Instructional Science

, Volume 41, Issue 4, pp 773–791 | Cite as

Strategies for success: uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning

Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Design-based science learning Problem-solving strategies Scientific reasoning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Birdy Reynolds, Eli Silk, Erin Ward and the lab volunteers for their help with the data collection, as well as the numerous students who participated in this project. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grants EEC-0808675 and DRL-1027629. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

References

  1. 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.Google Scholar
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cross, N. (1994). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crows Nest, NSW: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Karplus, R. (1977). Science teaching and the development of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 14, 167–175. doi:10.1002/tea.3660140212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.
  19. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.Google Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.
  30. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Learning and Instruction, School of Education, University of San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Learning Research and Development CenterUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations