K-12 engineering education (Moore et al., 2014), and engineering design process steps (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006;NRC, 2009). The understandings of engineering design process included similarities, which were summarized in the top level of the progression. ...
The purpose of the study was to analyze the development of middle school science teachers’ understanding of engineering design process. The study conceptualized engineering design process that serves as an important context for integrating engineering into K-12 science instruction and described patterns teachers might use to move
towards a more sophisticated understanding. Qualitative case study method was employed to systematically investigate differences in science teachers’ understanding of engineering design process. The procedures of the study included development of an initial version of an engineering design process progression, delivery of a teacher
professional development program, and development of the final version of the progression following revisions. The teacher professional development program was implemented with 30 middle school science teachers and was used to collect data for refinement of the initial version of the progression. Data sources included informative literature, teacher logs, and clinical interviews. Results indicated that a higher level of
understanding pointed to a recognition of the contribution of engineering design to the society and the iterative nature of engineering design process. This level of understanding was also shown to contain possible confusions of the design steps; redesign and communication. Implications of the study contribute to future research and thinking
about middle school science teachers’ understanding of the engineering design process from novice to sophisticated level.
... To measure closeness, CAD systems can assess the degree to which students' tests are aligned to common design criteria. CAD tools enable the measurement of quality by capturing the extent to which students' tested designs meet various design criteria (e.g., Goldstein et al., 2015Goldstein et al., , 2018. ...
Despite an increasing focus on integrating engineering design in K-12 settings, relatively few studies have investigated how to support students to engage in systematic processes to optimize the designs of their solutions. Emerging learning technologies such as computational models and simulations enable rapid feedback to learners about their design performance, as well as the ability to research how students may or may not be using systematic approaches to the optimization of their designs. This study explored how middle school, high school, and pre-service students optimized the design of a home for energy efficiency, size, and cost using facets of fluency, flexibility, closeness, and quality. Results demonstrated that students with successful designs tended to explore the solution space with designs that met the criteria, with relatively lower numbers of ideas and fewer tightly controlled tests. Optimization facets did not vary across different student levels, suggesting the need for more emphasis on supporting quantitative analysis and optimization facets for learners in engineering settings.
... Modeling involves creating different representations of design ideas to investigate deeper. Balance benefit and tradeoffs involves comparing the advantages and disadvantages of design ideas, such as how they might affect users, to facilitate idea selection and to justify a chosen direction (Goldstein, Omar, Purzer, & Adams, 2018). Valid testing and experiments are conducted to understand how design ideas operate, identify shortcoming, or probe stakeholder's view of the design. ...
Engineering design projects provide wide learning opportunities, including developing design thinking abilities. Yet, creating engaging and impactful engineering design challenges is difficult due to the open-ended, cross-disciplinary, and iterative nature of design projects. One critical attribute of these design challenges is their authenticity or, broadly, the degree to which they represent real-world design projects. Authenticity is important for education because it affects student learning and motivation. However, definitions of authenticity vary widely and there is confusion within the literature as to what it does or does not cover, leaving educators and researchers looking to create or leverage authentic engineering design challenges with little guidance. To address this gap, we draw on Strobel et al. 's (2013) authenticity framework, with four key dimensions: context, task, impact, and personal/value and relate it to the design thinking. We apply this framework to compare two distinct cases of K-12 engineering design challenges. Different dimensions of authenticity were evident in each case, in association with different tradeoffs in curriculum design and different opportunities for learning. We call for future research to employ clearer definitions of authenticity so student engagement and learning can be better understood in association with project authenticity.
... Subsequently, a platform following this principle will enable engagement in a fuller scope of the design process. Analysis is also part of several design practices, including iteration (Schimpf and Xie, 2017), design experiments (Vieira et al., 2016) and trade-off decisions (Goldstein 2018;Goldstein et al., 2018). Thus, the inclusion of analysis actions further enables designers to undertake a broader array of design activities in a platform. ...
The complexity of design problems compels the collection of rich process data to understand designers. While some methods exist for capturing detailed process data (e.g., protocol studies), design research focused on design activities still faces challenges, including the scalability of these methods and technology transformations in industry that require new training. This work proposes the Large Data for Design Research (LaDDR) framework, which seeks to integrate big data properties into platforms dedicated to studying design practice and design learning to offer a new approach for capturing process data. This technological framework has three design principles for transforming design platforms: broad simulation scope, unobtrusive logging and support for creation and analysis actions. The case is made that LaDDR platforms will lead to three affordances for research and education: capturing design activities, context setting and operationalization, and research design scalability. Big data and design expertise are reviewed to show how this approach builds on past work. Next, the framework and affordances are presented. Three previously published studies are presented as cases to illustrate the ways in which a LaDDR platform’s affordances manifest. The discussion covers how LaDDR platforms can address the aforementioned challenges, including advancing human-technology collaboration and how this approach can be extended to other design platforms.
... Some emerging research supports this conjecture. In one study, after comparing a user-centered model with a DBT model, the UCD model was found to facilitate learning related to solar energy concepts, while the DBT model promoted understanding of trade-offs (Goldstein et al., 2018). ...
Background
Understanding the nature of engineering is important for shaping engineering education, especially precollege education. While much research has established the pedagogical benefits of teaching engineering in kindergarten through 12th grade (K–12), the philosophical foundations of engineering remain under-examined.
Purpose
This conceptual paper introduces the honeycomb of engineering framework, which offers an epistemologically justified theoretical position and a pedagogical lens that can be used to examine ways engineering concepts and practices are taught in precollege education.
Scope/Method
The honeycomb of engineering was developed as a descriptive framework by examining existing literature over a wide range of related disciplines such as the philosophy of engineering and technology, as well as design thinking and practice. The pedagogical translation of the framework was then developed to examine published precollege engineering curricula.
Results
The framework categorizes the multiple goals of engineering using an ontological classification of engineering inquiries anchored in the central practice of negotiating risks and benefits (i.e., trade-offs). This framework also illustrates the adaptability of design methodology in guiding six inquiries: (1) user-centered design, (2) design-build-test, (3) engineering science, (4) optimization, (5) engineering analysis, and (6) reverse engineering. The published curricula represented these inquiries with varying degrees, with design-build-test lessons seeing the most representation followed by user-centered design.
Conclusions
The honeycomb of engineering framework delineates variations in engineering education based on an epistemological explanation. The pedagogical translations offer guidance to educators, researchers, and curriculum designers for differentiating curricular aims and learning outcomes resulting from participation in different engineering inquiries.
... Previous education research suggests that Aladdin is an e ective tool for helping secondary education students specifically to learn important engineering concepts. Goldstein, Omar, Purzer, & Adams (2018) found that middle school students benefited by working on a design project using Aladdin; importantly, even if their projects were relatively simple. Furthermore, in their study, also with middle school students, Dasgupta, Magana, & Vieira (2019) showed that Aladdin helped students to learn principles of thermodynamics and heat, and allowed them to perform systematic experimentation to create better building designs. ...
Engineering learning, a three-dimensional construct that includes Engineering Habits of Mind, Engineering Practices, and Engineering Knowledge, has been well established and defined at the post-secondary level (Reed, 2018). Meanwhile, engineering within pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (P-12) classrooms continues to grow steadily. Changes introduced by A Framework for K-12 Science Education (National Research Council, 2012) and Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States, 2013) have started to place engineering within secondary science education, just as the inclusion of engineering design in Standards for Technological Literacy did within technology education classrooms at the turn of the century (International Technology and Engineering Educators Association, 2000/2002/2007). More and more students are now exposed to engineering learning prior to graduating from high school in a variety of courses like technology, science, and career/technical education classrooms, as well as informal learning programs. Nevertheless, engineering in its own right often remains a missing or minimal component of the learning experience for many students (Change the Equation, 2016; Miaoulis, 2010). To include engineering in a more prominent manner, the Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning (2020) has recently been published as a practical guide for developing coherent, authentic, and equitable engineering learning programs across schools. This guidance includes a definition of the three dimensions of engineering learning, principles for pedagogical practice, and common learning goals. The framework can support the development of in-depth and authentic engineering learning initiatives and provide building blocks toward the 2020 Standards for Technological and Engineering Literacy. As a component of the framework, engineering practices are detailed by describing core concepts that can support performing these practices with increased sophistication over time. Examples include making data-informed design decisions based on material properties and employing computational tools to analyze data to assess and optimize designs. In this Engineering in Action article, we introduce a freely available, open-source computer-aided design (CAD) software called Aladdin and discuss how it can support authentic engineering practice within secondary classrooms. Earlier works have suggested that Aladdin is an effective tool for implementing Next Generation Science Standards (e.g., Chao et al., 2018; Goldstein, Loy, & Purzer, 2017). Similarly, we make a case for using Aladdin in secondary engineering education and discuss how recommendations of the Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning map to specific features of the software.
Worldwide, engineering design is seeing an increase in pre-college settings due to changing educational policies and standards. Additionally, these projects can help students develop critical skills for a broad range of problem settings, such as design thinking and reflection. In design and other contexts, reflection is a mental process where someone returns to previous experience and uses this revisiting to aid in new actions. While there is substantial research studying design practices at the collegiate or professional level, the design practices of younger students remain understudied. Moreover, past research on reflection has tended to focus on how to support reflection or what impact reflection has and not how students engage in reflection strategies. We had 105 middle school students in the Midwestern United States design a green-energy home using a computer-aided design (CAD) tool, Energy3D. Students were instructed to use Energy3D’s design journal to reflect on their design process throughout the project, enabling students to employ different reflection strategies. Energy3D unobtrusively captures students’ design actions, including journal interactions; these were used to identify students' reflection strategies. Three features of journal interaction were developed, i.e., frequency of interaction across sessions, intensity of interaction, and relative frequency of journal use over other actions. We used k-means cluster analysis on these features and discovered four groups representing different strategies. Regression was used to understand the relationship between reflection strategies and design outcomes. Finally, we draw out implications for supporting pre-college students' productive beginnings of engagement in reflection and future study directions.
Bu çalışmada fen bilgisi öğretmen adayları ile yürütülen mühendislik tasarım temelli bir etkinlikte öğretmen adaylarının geliştirdikleri çözümlerin yaratıcılık ve karar verme unsurları bakımından incelenmesi amaçlanmıştır. Araştırmanın çalışma grubunu 30 fen bilimleri öğretmen adayı oluşturmaktadır. Araştırma durum çalışması deseni ile yürütülmüştür. Öğretmen adaylarının mühendislik tasarım problemlerine yönelik çözümlerini içeren çizim ve açıklamaları araştırmanın verilerini oluşturmaktadır. Veriler betimsel analiz ile çözümlenmiştir. Araştırma kapsamında yaratıcılık bakımından incelenen çözümlerde öğretmen adaylarından oluşan grupların biri dışında hiçbirinin orijinal bir çözüm ortaya koyamadığı, grupların kendi içlerinde geliştirdikleri çözümlerin farklılaşmasının (esnekliğinin) tüm çözüm sayılarına (akıcılık) oranı incelendiğinde 2 grup hariç diğer grupların çözümlerinin en az yarısı ya da daha fazlasının aynı fikirler etrafında şekillendiği (esnek çözümler olmadığı) ve yeni fikirlerle çözüm üretilemediği, ancak bir grup hariç diğer tüm grupların üretilen çözümlerin en az yarısını ya da daha fazlasını detaylandırabildiği belirlenmiştir. Öğretmen adaylarının en uygun olarak belirledikleri çözümler incelendiğinde ise yalnızca bir grubun tüm kriter ve kısıtlamalara uygun bir çözüme karar verdikleri tespit edilmiştir.
Background
Around the world, efforts are underway to include engineering design as part of elementary science instruction. A common rationale for those efforts is that Engineering Design-based Science Teaching (EDST) is a productive pedagogical approach for developing students’ understanding of core science concepts. Effectively utilizing EDST requires that teachers develop design activities that are highly connected to science content so that students can apply and expand their understanding of relevant concepts. In this study, we examine how a group of elementary (grades 3–5) pre-service and in-service teachers incorporated EDST into their planned science instruction. Those teachers were participants in a professional development project aimed at supporting EDST. We examine the ways that participants used EDST, the extent to which engineering design activities were connected to science concepts, and factors associated with those connections.
Results
Most of the participants in the study developed science units in which an engineering design activity was placed at the end of the unit. Approximately half of those design activities lacked connections to the science concepts in the unit; they were typically related to the topic of the science unit, but did not require the use or development of key science ideas. Eleven percent of participants developed engineering activities with deep connections to science concepts, and 35% developed activities with shallow connections. No differences were found between life science, physical science, and earth/space science units in terms of the extent of conceptual connections. However, we did find that participants who utilized and adapted published engineering curriculum materials rather than make them from scratch were more likely to have unit plans with higher levels of conceptual connections.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that elementary teachers need additional support in order to effectively utilize EDST in their classrooms. Even within the context of a supportive professional development project, most of the engineering activities developed by our participants lacked substantial connections to the science concepts in their unit plans. Our findings highlight the value of high-quality curriculum materials to support EDST as well as the need to further expand the curriculum resources that are available to elementary teachers.
Although reflection is a key behaviour of expert designers, it is often a challenging task for new designers. In addition, research on the reflectivity of student designers is limited. The purpose of this study is twofold: (1) to identify the levels of reflectivity while designing, and (2) to study the relationship between reflectivity and conceptions of informed design. We collected data from high school students engaged in an engineering design project. We developed a coding protocol to score levels of reflectivity in student reflections at three levels (low, medium, and high), and used the conceptions of design test to assess changes in student understanding of design activities. Using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, we determined if students tended to select more ‘key’ design activities and fewer ‘distractors’ within each reflection group. We also performed McNemar’s tests to determine which specific design activities were important within each reflection group after the design project. The results show moderately reflective students had higher gains in understanding of informed design activities compared to those with high or low reflectivity. Results also indicate that different design activities became important for students within each of the three reflective groups. Implications from this research indicate that groups of students experience changing conceptions of design in different ways. An understanding of what students deem important while designing would better allow teachers to encourage behaviours that are like those of informed designers.
Many pedagogical innovations aim to integrate engineering design and science learning. However, students frequently show little attempt or have difficulties in connecting their design projects with the underlying science. Drawing upon the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, we argue that the design tools available in a learning environment implicitly shape knowledge development as they mediate students’ design actions. To explore the roles of tools in design-science integrated learning environments, this study investigated how secondary students’ tool-mediated design actions were linked with their science learning in a tool-rich design environment with minimal explicit guidance. Eighty-three ninth-grade students completed an energy-efficient home design challenge in a simulated environment for engineering design supported by rich design tools. Results showed that students substantially improved their knowledge as a result of designing with the tools. Further, their learning gains were positively associated with three types of design actions—representation, analysis, and reflection—measured by the cumulative counts of relevant computer logs. In addition, these design actions were linked with learning gains in ways that were consistent with their theoretical impacts on knowledge development. These findings suggest that, instead of being passive components in a learning environment, tools considerably shape design processes and learning paths. As such, tools offer possibilities to help bridge the design-science gap.
The need to prepare students with twenty-first-century skills through STEM-related teaching is strong, especially at the elementary level. However, most teacher education preparation programs do not focus on STEM education. In an attempt to provide an exemplary model of a STEM unit, we used a rapid prototyping approach to transform an inquiry-based unit on moon phases into one that integrated technology in a meaningful manner to develop technological literacy and scientific concepts for pre-service teachers (PSTs). Using qualitative case study methodology, we describe lessons learned related to the development and implementation of a STEM unit in an undergraduate elementary methods course, focusing on the impact the inquiry model had on PSTs’ perceptions of inquiry-based science instruction and how the integration of technology impacted their learning experience. Using field notes and survey data, we uncovered three overarching themes. First, we found that PSTs held absolutist beliefs and had a need for instruction on inquiry-based learning and teaching. Second, we determined that explicit examples of effective and ineffective technology use are needed to help PSTs develop an understanding of meaningful technology integration. Finally, the rapid prototyping approach resulted in a successful modification of the unit, but caused the usability of our digital instructional materials to suffer. Our findings suggest that while inquiry-based STEM units can be implemented in existing programs, creating and testing these prototypes requires significant effort to meet PSTs’ learning needs, and that iterating designs is essential to successful implementation.
Engineering design is a collaborative and complex process, and our understanding of how to support student teams in learning to design remains limited. By considering in-situ student design teams in a capstone biomedical engineering course, we are a?orded the opportunity to contrast two versions of a non-sponsored project, then consider expert perceptions of their later sponsored designs. Data from two cohorts of the course yield compelling contrasts for authentic design learning experiences. We found that a non-sponsored redesign project led students to values customer needs and to use them to de?ne the design problem, whereas in a kit-based version this did not occur. We also found that greater perceived opportunities to negotiate one's understanding within a team predicted more innovative team designs.
Background: Design and science inquiry are intertwined during engineering practice. In this study, we examined the relationship between design behaviors and scientific explanations. Data on student design processes were collected as students engaged in a project on designing energy-efficient buildings on a blank square city block surrounded by existing buildings using a computer-aided design program, Energy3D, with built-in solar energy simulation capabilities. We used criterion sampling to select two highly reflective students among 63 high school students. Results: The main data sources were design replays (automatic playback of student design sequences within the CAD software) and electronic notes taken by the students. We identified evidence of informed design such as problem framing, idea fluency, and balancing benefits and trade-offs. Opportunities for meaningful science learning through engineering design occurred when students attempted to balance design benefits and trade-offs.
The purpose of this research was to investigate the impact of engineering design classroom activities on middle‐school students’ conceptions of heat transfer and thermal energy. One eighth‐grade physical science teacher and the students in three of her classes participated in this mixed‐methods investigation. One class served as the control receiving the teacher’s typical instruction. Students in a second class had the same learning objectives, but were taught science through an engineering design curriculum that included demonstrations targeting specific alternative conceptions about heat transfer and thermal energy. A third class also used the engineering design curriculum, but students experienced typical demonstrations instead of targeted ones. Conceptual understandings of heat transfer and thermal energy and attitudes towards engineering were assessed prior to and after the interventions through interviews, observations, artefact analysis, a multiple choice assessment, and a Likert scale assessment. Results indicated that the engineering design curriculum with targeted demonstrations was significantly more effective in eliciting desired conceptual change than the typical instruction and also significantly more effective than the engineering curriculum without targeted demonstrations. Implications from this study can inform how teachers should be prepared to use engineering design activities in science classrooms for conceptual change.
Materials science, which entails the practices of selecting, testing, and characterizing materials, is an important discipline
within the study of matter. This paper examines how third grade students’ materials science performance changes over the course
of instruction based on an engineering design challenge. We conducted a case study of nine students who participated in engineering
design-based science instruction with the goal of constructing a stable, quiet, thermally comfortable model house. The learning
outcome of materials science practices was assessed by clinical interviews conducted before and after the instruction, and
the learning process was assessed by students’ workbooks completed during the instruction. The interviews included two materials
selection tasks for designing a sturdy stepstool and an insulated pet habitat. Results indicate that: (1) students significantly
improved on both materials selection tasks, (2) their gains were significantly positively associated with the degree of completion
of their workbooks, and (3) students who were highly engaged with the workbook’s reflective record-keeping tasks showed the
greatest improvement on the interviews. These findings suggest the important role workbooks can play in facilitating elementary
students’ learning of science through authentic activity such as engineering design.
KeywordsDesign-based science-Elementary science-Design decisions-Science workbooks-Clinical interviews-Properties of materials
This chapter provides multiple perspectives on the intricate relations between argumentation and learning. Different approaches
to learning impinge on the way argumentation is conceived of: as a powerful vehicle for reaching shared understanding, as
a set of skills pertaining to critical reasoning, or as a tool for social positioning. Each perspective has harvested empirical
studies that have stressed the importance of argumentation in learning. Methodological tools that fit the respective perspectives
are reviewed. In spite of the pluralistic stance adopted, this chapter attempts to draw connections between the findings obtained
in the different perspectives. In a separate part, it considers the specific role of argumentation in learning processes and
outcomes for four subjects areas: in mathematics, studies are presented that show deep gaps between argumentation and proof.
In science, experimental studies are reviewed to examine whether and how argumentation promotes conceptual change. In history,
the chapter considers the role of argumentation in challenging narratives and in claiming a position. At last, we describe
the new wave that characterizes civic education programs towards the instillation of argumentative practices in democratic
citizenship.
This article tells the story of the design of Learning by Design(tm) (LBD), a project-based inquiry approach to science learning with roots in case-based reasoning and problem-based learning, pointing out the theoretical contributions of both, classroom issues that arose upon piloting a first attempt, ways we addressed those challenges, lessons learned about promoting learning taking a project-based inquiry approach, and lessons learned about taking a theory-based approach to designing learning environments. LBD uses what we know about cognition to fashion a learning environment appropriate to deeply learning science concepts and skills and their applicability, in parallel with learning cognitive, social, learning, and communication skills. Our goal, in designing LBD, was to lay the foundation in middle school for students to be successful thinkers, learners, and decisionmakers throughout their lives and especially to help them begin to learn the science they need to know to thrive in the modern world. LBD has students learn science in the context of achieving design-and-build challenges. Included in LBD's framework is a set of ritualized and sequenced activities that help teachers and students acclimate to the culture of a highly collaborative, learner-centered, inquiry-oriented, and design-based classroom. Those ritualized activities help teachers and students learn the practices of scientists, engineers, and group members in ways that they can use outside the classroom. LBD is carefully crafted to promote deep and lasting learning, but we have learned that careful crafting is not enough for success in putting a collaborative inquiry approach into practice. Also essential are fostering a collaborative classroom culture in which students want to be engaged in deep learning and where the teacher sees herself as both a learner and a facilitator of learning, trusts that with her help the students can learn, and enthusiastically assumes the roles she needs to take on.
The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 2001, American Psychological Association, 2010) calls for the reporting of effect sizes and their confidence intervals. Estimates of effect size are useful for determining the practical or theoretical importance of an effect, the relative contributions of factors, and the power of an analysis. We surveyed articles published in 2009 and 2010 in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, noting the statistical analyses reported and the associated reporting of effect size estimates. Effect sizes were reported for fewer than half of the analyses; no article reported a confidence interval for an effect size. The most often reported analysis was analysis of variance, and almost half of these reports were not accompanied by effect sizes. Partial η2 was the most commonly reported effect size estimate for analysis of variance. For t tests, 2/3 of the articles did not report an associated effect size estimate; Cohen's d was the most often reported. We provide a straightforward guide to understanding, selecting, calculating, and interpreting effect sizes for many types of data and to methods for calculating effect size confidence intervals and power analysis.
This paper is based on the premises that the purpose of engineering education is to graduate engineers who can design, and that design thinking is complex. The paper begins by briefly reviewing the history and role of design in the engineering curriculum. Several dimensions of design thinking are then detailed, explaining why design is hard to learn and harder still to teach, and outlining the research available on how well design thinking skills are learned. The currently most-favored pedagogical model for teaching design, project-based learning (PBL), is explored next, along with available assessment data on its success. Two contexts for PBL are emphasized: first-year cornerstone courses and globally dispersed PBL courses. Finally, the paper lists some of the open research questions that must be answered to identify the best pedagogical practices of improving design learning, after which it closes by making recommendations for research aimed at enhancing design learning.
In science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in pre-college, engineering is not the silent “e” anymore. There is an accelerated interest in teaching engineering in all grade levels. Structured engineering programs are emerging in schools as well as in out-of-school settings. Over the last ten years, the number of states in the US including engineering in their K-12 standards has tripled, and this trend will continue to grow with the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards. The interest in pre-college engineering education stems from three different motivations. First, from a workforce pipeline or pathway perspective, researchers and practitioners are interested in understanding precursors, influential and motivational factors, and the progression of engineering thinking. Second, from a general societal perspective, technological literacy and understanding of the role of engineering and technology is becoming increasingly important for the general populace, and it is more imperative to foster this understanding from a younger age. Third, from a STEM integration and education perspective, engineering processes are used as a context to teach science and math concepts. This book addresses each of these motivations and the diverse means used to engage with them. Designed to be a source of background and inspiration for researchers and practitioners alike, this volume includes contributions on policy, synthesis studies, and research studies to catalyze and inform current efforts to improve pre-college engineering education. The book explores teacher learning and practices, as well as how student learning occurs in both formal settings, such as classrooms, and informal settings, such as homes and museums. This volume also includes chapters on assessing design and creativity.
Our vision is to improve the STEM learning and teaching environment for high school students through their understanding of engineering design. Engineering employs principles of mathematics and science to create technologies, thus serving as a STEM integrator. Design is recognized as the critical element of engineering thinking which differentiates engineering from other problem solving approaches. The purpose of this exploratory research was to clarify engineering design as a construct and perform empirical preparatory research on engineering design as a STEM learning experience for high school students. Engineering design has the potential to integrate science, technology and mathematics concepts for students and is essential for developing technological literacy 2. This three year project tested the reasonableness of comparing high school student engineering design thinking with that of experts, and investigates the feasibility of these research methods by addressing the following question: How does high school student engineering design thinking compare to that of experts in terms of engineering design performance and knowledge? Fifty-nine participants from four states were asked to think out loud in a three hour design challenge which was video and audio recorded. Verbal protocol analysis was conducted as the students engaged in the engineering design process. The area of focus for this paper is time allocations across essential elements of the design process. This research may help to uncover the elusive cognitive thought processes employed by students as they practice engineering design thinking and will inform curriculum developers and teachers planning classroom strategies to improve high school students' understanding of engineering.
The energy crises of the 1970s, persisting moisture problems, complaints about sick buildings, thermal, visual and olfactory discomfort, and the move towards more sustainability in building construction have pushed Building Physics to the forefront of building innovation. The societal pressure to diminish energy consumption in buildings without impairing usability acted as a trigger to activate the whole notion of performance based design and construction. As with all engineering sciences, Building Physics is oriented towards application, which is why, after a first book on fundamentals this second volume examines performance rationale and performance requirements. Outdoor and indoor climate conditions are described and calculation values are discussed, the performance concept is specified at the building level and at the building envelope level, and heat-air-moisture material properties are defined. The book incorporates 35 years of teaching Building Physics to architectural, building and civil engineers, bolstered by 40 years of experience, research and consultancy. © 2011 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, Germany. All rights reserved.
Currently, there is a movement in precollege education to include engineering in the science curriculum. In the classroom, one manner of adding engineering to the precollege curricula is through STEM integration in science classrooms. This research project builds on the STEM integration research paradigm through a careful merging of the disciplines of STEM. There are two main types of STEM integration: content integration and context integration. This multiple-case study used content analysis to assess the type of integration used, if any, in the development of curricula for individual lessons and the unit as a whole. The findings demonstrated that, the overall STEM integrated curricula used content integration, but lessons within were either content integration, context integration, or single disciplined. Cases highlighted show these strategies, but cases that deviated significantly from this model are also highlighted. This research advances our understanding about how teachers develop STEM curricula in an interdisciplinary manner with the intent of implementing in precollege classrooms. It provides models of context and content integration across STEM and models of teachers' curriculum development in context-rich interdisciplinary problem spaces. By researching curriculum development, this project provides professional development designers models for quality programs that support interdisciplinary classroom environments.
Background
Instrument development is an iterative process that requires continuous efforts to ensure the psychometric soundness of the assessment tools. Previous research has provided validity evidence for the design, engineering, and technology (DET) survey in assessing K-12 teachers' familiarity with and perceptions of engineering. Purpose (Hypothesis)The purpose of this study was to re-examine the psychometric soundness of the DET survey with a new data set collected from elementary teachers representing a national population. In addition, details regarding how to appropriately conduct confirmatory (CFA) and exploratory (EFA) factor analyses and item analysis were presented. Design/MscethodThe DET survey was administered to 405 elementary teachers (second through sixth grades) between 2006 and 2010. First, a CFA was conducted to test the factor structure based on a theoretical model. Second, an EFA was used to explore and refine the factor structure. Finally, item analysis was used to evaluate individual item performance and estimate internal reliability. ResultsWhile the CFA conducted using the new sample reported unsatisfactory fit indices to the previous DET model, the EFA proposed a refined four-factor solution explaining 74% of the total variance. The item analysis revealed problems with several items that possibly contributed to the CFA results. Conclusions
The DET is a useful instrument with sufficient reliability and moderate validity evidence. However, we recommend revisions of its scale and several items. We also recommend future research with middle and high school teachers as well as with teachers in different cultural contexts and countries.
This paper identifies opportunities for design thinking to be integrated into digital learning and digital scholarship initiatives. The paper traces how the rise of digital culture has led to the reconsideration of models for learning and the call for new modes of knowledge production, spearheaded by an array of fields from writing programs to computer science. Drawing upon case studies from new media education and the digital humanities, the paper argues that design thinking that is situated, interpretive, and user-oriented is well suited to these initiatives. The paper concludes with a call for design thinking research to engage with emerging models for learning and knowledge production, work whose effects could be felt at an epistemic level for generations. (C) 2011 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
While there is a growing interest in infusing engineering into elementary classrooms, very little is known about how well positionedelementary teachers are to teach engineering. This study examined elementary teachers’ perceptions of and familiarity with design,engineering, and technology (DET). We collected data from 192 elementary teachers using the DET teacher survey. While theseelementary teachers thought teaching DET was important (Mean 5 3.46; SD 5 0.43), they were relatively unfamiliar with DET (Mean 52.01; SD 5 0.65). Years of teaching experience did not affect teachers’ familiarity with teaching DET and their perceptions of howimportance DET was. Moderately experienced teachers showed stereotypical views of engineering. Furthermore, teachers’ motivations toteach DET differed based on their ethnic backgrounds. The results suggest a need to improve elementary teachers’ familiarity with design,engineering, and technology. Professional development activities should be guided by research on teacher knowledge, and establish analignment between motivations of teachers and expectations of their schools to ensure administrative support.
Proficiency in science is being defined through performance expectations that intertwine science practices, cross-cutting concepts, and core content knowledge. These descriptions of what it means to know and do science pose challenges for assessment design and use, whether at the classroom instructional level or the system level for monitoring the progress of science education. There are systematic ways to approach assessment development that can address design challenges, as well as examples of the application of such principles in science assessment. This Review considers challenges and opportunities that exist for design and use of assessments that can support science teaching and learning consistent with a contemporary view of what it means to be proficient in science.
One of the principal assumptions behind the launching of this new journal is that Design can be identified as a subject in its own right, independent of the various areas in which it is applied to parctical effect. The Editorial Board is therefore proposing to publish a series of papers by leading members of the international ‘invisible college’ of Design Studies, which will aim to establish the theoretical bases for treating Design as a coherent discipline of study in its own right.The questions or issues that these papers are expected to address include: Can design be a discipline in its own right? If so, what are its distinguishing features? (What are the kind of features that distinguish any discipline?) To what questions should the discipline address itself — in both research and teaching? What methodology does it use? What results — what applications — should it be trying to achieve?To start the series we are publishing two contributions by Bruce Archer. The first is a short statement prepared specially for this first issue of Design Studies by Professor Archer, entitled Whatever Became of Design Methodology? The second is an extract from a lecture delivered by Professor Archer at the Manchester Regional Centre for Science and Technology on 7 May 1976, under the title The Three Rs. This latter paper argues not only tha Design should be regarded as a fundamental aspect of education (in no sense a specialized subject) but that Design is (or should be) on a par with and distinct from science and the humanities.Bruce Archer is Professor of Design Research at the Royal College of Art, London, where he is also Chairman of The Faculty of Theoretical Studies, Head of The Department of Design Research and Head of The Design Education Unit. He is a member of The Editorial Advisory Board of Design Studies.
Technology education at the elementary and middle school levels has been undergoing major revisions in recent years. There are currently a variety of pedagogical approaches to introduce elementary and middle school students to the processes and content of technological know-how and knowledge. These approaches span a range from a completely open-ended design challenge to a tightly structured, lengthy curriculum program. Given that there is an on-going debate about the nature of technology education and that current practices may be seen as transitional in nature, there are shortcomings in these practices that need to be addressed. One problem shared with other domains, such as science and mathematics, is a lack of depth. There is a need to balance the making of models or products with critical thinking. In addition, it is recognized that basic science knowledge would enrich and result in a more effective design process, at least in some areas of engineering technology. Given the time constraints of elementary and middle school teachers, this possible enrichment tends to be neglected. Coming at this from the other direction are science curriculum programs and teachers who recognize the highly motivating aspects of design problems. They tend to emphasize the inquiry process over the design process. What could be a mutually reinforcing and rich undertaking, where inquiry and design are dealt with in-depth, currently tends to be a situation where both are slighted. I will propose a pedagogical model that attempts to address this issue by advocating a special type of integration. This will be illustrated by a case study of a 4 th grade class building and investigating a model windmill. I will illustrate how the introduction of what I call a "standard model" can be used to help students develop some basic scientific understanding, which can then be applied to making a more effective design. I will also discuss some issues of implementation that need to be addressed if such an approach is adopted. Characterizing Different Approaches to Design Engineering Before elaborating on this pedagogical model, I would like to place it in a broader context of research, practices, and current thinking regarding the integration of science, math, and technology. Most of these practices and curricula can be characterized into four basic categories through the examples that follow.
Engineering as a profession faces the challenge of making the use of technology ubiquitous and transparent in society while at the same time raising young learners' interest and understand-ing of how technology works. Educational efforts in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (i.e., STEM disci-plines) continue to grow in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade (P-12) as part of addressing this challenge. This article explores how engineering education can support acquisition of a wide range of knowledge and skills associated with compre-hending and using STEM knowledge to accomplish real world problem solving through design, troubleshooting, and analysis activities. We present several promising instructional models for teaching engineering in P-12 classrooms as examples of how engineering can be integrated into the curriculum. While the introduction of engineering education into P-12 classrooms presents a number of opportunities for STEM learning, it also raises issues regarding teacher knowledge and professional development, and institutional challenges such as curricular standards and high-stakes assessments. These issues are consid-ered briefly with respect to providing direction for future research and development on engineering in P-12.
This study reports on what naive, novice, and expert designers do and learn when investigating simple mechanical devices and then planning their redesign. Participating in the study were 32 high school and adult subjects who did two investigate-and-redesign (I&R) tasks. Same gender pairs of subjects with similar design experiences explored, analyzed, and evaluated different brands of a device, designed experiments to compare them, and then proposed their redesign. Each two-hour session was videotaped, and portions were analyzed using methods adapted from protocol analysis techniques. Results suggest that when naive designers do I&R tasks, their learning is highly contextualized and device-specific. Naive designers made few connections from their work to key science ideas, and instead used mechanical advantage preconceptions that they did not spontaneously redress during the I&R sequence. Experts made connections to concepts and cases, inferred key design decisions, and sought “critical design problems” for the devices studied. All groups used strategies involving analysis more than those involving synthesis or evaluation. Notably, during conceptual design, opportunities for using science, present especially when subjects analyze design ideas, went underutilized by nonexpert designers. Scaffolded questions are needed to focus the learning of science embedded in design-oriented activities. All findings reported are tentative, given the limited number of cases included in this study. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 38: 791–820, 2001
The purpose of the Taking Design Thinking to Schools Research Project was to extend the knowledge base that contributes to an improved understanding of the role of design thinking in K-12 classrooms. The ethnographic qualitative study focused on the implementation of an interdisciplinary design curriculum by a team of university instructors in a public charter school. Three questions framed the study. How did students express their understanding of design thinking classroom activities? How did affective elements impact design thinking in the classroom environment? How is design thinking connected to academic standards and content learning in the classroom?
This study examines the use of engineering design to facilitate science reasoning in high-needs, urban classrooms. The Design
for Science unit utilizes scaffolds consistent with reform science instruction to assist students in constructing a design
solution to satisfy a need from their everyday lives. This provides a meaningful context in which students could reason scientifically.
Eighth grade students from two urban schools participated in the unit. Both schools contained large percentages of racial/ethnic
minority and economically disadvantaged students. Students demonstrated statistically significant improvement on a paper-and-pencil,
multiple-choice pre and post assessment. The results compare favorably with both a high-quality inquiry science unit and a
traditional textbook curriculum. Implications for the use of design-based curricula as a viable alternative for teaching science
reasoning in high-needs, urban settings are discussed.
Infusing engineering design projects in K-12 settings can promote interest and attract a wide range of students to engineering careers. However, the current climate of high-stakes testing and accountability to standards leaves little room to incorporate engineering design into K-12 classrooms. We argue that design-based learning, the combination of scientific inquiry and engineering design, is an approach that can be used to meet both K-12 educators’ and engineering advocates’ goals. This paper describes an 8-week high school curriculum unit, the Heating/Cooling System, in which engineering design is used to teach students central and difficult chemistry concepts such as atomic interactions, reactions, and energy changes in reactions. The goals of the paper are to (1) describe this successful design-based unit, (2) provide guidelines for incorporating design-based learning into other science topics, and (3) provide some evidence of its value for teaching difficult chemistry concepts and increasing interest in engineering careers.
The assumptions upon which a correct interpretation of the t-test depends are rarely fulfilled by data from the neurosciences. This applies both independent and correlated samples. The Mann-Whitney U-test is suggested as an altenative for the t-test for independent samples. The way in which significant results from this test should be interpreted is discussed. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed-ranks test is not suggested as an alternative for the t-test for correlated samples, since significant results can occur with this test, even when there are no differences between the distributions of the two samples tested. A modification of the U-test for dependent samples is proposed instead. The use of the latter test, and of the U-test, is illustrated by numerical examples from real data.
Complex systems are commonly found in natural and physical science. Understanding such systems is often difficult because they may be viewed from multiple perspectives and their analysis may conflict with or extend beyond the range of everyday experience. There are many complex structural, behavioral, and functional relations to understand as well. Design activities, which allow explorations of how systems work, can be an excellent way to help children acquire a deeper, more systemic understanding of such complex domains. We report on a design experiment in which 6th grade children learned about the human respiratory system by designing artificial lungs and building partial working models. Structure-behavior-function models are used as a framework for the cognitive analysis of the domain. The design activities helped students learn about the respiratory system. The design students indeed learned more than students receiving direct instruction. They learned to view the respiratory system more systemically. As expected, because of the short time they spent on the exercise, they understood more about structure than function and more about the functions of different parts of the respiratory system than its causal behaviors. This early Learning by Design experiment makes several important suggestions about successful learning from design activities: (a) the need to define design challenges functionally; (b) the importance of dynamic feedback; (c) the need for multiple iterations toward a solution; and most important; (d) thinking about design as a system of activities and allocating time so that the full system can be carried out, allowing its full set of affordances to be realized.
This paper presents and illustrates a simple statistical test for judging whether one of two materials or treatments is better than the other. The data to which the test is applied consist of paired observations on the two materials or treatments. The test is based on the signs of the differences between the pairs of observations.It is immaterial whether all the pairs of observations are comparable or not. However, when all the pairs are comparable, there are more efficient tests (the t test, for example) which take account of the magnitudes as well the signs of the differences. Even in this case, the simplicity of the sign test makes it a useful tool for a quick preliminary appraisal of the data.In this paper the results of previously published work on the sign test have been included, together with a table of significance levels and illustrative examples.
This paper introduces two tests of linearity against convexity in regression. In the first, the test statistic is the number of positive signs of second differences computed from certain of the observations. In the second, a Wilcoxon statistic is computed from those differences. Possible competitors of these tests are the usual least-squares t-test applied to regression coefficients, Mood's median test [12], and Hill's R test [6]. Certainly the first of these is to be preferred when errors are independent and normally distributed with common variance, and the alternative is quadratic regression. The sign test to be introduced here is simpler to compute than any of these other three tests, and the Wilcoxon test is also rather simple to compute. Both can be criticized in that their test statistics are calculated from certain randomly chosen observations. The tests based on second differences are compared with the t-test when the alternative is quadratic regression and errors are continuously and symmetrically distributed. To be precise, in the model \begin{equation*}\tag{1}Y_i = gX^2_i + bX_i + a + \epsilon_i\end{equation*} for , we shall compare tests of against , and g are unspecified, and the 's are independent, with identical distributions which are symmetric about their mean value of zero and have (unknown) variance . The criterion whereby tests are compared is Pitman efficiency, which is defined as follows. Suppose is an unknown real parameter of a probability distribution . Suppose further that for each positive integer and are two size tests of the null hypothesis against the alternative based on a random sample of size N from . Let and be the respective power functions, be a fixed number in be a sequence of numbers for which , and be the least integer for which . The Pitman efficiency of relative to for the sequence of alternatives is defined to be the provided that limit exists and does not depend on and beyond the requirement . This definition differs from some others which are commonly used (see, for example, [8]). Various technical facts concerning the Pitman efficiency of one-sample tests are discussed in an appendix, which may be of independent interest.
21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD countries
- K Ananiadou
- M Claro
Ananiadou, K., & Claro, M. (2009). 21st century skills and competences for new millennium learners in OECD
countries.
The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix
- D P Crismond
- R S Adams
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The Informed Design Teaching and Learning Matrix. Journal of
Engineering Education, 101(4), 738-797. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Cross, N. (2006). Designerly Ways of Knowing (1 st ed.). London: Springer-Verlag London.
Design as a catalyst for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
- M Davis
Davis, M. (1997). Design as a catalyst for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Integrating information into the engineering design process: West Lafayette
- M Fosmire
- D F Radcliffe
Fosmire, M., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2014). Integrating information into the engineering design process: West
Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices
- T G Ganesh
- C G Schnittka
Ganesh, T. G., & Schnittka, C. G. (2014). Engineering education in the middle grades. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel,
& M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and
practices. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education
- J L Kolodner
Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into
science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3).
Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades
- D Llewellyn
Llewellyn, D. (2014). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based science standards in grades 3-8 (3 rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design
- J M Morse
Morse, J. M. (2003). Principles of mixed methods and multimethod research design. Handbook of Mixed
Methods in Social and Behavioral Research, 1, 189-208.