Advertisement

Language of Design Within Science and Engineering

  • Nicole WeberEmail author
  • Kristina Lamour Sansone
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 44)

Abstract

We are born with a powerful integrated set of tools and capabilities that help us read the world. The visual is often dominant, critical, logical, relevant and hard-wired (Dahaene, S. (2009). Reading in the Brain. New York: Penguin Group). However, schools tend to privilege text by closing the visual (images, color, symbols, and typestyles) aspects of content off, dis-integrating and reducing its status and impact. Graphic design is a field of expertise that integrates pictures and words, using words as visual expression that can help students access content, construct meaning using a broader set of tools and demonstrate knowledge. Graphic design is already in mathematics and science education classrooms, however, many users do not fully utilize the learning and communication potential of graphical languages.

Keywords

Science Education Content Knowledge Engineering Education Bird Communication Visual Communication 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Thank you to Yoselin Rodriguez who was a first semester freshman when this work was produced. Since then, she has been accepted into the Bachelor of Fine Arts/Master of Education Dual Degree in Visual Art.

Supplementary material

References

  1. Ainsworth, S., Prain, V., & Tytler, R. (2011). Drawing to learn in science. Science, 333, 1096–1097.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dahaene, S. (2009). Reading in the brain: The science and evolution of a human invention. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
  3. DeHann, R. (2011). Teaching creative science thinking. Science, 334, 1499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Eberbach, C., & Crowley, K. (2009). From everyday to scientific observation: How children learn to observe the biologist’s world. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hackling, M., & Prain, V. (2005). Primary connections: Stage2trial. Canberra: Australian Academy of Science.Google Scholar
  6. Kosslyn, S. (2007). Clear and to the point: 8 psychological principles for compelling Powerpoint presentations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Kroodsma, D. E., & Miller, E. H. (1996). Ecology and evolution of scoustic communication in birds. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  8. McWilliam, E., Poronnik, P., & Taylor, P. (2008). Re-designing science pedagogy: Reversing the flight from science. Journal of Science Education Technology, 17, 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Musante, S. (2011). Teaching biology for a sustainable future. BioScience, 61(10), 751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies (NAE & NRC). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. National Center for Best Practices. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering and math education Agenda: An update of state actions. Washington, DC: Black Point Policy Solutions, LLC.Google Scholar
  12. National Research Council. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Committee on science learning, Kindergarten through eighth grade. In Richard A. Duschl, Heidi A. Schweingruber, & Andrew W. Shouse (Eds.), Board on Science Education, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  13. National Research Council. (2009). A new biology for the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  14. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: Committee on a Conceptual Framework for New K-12 Science Education Standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Committee on a conceptual framework for new K-12 science education standards. Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  16. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  17. North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE). (2011). Assessing environmental literacy: A proposed framework for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2015 (p. 44). Washington, DC: NAAEE. http://www.naaee.net/.Google Scholar
  18. Orr, D. W. (1994). Earth in mind. On education, environment, and the human prospect. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  19. Strobel, J., Weber, N., Dyehouse, M., & Gajdzik, E. (2011). Recommendations to realign the national STEM education agenda, ASQ Higher Education Brief, 4(1). http://asq.org/edu/2011/02/engineering/recommendations-to-realign-the-national-stem-education-agenda.pdf?WT.dcsvid=Nzg3NTMxNDExS0&WT.mc_id
  20. Van Meter, P., & Garner, J. (2005). The promise and practice of learner-generated drawing: Literature review and synthesis. Educational Psychology Review, 17(4), 285–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Graduate School of EducationLesley UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.College of Art and DesignLesley UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations