Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Making for science: a framework for the design of physical materials for science learning

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Educational technology research and development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Recent work in science education has emphasized the importance of the conceptual, social, and epistemic dimensions in science learning. But what about the material dimension—the actual physical materials that students use? The way their characteristics and affordances limit or determine instruction has thus far not been as thoroughly explored. Despite the vast body of work that exists on science and engineering practices, there are relatively few examples of how physical science materials are linked to and can support engagement with such practices for sensemaking. In this paper, we propose a framework for analyzing the design of these physical materials and the activities associated with them that can serve as lenses for educators and researchers to consider when planning and reflecting on classroom instruction. To validate our framework, we apply it to analyze activities developed and implemented by teachers during a four-year research-practice partnership project conducted in a city in Brazil, and investigate potential connections between the design of physical materials and students’ epistemic agency. We conclude with recommendations for the development of physical resources in labs and makerspaces for science learning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • ACARA (2016). The Australian curriculum: Learning areas: Science. Retrieved from http://acara.edu.au/curriculum_1/learning_areas/science.html.

  • Benedict-Chambers, A., Kademian, S. M., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2017). Guiding students towards sensemaking: Teacher questions focused on integrating scientific practices with science content. International Journal of Science Education, 39(15), 1977–2001. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1366674

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L., Manz, E., Miller, E., & Stroupe, D. (2019). Working with and Shifting the System: A response to Elby’s commentary. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(4), 521–525. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21543

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Bevan, B. (2017). The promise and the promises of making in science education. Studies in Science Education, 53(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2016.1275380

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital Fabrication and ‘Making’ in Education: The Democratization of Invention. In J. Walter-Herrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors (pp. 203–221). Transcript Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blikstein, P. (2015). Computationally enhanced toolkits for children: Historical review and a framework for future design. Foundations and Trends® in–Human Computer Interaction, 9(1), 1–68. https://doi.org/10.1561/1100000057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • British Columbia Ministry of Education. (2017). BC’s new curriculum. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from https://curriculum.gov.bc.ca/curriculum/science.

  • Cannady, M. A., Vincent-Ruz, P., Chung, J. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2019). Scientific sensemaking supports science content learning across disciplines and instructional contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10001

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Demirhan, E., & Şahin, F. (2021). The effects of different kinds of hands-on modeling activities on the academic achievement, problem-solving skills, and scientific creativity of prospective science teachers. Research in Science Education, 51, 1015–1033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09874-0

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Duckworth, E., Easley, J., Hawkins, D., & Henriques, A. (1990). Science education: A minds-on approach for the elementary years. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(March), 268–291. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X07309371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, M., Eisenberg, A., Gross, M., Kaowthumrong, K., Lee, N., & Lovett, W. (2002). Computationally-enhanced construction kits for children: Prototype and principles. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 23–26).

  • Falloon, G., Forbes, A., Stevenson, M., Bower, M., & Hatzigianni, M. (2020). STEM in the making? Investigating STEM learning in junior school makerspaces. Research in Science Education, 52, 511–537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09949-3

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fernandez, C., Hochgreb-Haegele, T., & Blikstein, P. (2020). Toward a sustainable model for maker education in public education: Teachers as co-designers in an implementation of educational makerspaces. In Proceedings of the FabLearn 2020–9th Annual Conference on Maker Education (pp. 46–53). https://doi.org/10.1145/3386201.3386218.

  • Fernandez, C., Hochgreb-Haegele, T., Eloy, A., & Blikstein, P. (2023). Beyond “having fun” as evidence of learning: A longitudinal case study of a teacher’s evolving conception of hands-on science activities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 32(2), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-022-10012-1

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. (2008). “Grasp of practice” as a reasoning resource for inquiry and nature of science understanding. Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-006-9045-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21188

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Fuhrmann, T., Fernandez, C., Hochgreb-Haegele, T., & Blikstein, P. (2018). Professional Development of Science Teachers in Underserved Communities: an Initial Report from the Field . In Kay, J. and Luckin, R. (Eds.) Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018, Volume 3 (pp. 1749–1750). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2018.1749.

  • Furtak, E. M., & Penuel, W. R. (2019). Coming to terms: Addressing the persistence of “hands-on” and other reform terminology in the era of science as practice. Science Education, 103(1), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21488

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Gouvea, J., & Passmore, C. (2017). ‘Models of’ versus ‘models for’: Toward an agent-based conception of modeling in the science classroom. Science & Education, 26(1–2), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-017-9884-4

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hochgreb-Haegele, T., Fernandez, C., & Blikstein, P. (2022). Addressing challenges in changing science teaching in the global south: An integrative model for science education reform in brazil. In Chinn, C., Tan, E., Chan, C., & Kali, Y. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 16th International Conference of the Learning Sciences - ICLS 2022 (pp. 1433–1436). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2022.1433.

  • Hochgreb-Hägele, T., Fernandez, C., Blikstein, P. (2022). Currículo IDEIA de Ciências. https://www.curriculoideia.org/documento

  • Ko, M.-L.M., & Krist, C. (2019). Opening up curricula to redistribute epistemic agency: A framework for supporting science teaching. Science Education, 103(4), 979–1010. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21511

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2006). Scientific Thinking and Science Literacy. In W. Damon, R. Lerner, K. A. Renninger, & I. E. Sigel (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp. 153–196). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowell, B. R., Cherbow, K., & McNeill, K. L. (2021). Redesign or relabel? How a commercial curriculum and its implementation oversimplify key features of the NGSS. Science Education, 105(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21604

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2020). Rethinking the Classroom Science Investigation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(7), 1148–1174. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21625

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, L. (2015). The promise of the maker movement for education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 30–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, E., Manz, E., Russ, R., Stroupe, D., & Berland, L. (2018). Addressing the epistemic elephant in the room: Epistemic agency and the next generation science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1053–1075. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21459

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (1996). National Science Education Standards. Washington: National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4962

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Odden, T. O. B., & Russ, R. S. (2019). Defining sensemaking: Bringing clarity to a fragmented theoretical construct. Science Education, 103(1), 187–205. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21452

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. F. (2019). Not “hands on” but “minds on”: A response to Furtak and Penuel. Science Education, 103(5), 1280–1283. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21543

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Penuel, W. R., & Reiser, B. J. (2018). Designing NGSS-aligned curriculum materials. Committee to Revise America’s Lab Report, pp. 1–51.

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peppler, K. (2022). Makerspaces: Supporting creativity and innovation by design. In J. A. Pluck (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 265–273). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003233923

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Petersen, M. G., Rasmussen, M. K., & Jakobsen, K. B. (2015). Framing open-ended and constructive play with emerging interactive materials. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (pp. 150–159). https://doi.org/10.1145/2771839.2771855.

  • Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, H., & Bell, P. (2013). How designing, making, and playing relate to the learning goals of K-12 science education. Design, make, play (pp. 35–51). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., Novak, M., & McGill, T. A. W. (2017). Coherence from the students’ perspective: Why the vision of the framework for K-12 science requires more than simply “combining” three dimensions of science learning. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Board on Science Education.

  • Schwarz, C. V., Reiser, B. J., Davis, E. A., Kenyon, L., Achér, A., Fortus, D., Shwartz, Y., Hug, B., & Krajcik, J. (2009). Developing a learning progression for scientific modeling: Making scientific modeling accessible and meaningful for learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(6), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20311

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2016.1207541

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroupe, D. (2014). Examining classroom science practice communities: How teachers and students negotiate epistemic agency and learn science-as-practice. Science Education, 98(3), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, K. (2023). Pre-service elementary teachers’ images of scientific practices: A social, epistemic, conceptual, and material dimension perspective. Research in Science Education, 53(3), 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-022-10074-6

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Valente, J. A., & Blikstein, P. (2019). Maker education: Where is the knowledge construction?. Constructivist Foundations, 14(3), 252–262.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by funding provided by the Lemann Foundation. We would like to express our gratitude to the teachers who participated in the project. We also wish to thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this work, and Alden McCollum for her assistance with language editing and proofreading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Transformative Learning Technologies Lab, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA

    Cassia Fernandez, Tatiana Hochgreb-Haegele, Adelmo Eloy & Paulo Blikstein

  2. Graduate School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Tatiana Hochgreb-Haegele

Authors
  1. Cassia Fernandez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tatiana Hochgreb-Haegele
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adelmo Eloy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paulo Blikstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cassia Fernandez.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fernandez, C., Hochgreb-Haegele, T., Eloy, A. et al. Making for science: a framework for the design of physical materials for science learning. Education Tech Research Dev 72, 59–82 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10340-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-023-10340-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation