What’s your goal? The importance of shaping the goals of engineering tasks to focus learners on the underlying science
Engaging in engineering tasks can help students learn science concepts. However, many engineering tasks lead students to focus more on the success of their construction than on learning science content, which can hurt students’ ability to learn and transfer scientific principles from them. Two empirical studies investigate how content-focused learning goals and contrasting cases affect how students learn and transfer science concepts from engineering activities. High school students were given an engineering challenge, which involved understanding and applying center of mass concepts. In Study 1, 86 students were divided into four conditions where both goals (content learning vs. outcome) and instructional scaffolds (contrasting cases vs. no cases) were manipulated during the engineering task. Students with both content-focused learning goals and contrasting cases were better able to transfer scientific principles to a new task. Meanwhile, regardless of condition, students who noticed the deep structure in the cases demonstrated greater learning. A second study tried to replicate the goal manipulation findings, while addressing some limitations of Study 1. In Study 2, 78 students received the same engineering task with contrasting cases, while half the students received a learning goal, and half received an outcome goal. Students who were given content-focused learning goals valued science learning resources more and were better able to transfer scientific principles to novel situations on a test. Across conditions, the more students valued resources, the more they learned, and students who noticed the deep structure transferred more. This research underscores the importance of content-focused learning goals for supporting transfer of scientific principles from engineering tasks, when students have access to adequate instructional scaffolds.
KeywordsTransfer Engineering education Contrasting cases Learning goals Physics learning
This work was supported by two grants from Teachers College Columbia University (Research Dissertation Fellowship, and the Dean’s Grant for Student Research). We thank the following colleagues for their contributions to various parts of the project, including data collection and general advice: Aakash Kumar, Bryan Keller, Deanna Kuhn, Naomi Choodnovski, Matthew Zellman, Vivian Chang, Li Jiang, Xinxu Shen, Kimberly Zambrano, and Elisabeth Hartman.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Studies presented in this paper were vetted and approved by the Institutional Review Board at Teachers College, Columbia University, and the school board for the school where the study was performed.
Informed assent was obtained from all student participants, and informed consent was obtained from their parents.
- Arbreton, A. (1998). Student goal orientation and help seeking strategy use. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 95–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.Google Scholar
- Berland, L., Martin, T., Ko, P., Baker Peacock, S., Rudolph, J., & Golubski, C. (2013b). Student learning in challenge-based engineering curricula. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(1), 53–64.Google Scholar
- Bottoms, G., & Anthony, K. (2005). Project lead the way: A pre-engineering curriculum that works. Southern Regional Education Board. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved June 27, 2014 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/briefs/05V08_Research_PLTW.pdf.
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
- Bundy, B. M. (2013). AP physics 1: Algebra-based course planning and pacing guide. New York: The College Board.Google Scholar
- Chase, C. C., Harpstead, E., & Aleven, V. (2017). Inciting out-of-game transfer: Adapting contrast-based instruction for educational games. In Paper presented at Games+Learning+Society, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
- Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Westport, CT: Able Publishing.Google Scholar
- Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., & Klemmer, S. R. (2009, October). The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on creativity and cognition (pp. 165–174). ACM.Google Scholar
- Gertzman, A. D., & Kolodner, J. L. (1996, July). A case study of problem-based learning in a middle school science classroom: Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on learning sciences (pp. 91–98). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
- Greeno, J. G., Moore, J. L., & Smith, D. R. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
- Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of international conference of the learning sciences ICLS 2000 (pp. 221–227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
- Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., Cook, W. L., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., … & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by design (tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.Google Scholar
- Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. (2003b). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design™ classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 183–232.Google Scholar
- Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2007, June). Engineering is elementary: Children’s changing understandings of science and engineering. In Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.Google Scholar
- Lee, A. (2017). Productive responses to failure for future learning. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
- Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.Google Scholar
- Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mandl, H., Gräsel, C., & Fischer, F. (2000). Problem-oriented learning: Facilitating the use of domain-specific and control strategies through modeling by an expert. In W. J. Perrig & A. Grob (Eds.), Control of human behavior, mental processes and consciousness (pp. 165–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Marks, J. (2017). The impact of a brief design thinking intervention on students’ design knowledge, iterative dispositions, and attitudes towards failure. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.Google Scholar
- National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22–32.Google Scholar
- Petrosino, A. J. (1998). The use of reflection and revision in hands-on experimental activities by at-risk children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.Google Scholar
- Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an Either Grade Science Course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181–195.Google Scholar
- Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2011, January). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in invention activities. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33(33), 2824–2829.Google Scholar
- Roth, W. M., Tobin, K., & Ritchie, S. (2001). Re/constructing elementary science. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.Google Scholar
- Schunn, C. (2011). Design principles for high school engineering design challenges: Experiences from high school science classrooms. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. Retrieved July 18, 2019 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED537383.
- Silk, E. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008, January). Utilizing contrasting cases to target science reasoning and content in a design-for-science unit. In Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
- University of Bristol (n.d.). Sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Retrieved January 5, 2019 from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmm/learning/multilevel-models/samples.html.
- Wood, D. (2001). Scaffolding, contingent tutoring, and computer-supported learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 280–292.Google Scholar
- Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Assessing the Makers: The Impact of Principle-Based Reasoning on Hands-on, Project-Based Learning. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, … L. D’Amico (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1147–1151). Boulder, CO.Google Scholar