The Effects of an Engineering Design Module on Student Learning in a Middle School Science Classroom

Nigel Standish, Rhonda Christensen, Gerald Knezek, Willy Kjellstrom, Eric Bredder

Abstract


Eighth grade students often experience difficulty concretely representing learning objectives in a physical science course. In order to determine the effect of engineering design modules, advanced manufacturing machines were employed including 2D and 3D fabricators to create tangible objects from computer-aided designs. Students completed the Waves and Sound Assessment prior to participating in the digital fabrication activities, and again after the hands-on activities. We also aimed to examine differences in learning based on sex. Major findings for the 13 males and 8 females were that both males (p < .01) and females (p < .01) gained a large amount of knowledge over the course of the two week-long unit on waves and sound. Large effect sizes for the open-ended questions and multiple-choice questions were found in both males (d = .83) and females (d = 1.48). There were no significant differences in scores between sexes at either the pretest or the posttest time period for the open-ended or multiple-choice questions. Findings indicate advanced manufacturing activities were effective for both boys and girls in fostering gains in science content knowledge related to waves and sound concepts.

Keywords


digital fabrication; advanced manufacturing; physical science; middle school

Full Text:

PDF

References


Akinoglu, O., & Tandogan, R.O. (2007). The effects of problem-based active learning in science education on students’ academic achievement, attitude and concept learning. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 71-81.

Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730-745.

Bialo, E.R., & Sivin-Kachala, J. (1996). The effectiveness of technology in schools: A summary of recent research. School Library Media Quarterly, 25(1), 51-57.

Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in Pâ€12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 369-387.

Bull, G., & Groves, J. (2009). The Democratization of Production. Learning & Leading with Technology, 37(3), 36-37.

Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of research in science teaching, 38(7), 715-729.

Campbell, D.T. & Stanley, J.C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.

Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4) 301–309. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00905.x

Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175-218.

Choi, N., & Chang, M. (2009). Performance of middle school students. Comparing U.S and Japanese inquiry-based science practices in middle schools. Middle Grades Research Journal, 6(1), 15.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D., & Leifer, L J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.

Fortus, D. (2005). Restructuring school physics around real-world problems: A cognitive justification. In annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec.

Fortus, D., Dershimer, R.C., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science (DBS) and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41(10), 1081-1110.

George, P., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., & Beane, J. (1992). The middle school and beyond. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA.

Hirsch, L., Carpinelli, J., Kimmel, H., Rockland, R., & Bloom, J. (2007). The differential effects of pre-engineering curricula on middle school students’ attitudes to and knowledge of engineering careers. Presented at the 37th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Retrieved from http://fie-conference.org/fie2007/papers/1205.pdf

Hmelo, C.E., Holton, D.L., & Kolodner, J.L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(3), 247-298.

Horwitz, P. (1995). Linking models to data: Hypermodels for science education.The High School Journal, 148-156.

Kahle, J.B., Meece, J., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban Africanâ€American middle school science students: Does standardsâ€based teaching make a difference?. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019-1041.

Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). The status and nature of K-12 engineering education in the United States. The Bridge, 39(3), 5-10.

Knezek, G., Christensen, R., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2011). Contrasting perceptions of STEM content and careers. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 11(1), 92-117.

Kuhn, D., & Dean, J. (2008). Scaffolded development of inquiry skills in academically disadvantaged middle-school students. Journal of Psychology of Science and Technology, 1(2), 36-50.

Lee, O., Deaktor, R. A., Hart, J.E., Cuevas, P., & Enders, C. (2005). An instructional intervention's impact on the science and literacy achievement of culturally and linguistically diverse elementary students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(8), 857-887.

Li, J., Klahr, D., & Siler, S. A. (2006). What lies beneath the science achievement gap: The challenges of aligning science instruction with standards and tests. Science Educator, 15(1), 1-12.

Liu, F. (2008). Impact of online discussion on elementary teacher candidates' anxiety towards teaching mathematics. Education, 128(4), 614-629.

Livingston, A. (2008). The Condition of Education 2008 in Brief. NCES 2008-032. National Center for Education Statistics.

Mitts, C. & Haynie, W. (2010). Preferences of male and female students for TSA competitive events. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70(1), 19-26.

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2011). Rising above the gathering storm revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Condensed version. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Governors Association. (2007). Innovation America: A final report. Washington, DC: Author.

National Research Council (2009). Katechi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects committee on K-12 engineering education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2007). National action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). (2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (stem) for America's future. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President, President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

Pine, J., Aschbacher, P., Roth, E., Jones, M., McPhee, C., Martin, C., ... &

Foley, B. (2006). Fifth graders' science inquiry abilities: A comparative study of students in handsâ€on and textbook curricula. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(5), 467-484.

Roth, W. M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790.

Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Cary, M.S. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223. doi: 10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8.

Smith, S. (2015). Epic Fails: Reconceptualizing failure as a catalyst for developing creative persistence within teaching and learning experiences. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 23(3), 329-335.

Weber, K. & Custer, R. (2005). Gender-based preferences toward technology education content, activities, and instructional methods. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 55-71.

Weber, K. (2012). Gender differences in interest, perceived personal capacity, and participation in STEM-related activities. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 18-33.

Woolley, M.E., Strutchens, M.E., Gilbert, M.C., & Martin, W.G. (2010). Mathematics Success of Black Middle School Students: Direct and Indirect Effects of Teacher Expectations and Reform Practices, The Negro Educational Review, 61, 41-60.

Wysession, M., Frank, D., & Yancopoulos, S. (2011). Prentice Hall Physical Science Concepts in Action. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


e-ISSN: 1694-2116

p-ISSN: 1694-2493