Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Impact of an Engineering Design Curriculum on Science Reasoning in an Urban Setting

  • Published:
Journal of Science Education and Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examines the use of engineering design to facilitate science reasoning in high-needs, urban classrooms. The Design for Science unit utilizes scaffolds consistent with reform science instruction to assist students in constructing a design solution to satisfy a need from their everyday lives. This provides a meaningful context in which students could reason scientifically. Eighth grade students from two urban schools participated in the unit. Both schools contained large percentages of racial/ethnic minority and economically disadvantaged students. Students demonstrated statistically significant improvement on a paper-and-pencil, multiple-choice pre and post assessment. The results compare favorably with both a high-quality inquiry science unit and a traditional textbook curriculum. Implications for the use of design-based curricula as a viable alternative for teaching science reasoning in high-needs, urban settings are discussed.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We make use of the label designated by Leonard (2005), Design for Science or DS, to refer to generic curricula of this form in order to avoid confusion with any particular instantiation (e.g., Design-Based Science [DBS], or Learning by Design™ [LBD™]).

  2. The school district data was retrieved November 2007 from Standard & Poor’s School Matters, http://www.schoolmatters.com. The data is from the 2005–2006 school year.

  3. The results of the initial regression model (i.e., without standardized reading scores) were rerun with the larger sample of 170 students and the same results were obtained with respect to the statistical significance of the predictors.

References

  • Apedoe XS, Reynolds B, Ellefson MR, Schunn CD (2008) Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: the heating/cooling unit. J Sci Educ Technol 17:454–465. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barron BJS, Schwartz DL, Vye NJ, Moore A, Petrosino A, Zech L, Bransford JD, The Cognition Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1998) Doing with understanding: lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. J Learn Sci 7(3/4):271–311. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benenson G (2001) The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):730–745. doi:10.1002/tea.1029

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenfeld PC, Soloway E, Marx RW, Krajcik JS, Guzdial M, Palincsar AS (1991) Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol 26(3):369–398. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bransford JD, Schwartz DL (1999) Rethinking transfer: a simple proposal with multiple implications. Rev Res Educ 24:61–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR (2000) How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Buxton CA (2005) Creating a culture of academic success in an urban science and math magnet high school. Sci Educ 89:392–417. doi:10.1002/sce.20057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cajas F (2001) The science/technology interaction: implications for science literacy. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):715–729. doi:10.1002/tea.1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cawley JF, Parmar RS (2001) Literacy proficiency and science for students with learning disabilities. Read Writ Q 17:105–125. doi:10.1080/105735601300007589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chinn CA, Malhotra BA (2002) Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ 86(2):175–218. doi:10.1002/sce.10001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen J (1992) A power primer. Psychol Bull 112(1):155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coletta VP, Phillips JA (2005) Interpreting FCI scores: normalized gain, preinstruction scores, and scientific reasoning ability. Am J Phys 73(12):1172–1182. doi:10.1119/1.2117109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond D (2001) Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate-and-redesign tasks: a study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):791–820. doi:10.1002/tea.1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Miranda MA (2004) The grounding of a discipline: cognition and instruction in technology education. Int J Technol Des Educ 14:61–77. doi:10.1023/B:ITDE.0000007363.44114.3b

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt Y, Mehalik MM, Schunn CD (2005) A close-knit collaboration between researchers and teachers for developing and implementing a design-based science module, Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Dallas, TX

  • Fortus D, Dershimer RC, Krajcik JS, Marx RW, Mamlok-Naaman R (2004) Design-based science and student learning. J Res Sci Teach 41(10):1081–1110. doi:10.1002/tea.20040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortus D, Krajcik JS, Dershimer RC, Marx R, Mamlok-Naaman R (2005) Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. Int J Sci Educ 27(7):855–879. doi:10.1080/09500690500038165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Germann PJ, Haskins S, Auls S (1996) Analysis of nine high school biology laboratory manuals: promoting scientific inquiry. J Res Sci Teach 33(5):475–499. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199605)33:5<475::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-O

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gleitman L, Papafragou A (2005) Language and thought. In: Holyoak KJ, Morrison RG (eds) The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 633–661

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham S, Taylor AZ, Hudley C (1998) Exploring achievement values among ethnic minority early adolescents. J Educ Psychol 90(4):606–620. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.4.606

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haberman M (1991) Pedagogy of poverty versus good teaching. Phi Delta Kappan 73:290–294

    Google Scholar 

  • Hestenes D, Wells M, Swackhamer G (1992) Force concept inventory. Phys Teach 30:141–158. doi:10.1119/1.2343497

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo CE, Holton DL, Kolodner JL (2000) Designing to learn about complex systems. J Learn Sci 9(3):247–298. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook JK, Gray JT, Fasse BB, Camp PJ, Kolodner JL (2001) Assessment and evaluation of the Learning by Design™ physical science unit, 1999–2000: a document in progress. Retrieved February, 2007 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/pubtopic.html#assess

  • International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (1998) TIMSS science items: released set for population 2 (7th and 8th grades). Retrieved from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/BSItems.pdf

  • Johnson MA, Lawson AE (1998) What are the relative effects of reasoning ability and prior knowledge on biology achievement in expository and inquiry classes. J Res Sci Teach 35(1):89–103. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736(199801)35:1<89::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones MG, Howe A, Rua MJ (2000) Gender differences in students’ experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Sci Educ 84:180–192. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(200003)84:2<180::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahle JB, Meece J, Scantlebury K (2000) Urban African–American middle school science students: does standards-based teaching make a difference? J Res Sci Teach 37(9):1019–1041. doi:10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<1019::AID-TEA9>3.0.CO;2-J

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanari Z, Millar R (2004) Reasoning from data: how students collect and interpret data in science investigations. J Res Sci Teach 41(7):748–769. doi:10.1002/tea.20020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klahr D, Li J (2005) Cognitive research and elementary science instruction: from the laboratory, to the classroom, and back. J Sci Educ Technol 14(2):217–238. doi:10.1007/s10956-005-4423-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner JL, Camp PJ, Crismond D, Fasse B, Gray J, Holbrook J, Puntambekar S, Ryan M (2003a) Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design™ into practice. J Learn Sci 12(4):495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner JL, Gray JT, Fasse BB (2003b) Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: rituals and practices in learning by design™ classrooms. Cogn Sci Q 3(2):183–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn D (2007) Reasoning about multiple variables: control of variables is not the only challenge. Sci Educ 91(5):710–726. doi:10.1002/sce.20214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn D, Dean D Jr (2008) Scaffolded development of inquiry skills in academically disadvantaged middle-school students. J Psychol Sci Technol 1(2):36–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrenz F, Huffman D, Welch W (2001) The science achievement of various subgroups on alternative assessment formats. Sci Educ 85(3):279–290. doi:10.1002/sce.1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson AE (1978) The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. J Res Sci Teach 15(1):11–24. doi:10.1002/tea.3660150103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson AE (1987) Classroom test of scientific reasoning: revised paper and pencil version. Arizona State University, Tempe

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee O, Deaktor RA, Hart JE, Cueva P, Enders C (2005) An instructional intervention’s impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. J Res Sci Teach 42(8):857–887. doi:10.1002/tea.20071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard MJ (2005) Examining tensions in a “Design for Science” activity system: science versus engineering goals and knowledge. J Res Teach Educ 3:132–146 Tidskrift for Lararutbildning och Forskning

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis T (2006) Design and inquiry: bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? J Res Sci Teach 43(3):255–281. doi:10.1002/tea.20111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li J, Klahr D, Siler S (2006) What lies beneath the science achievement gap: the challenges of aligning science instruction with standards and tests. Sci Educ 15(1):1–12. doi:10.1007/s11191-004-4812-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lundy GF (2003) School resistance in American high schools: the role of race and gender in oppositional culture theory. Eval Res Educ 17(1):6–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch S, Kuipers J, Pyke C, Szesze M (2005) Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: results from a planning grant. J Res Sci Teach 42(8):912–946. doi:10.1002/tea.20080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCarthy CB (2005) Effects of thematic-based, hands-on science teaching versus a textbook approach for students with disabilities. J Res Sci Teach 42(3):245–263. doi:10.1002/tea.20057

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mehalik MM, Doppelt Y, Schunn CD (2008) Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. J Eng Educ 97(1):71–85

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman O, Ault CR Jr, Bentz B, Meskimen L (2001) The black–white “achievement gap” as a perennial challenge of urban science education: a sociocultural and historical overview with implications for research and practice. J Res Sci Teach 38(10):1101–1114. doi:10.1002/tea.10004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill T, Calabrese Barton A (2005) Uncovering student ownership in science learning: the making of a student created mini-documentary. Sch Sci Math 105(6):292–301

    Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar AS, Herrenkohl LR (2002) Designing collaborative learning contexts. Theory Pract 41(1):26–32. doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4101_5

    Google Scholar 

  • Penner DE, Lehrer R, Schauble L (1998) From physical models to biomechanics: a design-based modeling approach. J Learn Sci 7(3/4):429–449. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pine J, Aschbacher P, Roth E, Jones M, McPhee C, Martin C, Phelps S, Kyle T, Foley B (2006) Fifth graders’ science inquiry abilities: a comparative study of students in hands-on and textbook curricula. J Res Sci Teach 43(5):467–484. doi:10.1002/tea.20140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar S, Kolodner JL (2005) Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: helping students learn science from design. J Res Sci Teach 42(2):185–217. doi:10.1002/tea.20048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghavan K, Sartoris ML, Zimmerman C (2002) Impact of model-centered instruction on student learning, Annual Meeting of the National Association of Research in Science Teaching (NARST), New Orleans, LA

  • Renner JW, Stafford DG, Coffia WJ, Kellogg DH, Weber MC (1973) An evaluation of the science curriculum improvement study. Sch Sci Math 73(4):291–318

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth W-M (2001) Learning science through technological design. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):768–790. doi:10.1002/tea.1031

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roth W-M, Tobin K, Ritchie S (2001) Re/Constructing elementary science. Peter Lang Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadler PM, Coyle HP, Schwartz M (2000) Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: key elements in developing effective design challenges. J Learn Sci 9(3):299–327. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS0903_3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble L, Klopfer LE, Raghavan K (1991) Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. J Res Sci Teach 18(9):859–882. doi:10.1002/tea.3660280910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schauble L, Glaser R, Duschl RA, Schulze S, John J (1995) Students’ understanding of the objectives and procedures of experimentation in the science classroom. J Learn Sci 4(2):131–166. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0402_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler G (2001) Reversing the “standard” direction: science emerging from the lives of African American students. J Res Sci Teach 38(9):1000–1014. doi:10.1002/tea.1044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiler G, Tobin K, Sokolic J (2001) Design, technology, and science: sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools. J Res Sci Teach 38(7):746–767. doi:10.1002/tea.1030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sirin SR (2005) Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: a meta-analytic review of research. Rev Educ Res 75(3):417–453. doi:10.3102/00346543075003417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toth EE, Klahr D, Chen Z (2000) Bridging research and practice: a cognitively based classroom intervention for teaching experimentation skills to elementary school children. Cogn Instr 18(4):423–459. doi:10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tschirgi JE (1980) Sensible reasoning: a hypothesis about hypotheses. Child Dev 51(1):1–10. doi:10.2307/1129583

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich KT, Eppinger SD (2004) Product design and development, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Waxman HC, Huang S-YL, Padron YN (1995) Investigating the pedagogy of poverty in inner-city middle level schools. Res Middle Lev Educ 18(2):1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson MR, Bertenthal MW (eds) (2006) Systems for state science assessment. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman C, Raghavan K, Sartoris ML (2003) The impact of the MARS curriculum on students’ ability to coordinate theory and evidence. Int J Sci Educ 25(10):1247–1271. doi:10.1080/0950069022000038303

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge Anton Lawson for allowing us to use the Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning, Kalyani Raghavan from the MARS curriculum for her help with the data collection and useful feedback on the writing, and the teachers and students who invited us into their classrooms. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant EHR-0227016. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Learning Research & Development Center, University of Pittsburgh, 3939 O’Hara St, Pittsburgh, PA, 15260, USA

    Eli M. Silk & Christian D. Schunn

  2. Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Mari Strand Cary

Authors
  1. Eli M. Silk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian D. Schunn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mari Strand Cary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eli M. Silk.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Design Documentation Sheet

Open exploration: Discovery Documentation

By answering the following questions carefully, your team will be well prepared to continue exploring ideas important for building your alarm system.

Your Team’s Idea

Write ONE idea that your team discovered during open exploration today. Example: yellow wires make things turn on more often than blue wires.

Circuit Sheets

Using the circuit sharing sheets provided, draw 1, 2, or 3 circuits that would best help you show your idea to someone else. Be careful to label what each component is and the color of the wires.

Circuit Design

Describe the most important feature(s) of the way you built your circuit(s) that allows you to test your idea.

Observations

Describe what you observed for each of the circuits that show your idea. Things you may want to include are: what turned on and what did not? How loud or bright did they get? What was the voltage reading across them? How do they compare to each other?

Connecting to Your Alarm System

How might this idea be important for building your team’s alarm?

Appendix 2: Sample Assessment Item From Classroom Test of Scientific Reasoning (Lawson 1987)

Twenty fruit flies are placed in each of four glass tubes. The tubes are sealed. Tubes I and II are partially covered with black paper; Tubes III and IV are not covered. The tubes are placed as shown. Then they are exposed to orange light for 5 min. The number of flies in the uncovered part of each tube is shown in the drawing.

  1. 1.

    These data show that these flies respond to (respond means move to or away from):

    1. (a)

      Orange light but not gravity

    2. (b)

      Gravity but not orange light

    3. (c)

      Both orange light and gravity

    4. (d)

      Neither orange light nor gravity

  2. 2.

    Because

    1. (a)

      Some flies are in both ends of each tube

    2. (b)

      The majority of flies are in the lighted ends and the lower ends of the tubes

    3. (c)

      Most flies went to the bottom of Tubes I and III

    4. (d)

      The flies need light to see and must fly against gravity

    5. (e)

      Most flies are in the lighted end of Tube II but spread about evenly in Tube III

Appendix 3: Sample Assessment Item Adapted From Prior Research (Toth et al. 2000)

A group of engineers wants to design a model airplane that can fly as fast as possible. They can change the BODY (narrow or thick), the WINGS (long or short), and the TAIL (big or small).

  1. 1.

    If they want to find out whether the length of the WINGS makes a difference, which set of planes should they build?

  2. 2.

    Why did you choose that set of planes?

    1. (a)

      The planes are different in every way

    2. (b)

      The planes are different in every way except wing length

    3. (c)

      The planes are the same in every way except wing length

    4. (d)

      For each plane, wing length and tail shape fit well together

    5. (e)

      The bodies are big enough to hold the wings

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Silk, E.M., Schunn, C.D. & Strand Cary, M. The Impact of an Engineering Design Curriculum on Science Reasoning in an Urban Setting. J Sci Educ Technol 18, 209–223 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation