Search for: All records

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. 

Educational reform documents in the U.S. promote the incorporation of argumentation in science and engineering as a 21st century learning skill. Our aim was to infuse argumentation in a calculus-based physics course for future scientists and engineers. We conducted a study in a problem solving recitation session of the course. All students were asked to solve the same problem and were provided prompts to structure their solutions. The intervention condition was required to justify their solution procedure prior to solving the problem. Results showed that the intervention condition had a greater proportion of correct solutions, higher confidence in their approach, and were more likely to suggest alternative approaches to solving the problem than students in the control condition. 

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. 

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. 

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.