Learning Disciplinary Ideas and Practices Through Engineering Design

doi:10.1017/CBO9781139013451.017

Chapter 13 - Learning Disciplinary Ideas and Practices Through Engineering Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2015

Kristen Bethke Wendell and

Janet L. Kolodner

Edited by

Aditya Johri and

Barbara M. Olds

Show author details

Kristen Bethke Wendell: Affiliation:
University of Massachusetts Boston
Janet L. Kolodner: Affiliation:
Georgia Institute of Technology
Aditya Johri: Affiliation:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Barbara M. Olds: Affiliation:
Colorado School of Mines

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

When pre-college students are given opportunities to engage in engineering, and those opportunities are carefully structured to include particular affordances, much more than designing and building can take place. Engineering education researchers who focus on elementary and secondary education are finding that engineering design can help create an environment for the learning of ideas and practices in a variety of academic disciplines. In this chapter, we put forth a framework, case-based reasoning, that suggests ways of carefully conceiving engineering design activities to support disciplinary learning. We highlight K–12 engineering education research that exemplifies the structures and practices suggested by the case-based reasoning framework. These research studies inform our understanding of how students learn disciplinary ideas and practices through engineering design at the pre-college level.

For a first glimpse into this work, picture the following scene in a third-grade science classroom. Two students are consulting with their teacher about the final assignment of their musical instrument engineering unit. The goal is a novel instrument that can play three different pitches. After a brief discussion to help the students see the strengths and weaknesses of their initial plan, the teacher sends them on their way to revise their ideas.

Type: Chapter
Information: Cambridge Handbook of Engineering Education Research , pp. 243 - 264

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.017 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achieve, Inc. (2013). Next generation science standards. Retrieved from

Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Mosborg, S., Turns, J., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.CrossRef Google Scholar

Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Mena, I. B. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ attempts at integrating engineering design: Transformation or assimilation? In Proceedings of the 118th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar

Cleary, B. (1990). The mouse and the motorcycle. New York, NY: Harper Collins.Google Scholar

Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.CrossRef Google Scholar

Diefes-Dux, H. A., Moore, T., Zawojewski, J., Imbrie, P. K., & Follman, D. (2004). A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: Model-eliciting activities. In Proceedings, 34th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah, GA (pp. F1A-3–F1A-8). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.Google Scholar

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

Gray, J., Camp, P., Holbrook, J., Fasse, B., & Kolodner, J. L. (2001). Science talk as a way to assess student transfer and learning: Implications for formative assessment. Retrieved from .

Hammer, D. (2004). The variability of student reasoning, lecture 1: Case studies of children's inquiries. In Redish, E. & Vicentini, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the Enrico Fermi Summer School, Course CLVI (pp. 279–299). Bologna, Italy: Italian Physical Society.Google Scholar

Hazelrigg, G. A. (1999). On the role and use of mathematical models in engineering design. Journal of Mechanical Design, 121(9), 336–341.CrossRef Google Scholar

Hynes, M. M. (2009). Teaching middle-school engineering: An investigation of teachers’ subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tufts University, Medford, MA.Google Scholar

It's About Time. (2011). Project-Based Inquiry Science: PBIS™. Retrieved from

Kafai, Y. B., & Muir Welsh, K. A. (2007). Evaluating students’ multimedia science design projects in the elementary classroom. In Pintó, R. & Couso, D. (Eds.), Contributions from science education research (pp. 435–449). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kendall, A. L. M., & Wendell, K. B. (2012). Understanding the beliefs and perceptions of teachers who choose to implement engineering-based science instruction. In Proceedings of the 119th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar

Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case based reasoning. San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kolodner, J. L. (1997). Educational implications of analogy: A view from case-based reasoning. American Psychologist, 52(1), 57–66.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In Sawyer, K. L. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting Learning by Design™ into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRef Google Scholar

Kolodner, J. L., & Gray, J. (2002). Understanding the affordances of ritualized activity structures for project-based classrooms. In Bell, P., Stevens, R., & Satwicz, T. (Eds.), Keeping learning complex: International conference of the learning sciences (ICLS) (pp. 221–228). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Kolodner, J. L., Starr, M. L., Edelson, D., Hug, B., Kanter, D., Krajcik, J.,… Zahm, B. (2008). Implementing what we know about learning in a middle-school curriculum for widespread dissemination: The Project-Based Inquiry Science (PBIS) story. In Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences, Utrecht, Netherlands (Vol. 3, pp. 274–281). International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar

Lawson, A. E. (1978). The development and validation of a classroom test of formal reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(1), 11–24.CrossRef Google Scholar

Lesh, R., Hoover, M., Hole, B., Kelly, A., & Post, T. (2000). Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers. In Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 591–645). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Malden, MA: Author.Google Scholar

McCormick, M., & Hynes, M. M. (2012). Engineering in a fictional world: Early findings from integrating engineering and literacy. In Proceedings of the 119th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar

National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Penner, D., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125–143.3.0.CO;2-V>CrossRef Google Scholar

Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 429–449.CrossRef Google Scholar

Petroski, H. (1996). Engineering by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Portsmore, M. D. (2010). Exploring how experience with planning impacts first grade students’ planning and solutions to engineering design problems (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Tufts University, Medford, MA.Google Scholar

Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.CrossRef Google Scholar

Redmond, M. (1992). Learning by observing and understanding expert problem solving. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). College of Computing, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar

Rogers, G., & Wallace, J. (2000). The wheels of the bus: Children designing in an early years classroom. Research in Science & Technology Education, 18(1), 127–135.CrossRef Google Scholar

Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artifact of children's designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 129–166.CrossRef Google Scholar

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

Russ, R. S., Scherr, R. E., Hammer, D., & Mikeska, J. (2008). Recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student scientific inquiry: A framework for discourse analysis developed from philosophy of science. Science Education, 92, 499–525.CrossRef 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 Sciences, 9(3), 299–327.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schank, R. C. (1999). Dynamic memory revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar

Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. L. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Silk, E. M., Higashi, R., Shoop, R., & Schunn, C. D. (2010, December–January). Designing technology activities that teach mathematics. The Technology Teacher, 21–27.

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 & Technology, 18, 209–223.CrossRef Google Scholar

Song, S., & Agogino, A. M. (2004). Insights in designers’ sketching activities in new product design teams. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Salt Lake City, UT (Vol. 3a, pp. 351–360). American Society of Mechanical Engineers.Google Scholar

Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science & Technology Education, 17(1), 19–34.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wendell, K. B. (2011). Science through engineering in elementary school: Comparing three enactments of an engineering-design-based curriculum on the science of sound (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Database (3445103).

Wendell, K. B., & Lee, H.-S. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruction based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 580–601.CrossRef Google Scholar

Wendell, K. B. & Rogers, C. (in press). Engi-neering-design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education.