Advertisement

Students' design of a biometric procedure in upper secondary school

  • Patricia Marzin
  • Erica de Vries
Article
  • 141 Downloads

Abstract

Making the connection between science and technology might be important for students to learn to identify and solve problems and to acquire scientific knowledge and skills. The research reported in this article concerned the development of a design situation in a science classroom and the study of students performing in this situation. More specifically, the setting involved students’ design of a measurement procedure as a way of attaining understanding of the underlying scientific concepts. In fact, at higher secondary level, the classical experimental procedure of measuring facial angle is employed within the topic of human evolution to find out to which species a given human cranium belongs. At the same time, designing a procedure, instead of just executing it, is thought to entail higher odds for attaining teleological understanding. The development of the learning situation involved pursuing parallels between the expert design task as described in the literature and the assignment given to students. We proceeded through step-wise development of the learning situation that was successively tested out in the classroom. Our analysis of the student-devised procedures revealed three issues regarding the graphical representation of angles, the reproducibility of the points and the communicational demands of the situation. Students used both prior knowledge (e.g. about evolution), and new knowledge about cranium anatomy and angles. They also exhibited new experimental skills like anticipating each experimental action. Such cognitive tasks which are at the origin of students’ activity make the situation approximate the goals of laboratory work by distancing it from the simple execution of a series of steps. Future research could be directed towards further exploring the benefits of an approach that combines essential characteristics of science and technology.

Keywords

Experimental procedure Palaeontology Design External representations 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the teachers and researcher who worked with us: Daniel Devallois (lycée Présentation de Marie), Réjane Monod-Ansaldi (lycée Claude Bernard), and Eric Sanchez (Institut National de Recherche Pédagogique). The studies were conducted within the CoPEX project supported by the French ministry of education.

References

  1. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interactions: implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.Google Scholar
  4. Committee on High School Science Laboratories. (2006). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  5. de Vries, E. (2006). Students’ construction of external representations in design-based learning situations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Vries, M. J., & Tamir, A. (1997). Shaping concepts of technology: What concepts and how to shape them. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Etkina, E. K. A., Ruibal-Villasenor, M., Rosengrant, D., Jordan, R., & Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2010). Design and reflection help students develop scientific abilities: learning in introductory physics laboratories. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 54–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardner, P. L. (1997). The roots of technology and science: A philosophical and historical view. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 7, 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Goel, V., & Pirolli, P. (1992). The structure of design problem spaces. Cognitive Science, 16, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodson, D. (1990). A critical look at practical work in school science. School Science Review, 70(256), 33–40.Google Scholar
  11. Hofstein, A., & Lunetta, V. N. (1982). The role of the laboratory in science teaching: neglected aspects of research. Review of educational research, 52, 201–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keys, C. (1999). Revitalizing instruction in scientific genres: Connecting knowledge production with writing to learn in science. Science Education, 83, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.Google Scholar
  14. Martinand, J.-L. (1981). Pratiques sociales de référence et compétences techniques. À propos d’un projet d’initiation aux techniques de fabrication mécanique en classe de quatrième. In A. Giordan (Ed.), Diffusion et appropriation du savoir scientifique : enseignement et vulgarisation. Actes des Troisièmes Journées Internationales sur l’Education Scientifique (pp. 149–154). Paris: Université Paris 7.Google Scholar
  15. Middleton, H. (2008). Assessing technology education: Some theoretical issues. Paper presented at Finalité(s) et Évaluation(s) en Éducation Technologique [Aims and evaluation of technology education]. Paris, AEET; STEF & IUFM Paris.Google Scholar
  16. Millar, R. (2004). The role of practical work in the teaching and learning of science. High school science laboratories: Role and vision. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  17. Popper, K. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Basic book.Google Scholar
  18. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schraagen, J. M. (1993). How experts solve a novel problem in experimental design. Cognitive Science, 17, 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sere, M. G., & Beney, M. (1997). Le fonctionnement intellectuel d’étudiants réalisant des experiences: Observation des séances de travaux pratiques en premier cycle universitaire scientifique. [The intellectual operation of students doing the experiments: Observation of the laboratory working sessions in first scientific university level]. Didaskalia, 11, 73–100.Google Scholar
  21. Sidawi, M. M. (2009). Teaching science through designing technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Tamir, P., & Lunetta, V. N. (1981). Inquiry-related tasks in high school science laboratory handbooks. Science Education, 65, 477–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tempelman, E., & Pilot, A. (2011). Strengthening the link between theory and practice in teaching design engineering: An empirical study on a new approach. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 21, 261–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tiberghien, A., Veillard, L., Le Maréchal, J. F., Buty, C., & Millar, R. (2001). An analysis of labwork tasks used in science teaching at upper secondary school and university levels in several European countries. Science Education, 85, 483–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vadcard, L. (2002). Caractérisation de quelques conceptions de l’angle chez des élèves de seconde. [Characterization of students conceptions of the angle.]. Recherches en Didactique des Mathématiques, 22(1), 77–120.Google Scholar
  27. Visser, W. (2006). The cognitive artefacts of designing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  28. Weill-Fassina, A. (1973). La lecture du dessin industriel: perspectives d’étude. [Reading of the draftsmanship: Prospects for study.]. Le Travail Humain, 36, 121–140.Google Scholar
  29. White, R. T. (1996). The link between the laboratory and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 18, 761–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grenoble Informatics LaboratoryUniversity Joseph Fourier-Grenoble 1Grenoble cedexFrance
  2. 2.Laboratory of Educational SciencesUniversity Pierre-Mendès-France-Grenoble 2Grenoble cedex 9France

Personalised recommendations