Search for: All records

Abstract Recent calls for reform in K‐12 science education and the National Academy of Engineering's Grand Challenges for Engineering in the 21st Century emphasize improving science teaching, students' engagement, and learning. In this study, we designed and implemented a curriculum unit for sixth‐grade students (i = 1305). The curriculum unit integrated science and engineering content and practices to teach ecology, water pollution, and engineering design. We investigated the designed integrated STEM unit's effectiveness in students' science learning outcomes on pre‐, post‐, and delayed post‐assessments. We collected pre‐and post‐assessment data of students' science learning outcomes for both the baseline group (taught via existing district‐adopted curriculum) and an intervention group (taught with integrated life science and engineering curriculum). We used a quasi‐experimental research design and examined differences between baseline and intervention groups. We used ANCOVA to explore differences in students' learning in baseline and intervention groups. Furthermore, for students in the intervention group, we conducted repeated‐measures ANOVA to investigate knowledge retention. Our analyses also accounted for students' gender and People of Color (POC) status. We conducted multiple regression analyses to explore the relationship between students' gender, POC status, and their learning outcomes. The results indicated that the intervention group students performed significantly better than the students in the baseline group. The repeated measures ANOVA showed that students in the intervention group retained science knowledge after 8 weeks of instruction. Finally, the regression analysis for the baseline group showed that gender and POC status were not significant predictors of their post‐assessment scores. However, POC status was a significant predictor of post‐assessment scores and knowledge retention for the intervention group. Overall, this study provides valuable findings on how an integrated STEM curriculum designed with engineering design and practices improves students' science learning outcomes. 

Recent reform initiatives in STEM disciplines inspired the development and implementation of integrated STEM approaches to science teaching and learning. Integrated STEM as an approach to science teaching and learning leverages engineering principles and practices to situate learning in an authentic and meaningful science learning environment. However, integrated STEM curricular activities can be cognitively challenging for learners, so it is essential that teachers employ scaffolding techniques to facilitate student understanding of the connections between concepts and practices of the integrated disciplines. In this paper, we describe Legitimation Code Theory as an analytical framework and provide an analysis of semantic patterns of an integrated STEM unit (written discourse) and a middle school teacher’s enactment of that unit (oral discourse). Specifically, this analysis focused on the semantic gravity (SG), or level of context dependency, of the activities and dialogue present throughout the unit. Creating a semantic profile offers a snapshot of how abstract (weaker SG) or how specific (stronger SG) a concept is presented in relation to other concepts. Curriculum that presents ideas through the formation of semantic waves, or oscillations between areas of stronger and weaker semantic gravity, is linked to enhanced learning of complex ideas. The results of this study identify the areas in the curriculum unit and instruction that enable or constrain knowledge-building within the science classroom. We posit that the Legitimation Code Theory is a useful tool for developing and examining integrated STEM curriculum and its implementation. 

Recent reforms in science education have supported the inclusion of engineering in K- 12 curricula. To this end, many science classrooms have incorporated engineering units that include design tasks. Design is an integral part of engineering and helps students think in creative and interdisciplinary ways. In this study, we examined middle-school students’ naturally occurring design conversations in small design teams and their learning of science as a result of engaging in an engineering and science unit. We found that the proportion of different thought processes used by boys and girls was quite similar. Both girls and boys produced a higher percentage of ideas or thoughts associated with divergent thinking, but a lower proportion in convergent thinking, evaluative thinking, and cognitive memory. In addition, gender composition of design teams influenced thought processes expressed by girls and boys. Interestingly, in mixed teams, both girls and boys expressed less divergent thinking than those in single-sex teams. With regard to science content learning, both girls and boys showed statistically significant learning gains. There were no significant gender differences in the pre- and post-test scores. These results suggest that participating in an engineering design task in small design teams provided students opportunities to engage in productive thinking and enhance their learning of the targeted science concept—ecosystems.