Skip to main content

Productive Thinking and Science Learning in Design Teams

Abstract

Recent reforms in science education have supported the inclusion of engineering in K-12 curricula. To this end, many science classrooms have incorporated engineering units that include design tasks. Design is an integral part of engineering and helps students think in creative and interdisciplinary ways. In this study, we examined middle-school students’ naturally occurring design conversations in small design teams and their learning of science as a result of engaging in an engineering and science unit. We found that the proportion of different thought processes used by boys and girls was quite similar. Both girls and boys produced a higher percentage of ideas or thoughts associated with divergent thinking, but a lower proportion in convergent thinking, evaluative thinking, and cognitive memory. In addition, gender composition of design teams influenced thought processes expressed by girls and boys. Interestingly, in mixed teams, both girls and boys expressed less divergent thinking than those in single-sex teams. With regard to science content learning, both girls and boys showed statistically significant learning gains. There were no significant gender differences in the pre- and post-test scores. These results suggest that participating in an engineering design task in small design teams provided students opportunities to engage in productive thinking and enhance their learning of the targeted science concept—ecosystems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Adams, R. (2015). Inquiry into design review conversations. In R. Adams & J. Siddiqui (Eds.), Analyzing design review conversations (pp. 3–22). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.

  2. American Educational Research Association. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aranda, M., Lie, R., & Guzey, S. S. (2019). Productive thinking in middle school science students' design conversations in a design-based engineering challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5

  4. Basu, S. J., Calabrese Barton, A., Clairmont, N., & Locke, D. (2009). Developing a framework for critical science agency through case study in a conceptual physics concept. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 4(2), 345–371.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 705–720.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Brotman, J., & Moore, F. (2009). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45, 68–103.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Calabrese Barton, A., Birmingham, D., Takumi, S., Tan, E., & Calabrese, B. S. (2013). Supporting youth in becoming community science experts. Afterschool Matters Journal, 2013, 26–32.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Greenberg, D. (2017). The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teachers College Record, 119(6), 1-44.

  10. Carlone, H. B., Scott, C. M., & Lowder, C. (2014). Becoming (less) scientific: A longitudinal study of students’ identity work from elementary to middle school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(7), 836–869.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Clegg, S. (1999). Disciplinary discourses: A case study of gender in information technology and design courses. Gender and Education, 11(1), 43–55.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64, 1–35.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Desy, E. A., Peterson, S. A., & Brockman, V. (2011). Gender differences in science-related attitudes and interests among middle school and high school students. Science Educator, 20(2), 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Due, K. (2014). Who is the competent physics student? A study of students’ positions and social interaction in small-group discussions. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 9, 441–459.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  17. English, L. (2017). Advancing elementary and middle school STEM education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 5–24.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fields, D., Kafai, Y., Nakajima, T., Goode, J., & Margolis (2018). Putting making into high school computer science classrooms: Promoting equity in teaching and learning with electronic textiles in exploring computer science. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 21–35.https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2018.1436998

  19. Fredricks, J. A., Hofkens, T., Wang, M., Mortenson, E., & Scott, P. (2018). Supporting girls’ and boys’ engagement in math and science learning: A mixed methods study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(2), 271–298.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Gallagher, J., & Achner, M. (1963). A preliminary report on analyses of classroom interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly of Behavior and Development, 9(3), 183–194.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Gallagher, J., Aschner, M., & Jenne, W. (1967). Productive thinking of gifted children in classroom interaction. CEC research monograph series B. Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.

  22. Gallagher, S. A., Courtright, R. D., & Robinson, L. P. (2015). What were Willie and Xavier thinking? A reflection on James Gallagher’s research on student–teacher interaction. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(1), 44–50.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Godwin, A., & Potvin, G. (2016). Pushing and pulling Sara: A case study of the contrasting influences of high school and university experiences on engineering agency, identity, and participation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 439–462.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Greenfield, T. A. (1997). Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education, 81, 259–276.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Guilford, J. P. (1956). Structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53(4), 267–293.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., Moreno, M., & Moore, T. (2016). STEM Integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 550-560.

  27. Guzey, S. S., Ring-Whalen, E., Harwell, M., & Peralta, Y. (2019). LifeSTEM: A study of life science learning through engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 23-42.

  28. Guzey, S. S. & Aranda, M. (2017). Student participation in engineering practices and discourse: An exploratory case study. Journal of Engineering Education, 106, 585-606.

  29. Hallgren, K. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorial in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hjalmarson, M. A., & Moskal, B. (2018). Guest editorial quality considerations in education research: Expanding our understanding of quantitative evidence and arguments aligning research questions to data collection and analysis. Journal of Engineering Education, 107(2), 179–185.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jones, M. G., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84(2), 180–192.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Kichuk, S. & Wiesner, W. (1997). The big five personality factors and team performance: Implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14(3–4), 195–221.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kim, A. Y., Sinatra, G. M., & Seyranian, V. (2018). Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 589–625.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lachapelle, C. P., Oh, Y., & Cunningham, C. M. (2017). Effectiveness of an engineering curriculum intervention for elementary school: Moderating roles of student background characteristics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX. Retrieved from http://www.eie.org/sites/default/files/downloads/EiE/ResearchPublications/lachapelle_oh_and_cunningham_2017_aera.pdf

  35. Laeser, M., Moskal, B., Knecht, R., & Lasich, D. (2003). Engineering design: Examining the impact of gender and the team’s gender composition. Journal of Engineering Education, 92(1), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Linacre, J. M. (2018). Winsteps® Rasch measurement computer program. Beaverton, OR: Winsteps.com.

  37. Llyod, P., Lawson, B., & Scott, P. (1995). Can concurrent verbalization reveal design cognition? Design Studies, 16(2), 237–259.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Martin, L., Dixon, C., & Betser, S. (2018). Iterative design toward equity: Youth repertoires of practice in a high school makerspace. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 36–47.

    Google Scholar 

  40. 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(January), 71–85.

  41. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Murphy, P., & Whitelegg, E. (2006). Girls and physics: Continuing barriers to “belonging”. The Curriculum Journal, 17, 281–305.

    Google Scholar 

  43. National Academies of Engineering & National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  44. National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting Concepts, and core Ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  45. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

  46. Nyström, E. (2009). Teacher talk: Producing, resisting and challenging discourses about the science classroom. Gender and Education, 21, 735–751.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Okudan, G.E. (2002). On the gender orientation of the product design task. In Proceedings of the 32nd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Boston, MA: Stipes Publishing LLC.

  48. Okudan, G. & Bilen, S. (2003). Effect of gender orientation of the design task on team performance: A preliminary study. Paper presented at 2003 Annual Conference, Nashville, Tennessee. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/11969.

  49. Okudan, G., & Mohammed, S. (2006). Task gender orientation perceptions by novice designers. Design Studies, 27(6), 723–740.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Park, D.-Y., Park, M.-H., & Bates, A. B. (2018). 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, 16(2), 275-294.

  51. Psathas, G. (1995). Conversation analysis: The study of talk in interaction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  52. Rivard, L. & Straw, S. B. (1999). The effect of talk and writing on learning science: An exploratory study. Science Education, 84(5), 566–593.

  53. Ryoo, J. J., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2018). Equity in STEM-rich making: Pedagogies and designs. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 3–6.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ryoo, J. J., Kali, L., & Bevan, B. (2016). Equity-oriented pedagogical strategies and student learning in after school making. In Proceedings of the 6th annual conference on creativity and fabrication in education (pp. 49–57). New York, NY: ACM.

  55. Ryu, M. (2015). Positionings of racial, ethnic, and linguistic minority students in high school biology class: Implications for science education in diverse classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 347–370.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50(4), 696–735.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., & Davies, M. (1997). Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference (pp. 343–350). New York, NY: ACM Press.

  58. Scantlebury, K. (2014). Gender matters: Building on the past, recognizing the present, and looking towards the future. In N. Lederman & S. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 187–203). New York, NY: Routledge.

  59. Schnittka, J., & Schnittka, C. (2016). “Can I drop it this time?” Gender and collaborative group dynamics in an engineering design-based afterschool program. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. 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.

  61. Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Sheridan, K. M., Halverson, E. R., Brahms, L., Litts, B. K., Jacobs-Priebe, L., & Owens, T. (2014). Learning in the making: A comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educational Review, 84(4), 505–531.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s Alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120.

  64. Sluis-Thiescheffer, R., Bekker, M., Eggen, J., Vermeeren, A., & de Ridder, H. (2011). Development and application of a framework for comparing early design methods for young children. Interacting with Computers, 23, 70–84.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Stump, G. S., Hilpert, J. C., Husman, J., Chung, W., & Kim, W. (2011). Collaborative learning in engineering students: Gender and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 100, 475–497.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Tan, E., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2018). Towards critical justice: Exploring intersectionality in community-based STEM-rich making with youth from non-dominant communities. Equity & Excellence in Education, 51(1), 48–61.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Tippett, C., & Milford, T. (2017). Findings from a pre-kindergarten classroom: Making the case for STEM in elementary childhood education. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15, 67–86.

    Google Scholar 

  68. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Wendell, K., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. (2017). Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Whitelegg, E., Murphy, P., & Hart, C. (2007). Girls and physics: Dilemmas and tensions. In R. Pintó & D. Couso (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 27–36). New York, NY: Springer Publishers.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant DRL no. 1721141 to the Purdue University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Selcen Guzey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Guzey, S.S., Jung, J.Y. Productive Thinking and Science Learning in Design Teams. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 19, 215–232 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-020-10057-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Engineering design
  • Engineering integration
  • Productive thinking
  • Science learning