Designing an ice cream making device: A design-based science learning approach
Abstract
In this study, middle school students’ (8th grade, N=24) problem-solving processes were investigated while implementing a design-based science learning (DBSL) approach. DBSL tries to incorporate science learning with the processes of engineering design. A DBSL module was developed by the research team within which students were expected to design an ice cream making device from simple and easily available materials. The goals of the study were: (a) to develop an understanding of the processes of student design including difficulties they face within the DBSL setting; (b) to determine how science knowledge was used by students in a design situation; (c) to explore how student design processes and design products can be characterised and eventually, assessed. Data were gathered from students’ written reports, video-recorded classroom observations and teachers’ oral feedback. Based on the findings, it could be concluded that the crucial aspects important for design success were the students’ understanding of the scientific phenomena and the operational principles behind the ice cream making device, plus understanding of the design criteria. Lack of one or more led to unrealistic design ideas. The initial difficulties, were overcome by peer support, teacher guidance, and trial and error experiences. A set of assessment criteria, able to characterise student design products, were developed. The study provided practical guidelines for curriculum developers and teachers on how to facilitate further implementation of DBSL in the classroom.References
Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465.
Apedoe, X. S. & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Strategies for success: Uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning. Instructional Science, 41, 773-791.
Binkley, M., Erstad, O., Herman, J., Raizen, S., Ripley, M., & Rumble, M. (2010). Draft white paper 1: Defining 21st century skills. Retrieved December, 2016 from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242717633_Draft_White_Paper_1_Defining_21st_century_skills.
Calyk M., Ayas A., & Ebenezer J. (2005). A review of solution chemistry studies: Insights into students' conceptions. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 29–50.
Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research Design Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. California: Sage.
Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate - and redesign tasks: A study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 791- 820.
Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
Design criteria. (n.d.). The Free Dictionary. Retrieved January, 2017 from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/.
Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22–39.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27, 855-879.
Hathcock, S. J., Dickerson, D., Eckhoff, A., & Katsioloudis, P. (2015). Scaffolding for creative product possibilities in a design-based STEM activity. Research in Science Education, 45(5), 727-748.
Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247 - 298.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: Author. Retrieved August, 2016 from http://www.iteea.org/TAA/PDFs/xstnd.pdf.
Jonassen, D. H. (2011). Learning to solve problems: A handbook for designing problem-solving learning environments. New York: Routledge.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by designTM into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547.
Lee, C.K. (2014). Conceptual change model for teaching heat energy, heat transfer and insulation. Science Education International, 25(4), 417- 437.
Lewis, E. & Linn, M. (2003). Heat energy and temperature concepts of adolescents, adults, and experts: Implications for curricular Improvements. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 40, 155-175.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Mamlok, R., Dershimer, C., Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. (2001). Learning science by designing artifacts (LSDA) - A case study of the development of a design-based science curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Retrieved October, 2016 from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED458127.pdf.
Marini, A. & Genereux, R. (1995). The challenge of teaching for transfer. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 1–19). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85.
National Institute of Building Sciences. (2016). Design objectives. Retrieved September, 2016 from https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives.
Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: The National Academies Press. Retrieved January, 2016 from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165.
Özalp, D. & Kahveci, A. (2015). Diagnostic assessment of student misconceptions about the particulate nature of matter from ontological perspective, Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 16, 619-639.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2006). A state leader’s action guide to 21st century skills: A new vision for education. Tucson: Partnership for 21st Century Skills.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Prawat, R. S. (1989). Promoting access to knowledge, strategy, and disposition in students: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 59, 1-41.
Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Strand Cary, M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12, 257-285.
System. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster On-line Dictionary. Retrieved November, 2016 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system.
TERC. (2000). Construct-A-Glove. Cambridge: NSTA Press.
Vaino, T. & Vaino, K. (2014). Õpilaste innovatiivse oskuste toetamine loodusteaduste õpetamisel. (Supporting students’ innovative skills in science education). In M. Rannikmäe and R. Soobard (Eds.), Paradigmaatilised suundumused loodusainete õpetamisel üldhariduskoolis (Paradigmatic changes in science education) (pp. 112-118). Archimedes Foundation. Tartu: Estonian University Press. Retrieved January, 2017 from www.digar.ee/arhiiv/et/download/225833.
Vaino, T., Vaino, K., Rannikmäe, M., & Holbrook, J. (2015). Factors explaining gymnasium students’ technology related career orientations. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 14(6), 706–722.
Vattam, S. & Kolodner, J. L. (2008). On foundations of technological support for addressing challenges facing design-based science learning. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 406-437.
Vincenti, W. G. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it: Analytical studies from aeronautical history. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
