More Like this

1. Impact of Argumentation Scaffolds in Contrasting Designs Tasks on Elementary Pre-Service Teachers’ Use of Science Ideas in Engineering Design

   Uruena, Yuri B.; Rebello, Carina M; Dasgupta, Chandan; Magana, A J; Rebello, N. Sanjay (October 2017, Physics Education Research Conference proceedings)

   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
2. Scaffolding Evidence-Based Reasoning in a Technology Supported Engineering Design Activity

   Rebello, C.M. (January 2019, The 13th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA))

   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
3. Defining and Evaluating Argumentation Quality in the Context of Design Thinking: Using High School Students’ Design Critiques from Foundational Engineering Courses

   https://doi.org/10.24377/DTEIJ.article2530  

   Lee, Wonki; Mentzer, Nathan; Jackson, Andrew; Bartholomew, Scott; Clevenger, Amiah (January 2024, Design and Technology Education: An International Journal)

   This research investigates students’ argumentation quality in engineering design thinking. We implemented Learning by Evaluating (LbE) using Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ), where students assess pairs of items to determine the superior one. In ACJ, students provided rationales for their critiques, explaining their selections. Fifteen students participated in an LbE exercise before starting their backpack design projects, critically evaluating multiple backpack designs and producing 145 comments. Writing comments required students to discern and justify the superior design, fostering informed judgment and articulation of their reasoning. The study used the Claim, Evidence, and Reasoning (CER) framework, adapted for engineering design thinking, to analyse these critiques. The framework emphasized three aspects: Empathy (understanding user needs), Ideation (deriving design inspiration), and Insight (gaining valuable understanding from evaluated designs). We employed both deductive and inductive content analysis to evaluate the argumentation quality in students’ critiques. High-quality argumentation was identified based on six codes: user-focused empathy, design inspirations, logical rationalizations, multi-criteria evaluations, aesthetic considerations, and cultural awareness. Poor-quality argumentation lacked these elements and was characterized by vagueness, uncertainty, brevity, inappropriateness, irrelevance, gender bias, and cultural stereotyping. By identifying critical elements of effective argumentation and common challenges students may face, this study aims to enhance argumentation skills in engineering design thinking at the secondary education level. These insights are intended to help educators prepare students for insightful and successful argumentation in engineering design projects. 

   more » « less
4. Argumentation with Contrasting Cases : Facilitation of Deep Structure Learning

   Rebello, Carina M; Beardmore, David; Towle, Bryce (August 2017, European Science Education Research Association 2017 Conference)

   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
5. Argumentation with Contrasting Cases : Facilitation of Deep Structure Learning

   Rebello, Carina M; Beardmore, David; Towle, Bryce (August 2017, European Science Education Research Education 2017 Conference)

   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