Life STEM: A Case Study of Life Science Learning Through Engineering Design

  • S. Selcen GuzeyEmail author
  • Elizabeth A. Ring-Whalen
  • Michael Harwell
  • Yadira Peralta


The emphasis of reform-oriented science education today focuses on engineering integration in K-12 science classrooms. However, there is little research, particularly longitudinal research, on how different approaches to engineering integration influence student learning and interest. To address this gap in the literature, this study analyzed a middle school life science teacher’s enactment of three design-focused life science units and student performances over a 3-year period. Findings indicate that the design and enactment of each unit reflects a unique engineering integration approach: add on, implicit, and explicit. Moreover, the ways the teacher talked about engineering varied among each curriculum unit. Through the analyses of 330 students’ pre- and post-content tests and interest surveys as well as videotaped classroom instruction, we found that explicit engineering integration and engineering language use in classroom instruction resulted in higher student learning gains in science and engineering, but they did not have significant effects on students’ interest in science and engineering. We explore the implications for curricular materials and discuss a need for long-term professional development and support for teachers.


Engineering integration Interdisciplinary science Student interest Student learning 



This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant DRL no. 1238140 to the University of Minnesota and Purdue University.


  1. Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395–427.Google Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  3. Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 705–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching, volume II (pp. 819–878). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(October), 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chalmers, C., Carter, M. (Lyn), Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 25–43.Google Scholar
  8. Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspective in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  11. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dankenbring, C., & Capobianco, B. M. (2016). 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, 14(5), 825–845.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Erickson, F. (1990). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. Research in Teaching and Learning, 2(400), 119–161.Google Scholar
  14. Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (3rd ed., pp. 177–191). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  17. Guzey S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014a). A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3-6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139–149.Google Scholar
  18. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014b). Development of an instrument to measure students’ attitudes toward STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279.Google Scholar
  19. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Peralta, Y., & Moore, T. (2017). The impact of design-based STEM integration curricula on student achievement in science, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 207–222.Google Scholar
  20. High, K., Thomas, J. & Redmond, A. (2010). Expanding middle school science and math learning: Measuring the effect of multiple engineering projects. Paper presented at the P-12 Engineering and Design Education Research Summit, Seaside, OR.Google Scholar
  21. Hmelo, C., Douglas, H., & Kolodner, J. (2000). Designing to learn complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Eds.). (2016). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (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(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2014). Engineering in elementary schools. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 61–88). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  26. McNeill, K., & Silva Pimentel, D. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.Google Scholar
  27. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 71–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary a social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nelson, T., Lesseig, K., Slavit, D., Kennedy, C. & Seidel, R. (2015). Supporting middle school teachers implementation of STEM design challenges. Paper presented at NARST conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  34. Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Irwin.Google Scholar
  35. Park, D.-Y., Park, M.-H., & Bates, A. B. (2016). Exploring young children’s understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–20.Google Scholar
  36. Penner, D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 429–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181–195.Google Scholar
  38. Roth, W. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 129–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in the middle school science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1861–1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valtorta, C. G., & Berland, L. K. (2015). Math, science, and engineering integration in a high school engineering course: A qualitative study. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 5(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
  41. Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Curriculum and InstructionPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Department of Biological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.St. Catherine UniversitySt. PaulUSA
  4. 4.Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations