The use of design practice to teach mathematics and science

  • Stephen John NortonEmail author
Original Paper


Relatively low participation in the hard sciences (mathematics, science, engineering and technology) has become a concern with respect to the capacity of Australia to meet critical infrastructure projects. This problem has its roots in poor student attitudes towards and perceptions about the study of prerequisite subjects including mathematics and science. Perception formation commences early in students’ education where students have claimed that mathematics was not intrinsically useful and was difficult to understand. With this mind, an intervention was planned and implemented in which technology and design practice was used to integrate the study of mathematics so students could produce and explain a useful artefact. The integrated design project included a focus upon instructional and regulatory discourse. Useful integration tools were developed that facilitated positive cognitive discourses such that students demonstrated a functional understanding of mathematical concepts, reported a broader and more applied understanding of the nature of mathematics and a belief that integration had helped them to make more sense of mathematics.


Technology practice Design Mathematics and science learning Perceptions 


  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (2005). AAAS Mission. Available online:
  2. Anderson, J. (1999). Being mathematically educated in the 21st century: What should it mean. In C. Hoyles, C. Morgan, & G. Woodhouse (Eds.), Rethinking the mathematics curriculum, (pp. 8–21). London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  3. Australian Academy of Science (AAS) (1994). Primary investigations: Teacher resource book: Energy and change. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  4. Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering (AATSE) (2002). The teaching of science and technology in Australian primary schools: A cause for concern. Melbourne: Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering.Google Scholar
  5. Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers (1997). Numeracy in contemporary education. Numeracy = everyone’s business (pp. 11–16). Adelaide: Australian Association of Mathematics Teachers.Google Scholar
  6. Australian Education Council (1989). The Hobart Declaration on Schooling, Retrieved 1.8.2005 from
  7. Australian Science Technology and Engineering Council (1997). Foundations for Australia’s future science and technology in primary schools. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  8. Australian Science Teacher’s Association (ASTA) (2002). National professional standards for highly accomplished teachers of science. Canberra: ASTA.Google Scholar
  9. Bell, P. (2004). On the theoretical breadth of design-based research in education. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 243–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bereiter, C. (2002). Design research for sustained innovation. Cognitive Studies, Bulletin of the Japanese Cognitive Science Society, 9(3), 321–327.Google Scholar
  11. Barrington, F. (2006). Participation in Year 12 Mathematics Across Australia 1995–2004. International Centre of Excellence in Mathematics and Australian Mathematical Science Institute. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
  12. Batterham, R. (2000). The chance to change final report of the chief scientist. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth Government.Google Scholar
  13. Bowler-Reyer, A. (1999). Becoming a woman in the 1970’s: Female adolescent sexual identity and popular literature. In S. R. Mazzarella & N. O. Pecora (Eds.), Growing up girls: Popular culture and the construction of identity (pp. 21–48). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  14. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Science, 13(1), 15–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cooper, T., Nuyen, A., & Baturo, A. (2003). Rich task project: Integrated mathematics outcomes with rich tasks within a productive pedagogies framework. Queensland University of Technology. Available from: Scholar
  16. Corte, E. (2004). Mainstreams and perspectives in research on learning (mathematics) from instruction. Applied Psychology, 53(2), 279. Available online Scholar
  17. Curriculum Corporation (1994a). A statement on technology for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  18. Curriculum Corporation (1994b). Technology—A curriculum profile for Australian schools. Carlton, Victoria: Curriculum Corporation.Google Scholar
  19. Custer, R. (2003). Technology education in the United States—A status report. In G. Martin & H. Middleton (Eds.), Initiatives in technology education: Comparative perspectives. (pp. 16–29). Brisbane, Australia. Technical Foundation of America and the Centre for Technological Education Research: Griffith University.Google Scholar
  20. Daniels, H. (2001). Bernstein and activity theory. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy (pp. 99–112). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  21. Davies, T. (1996). Modelling and creativity in design and technology. Retrieved 10 November 2005 from:
  22. De Bono, E. (2004).Thinking course: Powerful tools to transform your thinking. London: BBC Books.Google Scholar
  23. Deek, F., Hiltz, S. R., Kimmel, H., & Rotter, N. (1999). Cognitive assessment of students’ problem solving and program development skills. Journal of Engineering Education, 88(3), 317–326.Google Scholar
  24. Design-Based Research Collective (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Education Queensland (2001). New basics project; Technical paper. Retrieved July 1 2003, from:
  26. Ethington, C. (1992). Gender differences in a psychological model of mathematics achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(2), 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (1998). Fourth generation evaluation. Sage: Newbury Park, London.Google Scholar
  28. Hoadley, C. M. (2004). Methodological alignment in design-based research. Educational Psychologist 39(4), 202–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hollingsworth, H., Lokan, J., & McRae, B. (2003). Teaching mathematics in Australia: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Melbourne, Victoria: Australian Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, G., Langton, C., Thornton, C., & Nesbit, S. (2002). Elementary students’ access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 113–141). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  31. Karplus, R., Pulos, S., & Stage, E. (1983). Proportional reasoning of early adolescents. In R. Lesh & M. Landan (Eds.), Acquisition of mathematical concepts and processes (pp. 44–90). Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2000). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 567–606). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  33. Khoo, S., & Ainley, J. (2005). Longitudinal surveys of Australian youth, Research report 41: Attitudes, intentions and participation. Camberwell, Victoria: Australians Council for Educational Research.Google Scholar
  34. Liljedahl, P. (2005). Mathematics discovery and affect: Effect of the AHA! Experiences on undergraduate mathematics students. International Journal of Mathematics Education in Science and Technology, 36(2&3), 219–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Macklin, J. (20005). Media Release 26 April 2005. Scholar
  36. Markku, S. (2002). Attitude toward mathematics: Emotions, expectations and values. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 49(1), 67–81.Google Scholar
  37. Murdoch, K., & Hornsby, D. (2003). Planning curriculum connections: Whole-school planning for integrated curriculum. South Yarra, Victoria: Eleanor Curtain Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Murphy, P. F., & Gibbs, C. V. (1996). Equity in the classroom: Towards effective pedagogy for girls and boys. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  39. National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education (NACCCE) (1998). All our futures: Creativity, culture and education. Nottingham, UK: DfEE Publications.Google Scholar
  40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2005). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Available online:
  41. Norby, R. (2003). It is a gender issue: Changes in attitudes towards science in a technology based K-8 pre-service preparation science classroom. Philadelphia: Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching.Google Scholar
  42. Norton, S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2004a). Studentes to design in a robotics challenge. In H. Middleton, M. Pavlova, & D. Roebuck (Eds.), International conference on technology in educational research, Gold Coast, 9–11th December, pp. 26–36.Google Scholar
  43. Norton. S. J., McRobbie, C. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2004b). Using activity theory to investigate the influence of teachers’ beliefs upon their teaching of science through robotics. In the proceedings of the Australian computers in education conference, Adelaide, 5th–8th July.Google Scholar
  44. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situated constructivism. Retrieved 21 February 2002. From:
  45. Qualter, A., Strang, J., Swatton, P., & Taylor, R. (1990). Exploration: A way of learning science. Oxford: Blackwell Education.Google Scholar
  46. Queensland School Curriculum Council (1999). Science initial in-service materials. Brisbane, Queensland: The State of Queensland.Google Scholar
  47. Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) (2003). Technology: Years 1–10 syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland: The State of Queensland.Google Scholar
  48. Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) (2004a).Queensland Years 3, 5 and 7 tests in aspects of literacy and numeracy. Brisbane, Queensland: The State of Queensland.Google Scholar
  49. Queensland Studies Authority (QSA) (2004b). Mathematics: Years 1 to 10 syllabus. Brisbane, Queensland: The State of Queensland.Google Scholar
  50. Reid, N., & Skryabina, E. (2002). Attitude toward physics. Research in Science and Technology Education, 20(1), 67–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., & Ritchie, S. (2001). Re/constructing elementary science. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  52. Singh, P. (2001). Pedagogic discourses and student resistance in Australian secondary schools. In A. Morais, I. Neves, B. Davies, & H. Daniels (Eds.), Towards a sociology of pedagogy (pp. 251–286). New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  53. Skamp, K. (2004). Teaching primary science constructively. South Bank, Victoria: Thompson.Google Scholar
  54. Stepulevage, L. (2001). Gender/technology relations: Complicating the gender binary. Gender and Education, 13(3), 325–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thompson, A. G. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  56. Townend, S. (2001). Integrating case studies in engineering mathematics: A response to SARTOR 3. Teaching in Higher Education, 6(2), 203–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority (VCAC) (2005). Victorian essential learning. Available online
  58. Watt, H. (2005). Exploring adolescent motivations for pursuing maths-related careers. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 5, 107–116.Google Scholar
  59. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. William, E. D. (2003). Technological literacy. In G. Martin & H. Middleton (Eds.), Initiatives in technology education: Comparative perspectives (pp. 16–29). Brisbane, Australia.Google Scholar
  61. Yin, R. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  62. Zubrowski, B. (2002). Integrating science into design technology projects: Using a standard model in the design process. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 48–67.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CTL–EducationGriffith UniversityBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations