Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Design-Based Science with Communication Scaffolding Results in Productive Conversations and Improved Learning for Secondary Students

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Incorporating design in science programs has been shown to enhance science understanding, practices, and problem-solving skills. However, instructors and students typically struggle with fostering effective communication within a design-based course. With better communication scaffolding, students would learn more content and also become better at communicating ideas, both of which are important learning outcomes. We have developed the Design-Based Science Plus (DBSP+) idea communication framework that adds two communication scaffolding tools to design-based instruction. This framework supports students to have productive conversations that help them learn science better. Four learning units were implemented in a science classroom of 29 ninth-grade students at a large public secondary school of a small town in Central Thailand. “Two-stepped” open-ended questions on four real-world problem situations and ten-multiple choice conceptual questions were administered before and after instruction. Observation and worksheets were analyzed to reveal how students learned science, had productive conversations, and solved problems. Quantitative data suggested that students in the DBSP+ program did indeed learn content and problem-solving skills as expected. Students also improved in their communication skills. Qualitative data suggests that the communication scaffolds were one of the reasons that students learned effectively in the DBSP+ program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classroom: the heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacolor, R., Endres, T.C., Clark, T., & Allen, A. (2014). How can I get my students to learn science by productively talking with each other?. (Retrieved March 2015 from http://stemteachingtools.org/brief/6).

  • 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 Science Education Technology, 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4.

  • Buaraphan, K. (2011). Qualitative research (6th ed.). Nakhon Pathom: Institute for InnovativeLearning, Mahidol University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Y.-C., & Steenhoek, J. (2013). A negotiation cycle to promote argumentation in science classroom. Science Scope, 41–50.

  • Chi, M. T. H., Leeuw, N. D., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improvesunderstanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chue, S., & Lee, Y. J. (2013). The proof of the pudding?: a case study of an “at-risk” design- based inquiry science curriculum. Research in Science Education, 43(6), 2431–2454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-013-9366-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chusinkunawut, K., Nugultham, K., Wannagatesiri, T., & Fakcharoenphol, W. (2018). Problem solving ability assessment based on design for secondary school students. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 26(3), 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.). New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cox, S. (2005). Intention and meaning in young children’s drawing. International Journal of Art and Design Education, 24(2), 115–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1476-8070.2005.00432.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9626-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edens, K. M., & Potter, E. F. (2010). Using descriptive drawings as a conceptual change strategy in elementary science. School Science and Mathematics, 103(3), 135–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einarsdottir, J., Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2009). Making meaning: children’s perspective expressed through drawing. Early Child Development and Care, 179(2), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430802666999.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellefson, M. R., Brinker, R. A., Vernacchio, V. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Design-based learning for biology: genetic engineering experience improves understanding of gene expression. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ercan, S., & Sahin, F. (2015). The usage of engineering practices in science education: effects of design based science learning on students’ academic achievement. Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 128–164.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glynn, S., & Muth, K. D. (2008). Using drawing strategically: drawing activities make life science meaningful to third- and fourth-grade students. Science and Children, 45(9), 48–51.

  • Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., & Morse, G. (2016). Student interest in engineering design-based science. School Science and Mathematics, 116(8), 411–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPST. (2015). Learning standards and indicators in occupations and technology: strand 2 design and technology. (Retrieved March 2015 from http://designtechnology.ipst.ac.th/wp-content/uploads/sites/83/2017/08/สาระและมาตรฐานการเรียนรู้.pdf).

  • ITEA. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: content for the study of technology. (Retrieved March 2015 from http://www.iteea.org/TAA/Publications/TAA_Publications.html).

  • Johnson, J. K., & Reynolds, S. J. (2005). Concept sketches – using student and instructor generated, annotated sketches for learning, teaching, and assessment in geology courses. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(1), 85–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaptan, K., & Timurlenk, O. (2012). Challenges for science education. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 51, 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.08.237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P., Suh, E., & Song, D. (2015). Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technology-enabled science classroom. Education Technology Research Development, 63, 575–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9376-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambeker, S., & 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 Science, 12(4), 495–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korur, F., Efe, G., Erdogan, F., & Yunҫ, B. (2017). Effects of toy crane design-based learning on simple machines. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 251–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9688-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M., & McDermott, M. (2013). Engaging in argument from evidence: negotiating the way to inquiry. Science and Children, 50(9), 39–44.

  • Libarkin, J., & Ording, G. (2012). The utility of writing assignments in undergraduate bioscience. CBE Life Science Education, 11, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-07-0058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Huang, Z., Jiang, M., & Chang, T.-W. (2016). The effect on pupils’ science performance and problem-solving ability through lego: an engineering design-based modeling approach. Educational Technology and Society, 19(3), 143–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • NRC. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NSF. (2008). Picture this: explaining science through drawings. (Retrieved January 2018 from https://nsf.gov/news/news_images.jsp?cntn_id=111410&org=NSF)

  • Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Marulcu, I., & Barnett, M. (2015). Impact of an engineering design-based curriculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple machines. Journal Research in Science and Technological Education, 34(1), 85–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x

  • Ministry of Education. (2001). Basic education curriculum B.E. 2551 (a.D.2008). Bangkok: The Agricultural Cooperative Federation of Thailand Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: the role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328, 463–466. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1183944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, J. (2013). Teach science through argument. (retrieved October 2017 from https://ed.stanford.edu/spotlight/teach-science-through-argument?newsletter=true).

  • Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: a design-based modeling approach. The Journal of the Learning Science, 7(3&4), 429–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quillin, K., & Thomas, S. (2015). Drawing-to-learn: a framework for using drawings to promote model-based reasoning in biology. CBE Life Science Education, 14(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.14-08-0128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds, J. A., Thaiss, C., Katkin, W., & Thompson, R. J. (2012). Writing-to-learn in undergraduate science education: a community-based, conceptually driven approach. CBE Life Science Education, 11, 17–25. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.11-08-0064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: key elements in developing effective design challenges. Journal of the Learning Science, 9(3), 299–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnittka, C., & Bell, R. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change: addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1861–1887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.529177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silk, E. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Utilizing contrasting cases to target science reasoning and content in a design for science unit. Proceedings of the NARST 2008 Annual Meeting, Baltimore, MD.

  • Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2008). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8

  • Veen, J. V. D. (2012). Draw your physics homework? Art as a path to understanding in physics teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2), 356–407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211435521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This research was supported from graduate scholarship provided by the Institute for Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST). It also was funded by the Special Program of Doctor of Philosophy in Science Education, Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Education and Development Sciences, Kasetsart University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education and Development in Sciences, Kasetsart University, Kampang Sean Campus, Kampang Sean, Nakhon Pathom, 73140, Thailand

    Krislada Chusinkunawut, Kulthida Nugultham, Tussatrin Wannagatesiri & Witat Fakcharoenphol

  2. Mallinson Institute for Science Education, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI, 49008, USA

    Charles Henderson

Authors
  1. Krislada Chusinkunawut
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Charles Henderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kulthida Nugultham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tussatrin Wannagatesiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Witat Fakcharoenphol
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krislada Chusinkunawut.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chusinkunawut, K., Henderson, C., Nugultham, K. et al. Design-Based Science with Communication Scaffolding Results in Productive Conversations and Improved Learning for Secondary Students. Res Sci Educ 51, 1123–1140 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09926-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09926-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation