Search for: All records

Investigating students’ thinking in classroom tasks, particularly in science and engineering, is essential for improving educational practices and advancing student learning. In this context, the notion of (WoT) has gained traction in STEM education, offering a framework to explore how students approach and solve interdisciplinary problems. Building on our earlier studies and contributing to ongoing discussions on WoT frameworks, this paper introduces a new WoT framework—Ways of Thinking in Engineering Design-based Physics (WoT4EDP). WoT4EDP integrates five key elements—design, science, mathematics, metacognitive reflection, and computational thinking—within an undergraduate introductory physics laboratory. This novel framework highlights how these interconnected elements foster deeper learning and holistic problem solving in ED-based projects. A key takeaway is that this framework serves as a practical tool for educators and researchers to design, implement, and analyze interdisciplinary STEM activities in physics classrooms. We describe the development of WoT4EDP, situate it within undergraduate STEM education, and characterize its components in detail. Additionally, we compare WoT4EDP with two contemporary frameworks—Dalal (2021) and English (2023)—to glean insights that enhance its application and promote interdisciplinary thinking. This paper is the first of a two-part series. In the upcoming second part, we will demonstrate the application of the WoT4EDP framework, showcasing how it can be used to analyze student thinking in real-world, ED-based physics projects. 

Reform documents advocate for innovative pedagogical strategies to enhance student learning. A key innovation is the integration of science and engineering practices through engineering design (ED)-based physics laboratory tasks, where students tackle engineering design problems by applying physics principles. While this approach has its benefits, research shows that students do not always effectively apply scientific concepts, but instead rely on trial-and-error approaches, and end up their way to a solution. This leads to what is commonly referred to as the —that students do not always consciously apply science concepts while solving a design problem. However, as obvious as the notion of a may appear, there seems to exist no consensus on the definitions of and , further complicating the understanding of this gap. This qualitative study addresses the notion of the design-science gap by examining student groups’ discussions and written lab reports from a multiweek ED-based undergraduate introductory physics laboratory task. Building on our earlier studies, we developed and employed a nuanced, multilayered coding scheme inspired by the Gioia Framework to characterize and . We discuss how student groups engage in various aspects of design and how they apply physics concepts and principles to solve the problem. In the process, we demonstrate the interconnectedness of students’ design thinking and science thinking. We advocate for the usage of the term as opposed to to deepen both design and science thinking. Our findings offer valuable insights for educators in design-based science education. 

We analyzed the essays that were written on various topics in an introductory physics course using two unsupervised machine learning algorithms. One of them was Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). This algorithm is used for extracting abstract topics from a collection of text documents. The other algorithm was Non-negative Matrix Factorization (NMF). It is used for similar purposes but also in other domains such as image recognition. We applied these two algorithms to the dataset that consisted of N=683 student essays. Although there were some built-in, important differences between LDA and NMF, they both found similar topics in our data by large. This offers instructors a promising and productive way of accessing useful information about their students' written work, especially in large-enrollment classes. 

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. 

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.