Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a design-based learning curriculum through design-based research for a technology-enabled science classroom

  • Development Article
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This exploratory study provides a deeper look into the aspects of students’ experience from design-based learning (DBL) activities for fifth grade students. Using design-based research (DBR), this study was conducted on a series of science learning activities leveraging mobile phones with relevant applications and sensors. We observed 3 different DBL workshops to understand potential learning effects and develop a curriculum to be reiterated as part of the DBR. The students who participated in this study were (1) provided with resources for their own experiment design, (2) encouraged to engage in problem solving by collective reasoning and solution designs, and (3) scaffolded in documenting, evaluating, and reporting scientific phenomena embedded in a thematic integrative education setting. This exploratory research model may be appropriate in addressing the issues of making science learning more approachable, interesting, enjoyable, and contextual while determining the efficacy of the pedagogy, resources, and conditions needed for the continuous curriculum enhancement process. Key findings suggest that emergence, evolution, and permeation could be promoted in the DBL environment as a pedagogical perspective.

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
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans: A project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. J. (2012). Science education and test-based accountability: Reviewing their relationship and exploring implications for future policy. Science Education, 96(1), 104–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. L., & Barnett, M. (2013). Learning physics with digital game simulations in middle school science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(6), 914–926.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Annetta, L. A., Frazier, W. M., Folta, E., Holmes, S., Lamb, R., & Cheng, M. T. (2013). Science teacher efficacy and extrinsic factors toward professional development using video games in a design-based research model: The next generation of STEM learning. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(1), 47–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability-Rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barab, S., & Dede, C. (2007). Games and immersive participatory simulations for science education: An emerging type of curricula. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 16(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Raz, E. (1998). Hot air balloons: Project centered study as a bridge between science and technology education. Science Education, 84(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, H., & Sharpe, R. (Eds.). (2013). Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: Designing for 21st century learning. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Education. (2000). Science content standards for California public schools: Kindergarten through grade twelve. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiaans, H., & Venselaar, K. (2005). Creativity in design engineering and the role of knowledge: Modelling the expert. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 15(3), 217–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coble, J. (2006). Curricular constraints, high-stakes testing and the reality of reform in high school science classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (UMI No. 3207430).

  • Doppelt, Y. (2003). Implementing and assessing project-based learning in a flexible environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(3), 255–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: A case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duran, M., Höft, M., Lawson, D. B., Medjahed, B., & Orady, E. A. (2014). Urban high school students’ IT/STEM learning: Findings from a collaborative inquiry-and design-based afterschool program. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(1), 116–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(10), 1081–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gómez Puente, S. M., van Eijck, M., & Jochems, W. (2013). Facilitating the learning process in design-based learning practices: an investigation of teachers’ actions in supervising students. Research in Science & Technological Education, 31(3), 288–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katzmann, J. M. (2007). The influences of implementing state-mandated science assessment on teacher practice. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (UMI No. 3280260).

  • Ketelhut, D. J., Nelson, B. C., Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2010). A multi-user virtual environment for building and assessing higher order inquiry skills in science. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(1), 56–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, P., Miranda, T., & Olaciregui, C. (2008). Pocket school: Exploring mobile technology as a sustainable literacy education option for underserved indigenous children in Latin America. International Journal of Educational Development, 28(4), 435–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laru, J., Järvelä, S., & Clariana, R. B. (2012). Supporting collaborative inquiry during a biology field trip with mobile peer-to-peer tools for learning: a case study with K-12 learners. Interactive Learning Environments, 20(2), 103–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loh, B., Reiser, B. J., Radinsky, J., Edelson, D. C., Gomez, L. M., & Marshall, S. (2001). Developing reflective inquiry practices: A case study of software, the teacher, and students. In K. Crowley, C. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings (pp. 279–324). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Looi, C. K., Seow, P., Zhang, B., So, H. J., Chen, W., & Wong, L. H. (2010). Leveraging mobile technology for sustainable seamless learning: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(2), 154–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, T. (2006). Different countries, same science classes: Students’ experiences of school science in their own words. International Journal of Science Education, 28(6), 591–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marulcu, I., & Barnett, M. (2013). Fifth graders’ learning about simple machines through engineering design-based instruction using LEGO™ materials. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1825–1850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minner, D. D., Levy, A. J., & Century, J. (2010). Inquiry-based science instruction - what is it and does it matter? Results from a research synthesis years 1984–2002. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(4), 474–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neber, H., & Schommer-Aikins, M. (2002). Self-regulated science learning with highly gifted students: The role of cognitive, motivational, epistemological, and environmental variables. High Ability Studies, 13(1), 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouri, J., Cerrato-Pargman, T., & Zetali, K. (2013). Human-Computer Interaction. Applications and Services (pp. 464–473)., Mobile inquiry-based learning Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2008). 21st century learning: Research, innovation and policy directions from recent OECD analyses. Retrieved May 1, 2014 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/39/8/40554299.pdf.

  • Osborne, J. (2010). Arguing to learn in science: The role of collaborative, critical discourse. Science, 328(5977), 463–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, J., Jing, L., Chang, H., & Namdar, B. (2014). Technology-enhanced, modeling-based instruction (TMBI) in science education. In J. M. Spector, M. D., Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J., Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communication and technology (4th ed., Chap. 46). New York: Springer

  • Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M. S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. K., & Southerland, S. A. (2007). Reforming practice or modifying reforms? Elementary teachers’ response to the tools of reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 396–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svihla, V., & Linn, M. C. (2012). A design-based approach to fostering understanding of global climate change. International Journal of Science Education, 34(5), 651–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, A. R., Jones, M. G., Broadwell, B., & Oppewal, T. (2008). Creativity, inquiry or accountability? Scientists’ and teachers’ perceptions of science education. Science Education, 92(6), 1058–1075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waks, S. (1995). Curriculum design: From an art towards a science. Hamburg: Tempus Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 5–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wissehr, C., Concannon, J., & Barrow, L. H. (2011). Looking back at the Sputnik era and its impact on science education. School Science and Mathematics, 111(7), 368–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Paul Kim & Esther Suh

  2. School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

    Donggil Song

Authors
  1. Paul Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Esther Suh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Donggil Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Donggil Song.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9376-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation