Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of Toy Crane Design-Based Learning on Simple Machines

  • Published:
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this 2-group study was to investigate the following question: Are there significant differences between scaffolded design-based learning controlled using 7 forms and teacher-directed instruction methods for the toy crane project on grade 7 students’ posttest scores on the simple machines achievement test, attitude toward simple machines, and attitude toward creativity in simple machines after adjusting for their respective pretest scores and the prior semester science grades? The study group (N = 65) consisted of grade 7 students in public middle schools in Burdur, Turkey. There were significant treatment effects favoring the first method with large effect sizes on both achievement and creative attitude scores. Teaching topics about simple machines with the design-based method increased students’ achievement and creative attitude without disadvantaging their attitude toward the topic as they constructed new knowledge through each step of the precise process.

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
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akerson, V. L., Hanson, D. L. & Cullen, T. A. (2007). The influence of guided inquiry and explicit instruction on K-6 teachers’ views of nature of science. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 751–772. doi:10.1007/s10972-007-9065-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Altun Yalçın, S., Turgut, Ü. & Büyükkasap, E. (2009). The effect of project based learning on science undergraduates’ learning of electricity, attitude towards physics and scientific process skills. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 1(1), 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apedoe, X. S. & Schunn, C. D. (2013). Strategies for success: Uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning. Instructional Science, 41(4), 773–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ausubel, D. P. (2000). The acquisition and retention of knowledge: A cognitive view. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ayar, M. C., Aydeniz, M. & Yalvac, B. (2015). Analyzing science activities in force and motion concepts: A design of an immersion unit. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(1), 95–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangert-Drowns, R. L., & Bankert, E. (1990). Meta-analysis of effects of explicit instruction for critical thinking. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, Massachusetts. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED328614.pdf

  • Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for meaningful learning: A review of research on inquiry-based and cooperative learning [Book Excerpt]. Retrieved from http://www.edutopia.org/pdfs/edutopia-teaching-for-meaningful-learning.pdf

  • Barron, B., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., ... CTGV. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.

  • Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., Yu, J. H. & French, B. F. (2015). Effects of engineering design-based science on elementary school science students’ engineering identity development across gender and grade. Research in Science Education, 45, 275–292. doi:10.1007/s11165-014-9422-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capraro, M. M. (2013). Interdisciplinary STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro & J. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning: An integrated science technology engineering and mathematics (STEM) approach (pp. 47–54). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Colley, K. E. (2008). Project-based science instruction: A primer. The Science Teacher, 75(8), 23–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dankenbring, C. & Capobianco, B. M. (2015). Examining elementary school students’ mental models of sun-earth relationships as a result of engaging in engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-015-9626-5. Advance online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etuk, E. N., Etuk, G. K., Etudor-Eyo, E. U. & Samuel, J. (2011). Constructivist instructional strategy and pupils’ achievement and attitude towards primary science. Bulgarian Journal of Science and Education Policy, 5(1), 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science Education, 11, 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Capraro, R. M. & Capraro, M. M. (2014). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. doi:10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0. Advance online publication.

    Google Scholar 

  • Han, S., Yalvac, B., Capraro, M. M. & Capraro, R. M. (2015). In-service teachers’ implementation and understanding of STEM project based learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(1), 63–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helle, L., Tynjälä, P. & Olkinuora, E. (2006). Project-based learning in post-secondary education—Theory, practice and rubber sling shots. Higher Education, 51, 287–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, C., Beach, A. & Finkelstein, N. (2011). Facilitating change in undergraduate STEM instructional practices: An analytic review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(8), 952–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaldi, S., Filippatou, D. & Govaris, C. (2011). Project-based learning in primary schools: Effects on pupils’ learning and attitudes. Education 3–13, 39(1), 35–47. doi:10.1080/03004270903179538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karaçalli, S. & Korur, F. (2014). The effects of project-based learning on students’ academic achievement, attitude, and retention of knowledge: The subject of “Electricity in Our Lives”. School Science and Mathematics, 114(5), 224–235. doi:10.1111/ssm.12071.

  • Khishfe, R. & Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2002). Influence of explicit and reflective versus implicit inquiry-oriented instruction on sixth graders’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(7), 551–578.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lowe, N. K. (Ed.). (1988). Games and toys in the teaching of science and technology (Document Series 29). Paris, France: UNESCO Science and Technology Education. Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0008/000805/080586e.pdf

  • MacCready, P. (1993). Introduction. In L. Froschauer (Ed.), Teaching elementary science with toys (CESI sourcebook VII, pp. xvii-xix). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education. Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED359053)

  • Mayer, R. E. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 141–155). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mioduser, D. & Betzer, N. (2007). The contribution of project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18, 59–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J., Simon, S. & Collins, S. (2003). Attitudes towards science: A review of the literature and its implications. International Journal of Science Education, 25(9), 1049–1079.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Özel, S. (2013). W3 of STEM project-based learning. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro & J. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed., pp. 41–46). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, C. E. & Kang, R. (2013). Project based learning: An interdisciplinary approach for integrating social studies with STEM. In R. M. Capraro, M. M. Capraro & J. R. Morgan (Eds.), STEM project-based learning: An integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) approach (2nd ed., pp. 129–138). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S. & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabari, J. A., Indoshi, F. C. & Okwach, T. (2011). Correlates of divergent thinking among secondary school physics students. Educational Research, 2(3), 982–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rivet, A. E. & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example of a sixth grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(7), 669–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Stenberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 413–446). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, R. M., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W. & Soloway, E. (2002). Performance of students in project-based science classrooms on a national measure of science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(5), 410–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silk, E., Schunn, C. D. & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, G. (2003). Project-based learning: A primer. Technology and Learning, 23(6), 20–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taşlıdere, E. & Eryılmaz, A. (2012). Basit elektrik devreleri konusuna yönelik tutum ölçeği geliştirilmesi ve öğrencilerin tutumlarının değerlendirilmesi [Developing an attitude scale toward simple electricity circuits subject and evaluation of students’ attitudes]. Türk Fen Eğitimi Dergisi, 9(1), 31–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Telli, A., Yıldırım, H. İ., Şensoy, Ö. & Yalçın, N. (2004). İlköğretim 7. sınıflarda Basit Makinalar Konusunun Öğretiminde Laboratuar Yönteminin Öğrenci Başarısına Etkisinin Araştırılması [A study on the effect of use of the laboratory method in teaching the subject of simple machines on 7th-grade primary school students’ achievement]. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 24(3), 291–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. W. (2000). A review of research on project-based learning. Retrieved from http://www.bobpearlman.org/BestPractices/PBL_Research.pdf

  • Toolin, R. E. (2004). Striking a balance between innovation and standards: A study of teachers implementing project-based approaches to teaching science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(2), 179–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. & Chen, W. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Portsmore, M. D., Wright, C. G., Rogers, C., Jarvin, L., & Kendall, A. (2011). The impact of engineering-based science instruction on science content understanding. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Vancouver, BC, Canada. Retrieved from http://www.ceeo.tufts.edu/documents/journal/2011kwmpcwcrljak.pdf

  • Wolf, S. J. & Fraser, B. J. (2008). Learning environment, attitudes and achievement among middle-school science students using inquiry-based laboratory activities. Research in Science Education, 38, 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yore, L. D. (2001). What is meant by constructivist science teaching and will the science educational community stay the course for meaningful reform? [Guest editorial] Electronic Journal of Science Education, 5(4). Retrieved from http://wolfweb.unr.edu/homepage/crowther/ejse/yore.html

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge and to express their deep appreciation to Professor Larry Yore (University of Victoria) for his valuable academic and conceptual editing and to Shari Yore for her efforts in technical editing as part of a special mentoring process provided by IJSME. This study is part of an undergraduate research project prepared under the supervision of Asst. Prof. Dr. Fikret KORUR and financed by The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK-2209A).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Burdur, Turkey

    Fikret Korur, Gülfem Efe, Fisun Erdogan & Berna Tunç

Authors
  1. Fikret Korur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gülfem Efe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fisun Erdogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Berna Tunç
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fikret Korur.

Additional information

A preliminary form of this study is presented in iconte-2015.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Korur, F., Efe, G., Erdogan, F. et al. Effects of Toy Crane Design-Based Learning on Simple Machines. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 15, 251–271 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9688-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9688-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation