Recently there have been calls to integrate engineering design experiences to support students’ scientific understanding. There is a need for instructional strategies in which learners are encouraged to identify and reflect on ways scientific principles can be applied to inform their designs and evaluate alternative designs. Studies show that the inclusion of contrasting cases can improve students’ conceptual understanding and reasoning. Yet, such tasks depend on how they are scaffolded. In this study, pre-service elementary teachers in a conceptual physics course analyzed contrasting solutions to a design problem. Two forms of scaffolds were embedded to facilitate case evaluation: 1) identify similarities and differences and 2) evaluate and produce an argument for a “good” design solution. We investigated the scientific ideas that the participants used as they contrasted multiple design solutions and the impact of the two approaches in students’ understanding of heat transfer. We found no significant differences in students’ conceptual understanding, but the argumentation condition had a significantly larger number of scientific ideas ‘cited’, ‘explained’ or ‘applied’ in their solutions,. The results suggest that contrasting designs with argumentation may be a promising intervention to facilitate students to use science concepts in engineering design. Future work is needed in order to investigate better scaffolds that can help students’ increase in conceptual learning.
more »
« less
Impact of Argumentation Scaffolds in Contrasting Designs Tasks on Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Use of Science Ideas in Engineering Design
Recently there have been calls to integrate engineering design experiences to support students’ scientific understanding. There is a need for instructional strategies in which learners are encouraged to identify and reflect on ways scientific principles can be applied to inform their designs and evaluate alternative designs. Studies show that the inclusion of contrasting cases can improve students’ conceptual understanding and reasoning. Yet, such tasks depend on how they are scaffolded. In this study, pre-service elementary teachers in a conceptual physics course analyzed contrasting solutions to a design problem. Two forms of scaffolds were embedded to facilitate case evaluation: 1) identify similarities and differences and 2) evaluate and produce an argument for a “good” design solution. We investigated the scientific ideas that the participants used as they contrasted multiple design solutions and the impact of the two approaches in students’ understanding of heat transfer. We found no significant differences in students’ conceptual understanding, but the argumentation condition had a significantly larger number of scientific ideas ‘cited’, ‘explained’ or ‘applied’ in their solutions,. The results suggest that contrasting designs with argumentation may be a promising intervention to facilitate students to use science concepts in engineering design. Future work is needed in order to investigate better scaffolds that can help students’ increase in conceptual learning.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1712201
- PAR ID:
- 10064832
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Physics Education Research Conference proceedings
- ISSN:
- 2377-2379
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Engineering Design (ED) challenges are increasingly used as a context to learn science. Research shows that there is a need for strategies that facilitate learners to identify, apply, and reflect on ways scientific principles can inform creation and evaluation of ED solutions. We investigate the use of contrasting cases and argumentation scaffolds to facilitate use of evidence-based reasoning in a CAD supported ED tasks. Elementary education majors in a physics course analyzed solutions to an ED problem in two conditions: 1) identify similarities and differences, 2) evaluate and produce an argument for a “good” design solution. We found that the argumentation condition used scientific evidence-based reasoning significantly more frequently in their responses than the control. Results indicate that the contrasting cases with argumentation scaffolds shows promise in facilitating students’ use of evidence-based reasoning in their ED tasks.more » « less
-
Prior studies have revealed that both contrasting cases and argumentation tasks can support deeper learning and problem solving skills. Yet, these studies suggest that appropriate scaffolds are need for these instructional strategies to be successful. We investigate alternative forms of writing prompts (similarities and differences, invent a unify statement, and argumentation) for two cases that addresses the momentum principle. Results suggest that prompts for identifying similarities and differences within cases tended to promote identification of surface features irrelevant to solving the problems. However, argumentation prompts to evaluate competing theories tended to support deeper understanding of underlying principles and appropriate application of principles.more » « less
-
Prior studies have revealed that both contrasting cases and argumentation tasks can support deeper learning and problem solving skills. Yet, these studies suggest that appropriate scaffolds are need for these instructional strategies to be successful. We investigate alternative forms of writing prompts (similarities and differences, invent a unify statement, and argumentation) for two cases that addresses the momentum principle. Results suggest that prompts for identifying similarities and differences within cases tended to promote identification of surface features irrelevant to solving the problems. However, argumentation prompts to evaluate competing theories tended to support deeper understanding of underlying principles and appropriate application of principles.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract In recent years, there has been a strong push to transform STEM education at K‐12 and collegiate levels to help students learn to think like scientists. One aspect of this transformation involves redesigning instruction and curricula around fundamental scientific ideas that serve as conceptual scaffolds students can use to build cohesive knowledge structures. In this study, we investigated how students use mass balance reasoning as a conceptual scaffold to gain a deeper understanding of how matter moves through biological systems. Our aim was to lay the groundwork for a mass balance learning progression in physiology. We drew on a general models framework from biology and a covariational reasoning framework from math education to interpret students' mass balance ideas. We used a constant comparative method to identify students' reasoning patterns from 73 interviews conducted with undergraduate biology students. We helped validate the reasoning patterns identified with >8000 written responses collected from students at multiple institutions. From our analyses, we identified two related progress variables that describe key elements of students' performances: the first describes how students identify and use matter flows in biology phenomena; the second characterizes how students use net rate‐of‐change to predict how matter accumulates in, or disperses from, a compartment. We also present a case study of how we used our emerging mass balance learning progression to inform instructional practices to support students' mass balance reasoning. Our progress variables describe one way students engage in three dimensional learning by showing how student performances associated with the practice of mathematical thinking reveal their understanding of the core concept of matter flows as governed by the crosscutting concept of matter conservation. Though our work is situated in physiology, it extends previous work in climate change education and is applicable to other scientific fields, such as physics, engineering, and geochemistry.
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
