Strategies for success: uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
While the purposes of design and science are often different, they share some key practices and processes. Design-based science learning, which combines the processes of engineering design with scientific inquiry, is one attempt to engage students in scientific reasoning via solving practical problems. Although research suggests that engaging students in design-based science learning can be effective for learning both science process and content, more research is needed to understand how to overcome what Vattam and Kolodner (Pragmatics and Cognition 16:406–437, 2008) called “the design–science gap.” This study, therefore, takes a first step at systematically delving into this issue of bridging the design–science gap by examining the problem-solving strategies that students are using when they solve a prototypical design task. Videotaped performance assessments of high and low performing teams were analyzed in depth. Results suggest that students use both science reasoning strategies (e.g., control of variables) and design–focused strategies (e.g., adaptive growth). However, the strategies commonly associated with success in science (e.g., control of variables) did not necessarily lead to success in design. In addition, while both science reasoning strategies and design–focused strategies led to content learning, the content learned was different.
- Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design to high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465.
- Azmitia, M., & Crowley, K. (2001). The rhythms of scientific thinking: A study of collaboration in an earthquake microworld. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 51–82). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Brophy, S.P., & Bransford, J.D. (2001). Design methods for instructional modules in bioengineering. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society of Engineering Education. Retrieved from http://vanth.org/Publications.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2011.
- Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 369–387. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/jee. Accessed 4 Jan 2011.
- Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children’s acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70, 1098–1120. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00081. CrossRef
- Crismond, D. (2001). Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: A study of naïve, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 791–820. doi:10.1002/tea.1032. CrossRef
- Cross, N. (1994). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
- Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crows Nest, NSW: Routledge.
- Ford, M. J. (2005). The game, the pieces, and the players: Generative resources from alternative portrayals of experimentation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(4), 449–487. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls1404_1. CrossRef
- 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, 1081–1110. doi:10.1002/tea.20040. CrossRef
- 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(7), 855–879. doi:10.1080/09500690500038165. CrossRef
- Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 167–175. doi:10.1002/tea.3660140212. CrossRef
- Klahr, D., Chen, Z., & Toth, E. (2001). From cognition to instruction to cognition: A case study in elementary school science instruction. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 209–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2. CrossRef
- Lawson, A., Abraham, M., & Renner, J. (1989). A theory of instruction: Using the learning cycle to teach science concepts and thinking skills (1st ed.). Manhattan, KS: National Association for Research in Science Teaching.
- Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255–281. doi:10.1002/tea.20111. CrossRef
- Li, J., Klahr, D., & Jabbour, A. (2006). When the rubber meets the road: Putting research-based methods to test in urban classrooms. Proceedings of the seventh international conference of the learning sciences: Making a difference. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
- 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. Retrieved from http://www.asee.org/papers-and-publications/publications/jee. Accessed 4 Jan 2011.
- Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
- Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
- National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
- Novick, S., & Nussbaum, J. (1981). Pupil’s understanding of the particulate nature of matter: A cross age study. Science Education, 65, 187–196. doi:10.1002/sce.3730650209. CrossRef
- Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 185–217. doi:10.1002/tea.20048. CrossRef
- Reynolds, B., Mehalik, M. M., Lovell, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). Increasing student awareness of and interest in engineering as a career option through design-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 788–798. Retrieved from http://www.ijee.ie/. Accessed 4 Jan 2011.
- Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classrooms: Key elements in developing affective design challenges. The Journal of the Learning of Sciences, 9(3), 299–324.
- Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 859–882. doi:10.1002/tea.3660280910. CrossRef
- Schunn, C. D., & Anderson, J. R. (1999). The generality/specificity of expertise in scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 337–370. Retrieved from http://www.cognitivesciencesociety.org/journal_csj.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2011.
- 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, 209–223. doi:10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8. CrossRef
- Tschirgi, J. E. (1980). Sensible reasoning: A hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Development, 51, 1–10. Retrieved from http://www.wiley.com/bw/journal.asp?ref=0009-3920. Accessed 4 Jan 2011.
- Vattam, S. S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2008). On foundations of technological support for addressing challenges facing design-based science learning. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16, 406–437. doi:10.1075/pc.16.2.08vat.
- Strategies for success: uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning
Volume 41, Issue 4 , pp 773-791
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Springer Netherlands
- Additional Links
- Design-based science learning
- Problem-solving strategies
- Scientific reasoning
- Industry Sectors