Abstract
The emphasis of reform-oriented science education today focuses on engineering integration in K-12 science classrooms. However, there is little research, particularly longitudinal research, on how different approaches to engineering integration influence student learning and interest. To address this gap in the literature, this study analyzed a middle school life science teacher’s enactment of three design-focused life science units and student performances over a 3-year period. Findings indicate that the design and enactment of each unit reflects a unique engineering integration approach: add on, implicit, and explicit. Moreover, the ways the teacher talked about engineering varied among each curriculum unit. Through the analyses of 330 students’ pre- and post-content tests and interest surveys as well as videotaped classroom instruction, we found that explicit engineering integration and engineering language use in classroom instruction resulted in higher student learning gains in science and engineering, but they did not have significant effects on students’ interest in science and engineering. We explore the implications for curricular materials and discuss a need for long-term professional development and support for teachers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Alozie, N. M., Moje, E. B., & Krajcik, J. S. (2010). An analysis of the supports and constraints for scientific discussion in high school project-based science. Science Education, 94(3), 395–427.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 705–720.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Patrick, H., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Teaching for understanding. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. F. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching, volume II (pp. 819–878). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Press.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
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(October), 301–309.
Chalmers, C., Carter, M. (Lyn), Cooper, T., & Nason, R. (2017). Implementing “big ideas” to advance the teaching and learning of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(1), 25–43.
Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300.
Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspective in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.
Dankenbring, C., & Capobianco, B. M. (2016). Examining elementary school students’ mental models of sun-earth relationships as a result of engaging in engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 825–845.
Erickson, F. (1990). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. Research in Teaching and Learning, 2(400), 119–161.
Erickson, F. (2006). Definition and analysis from videotape: Some research procedures and their rationales. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in education research (3rd ed., pp. 177–191). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.
Guzey S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014a). A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3-6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139–149.
Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014b). Development of an instrument to measure students’ attitudes toward STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279.
Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Peralta, Y., & Moore, T. (2017). The impact of design-based STEM integration curricula on student achievement in science, engineering, and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 207–222.
High, K., Thomas, J. & Redmond, A. (2010). Expanding middle school science and math learning: Measuring the effect of multiple engineering projects. Paper presented at the P-12 Engineering and Design Education Research Summit, Seaside, OR.
Hmelo, C., Douglas, H., & Kolodner, J. (2000). Designing to learn complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
Johnson, C. C., Peters-Burton, E. E., & Moore, T. J. (Eds.). (2016). STEM road map: A framework for integrated STEM education. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school science classroom: Putting learning by design™ into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2014). Engineering in elementary schools. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 61–88). West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press.
Lead States, N. G. S. S. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
McNeill, K., & Silva Pimentel, D. (2009). Scientific discourse in three urban classrooms: The role of the teacher in engaging high school students in argumentation. Science Education, 94(2), 203–229.
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 71–85.
Moje, E. B. (1995). Talking about science: An interpretation of the effects of teacher talk in a high school science classroom. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32(4), 349–371.
Moje, E. B. (2015). Doing and teaching disciplinary a social and cultural enterprise. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 254–279.
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 Education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research engineering. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Nelson, T., Lesseig, K., Slavit, D., Kennedy, C. & Seidel, R. (2015). Supporting middle school teachers implementation of STEM design challenges. Paper presented at NARST conference, Chicago, IL.
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., & Wasserman, W. (1996). Applied linear statistical models (4th ed.). Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Park, D.-Y., Park, M.-H., & Bates, A. B. (2016). Exploring young children’s understanding about the concept of volume through engineering design in a STEM activity: A case study. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 1–20.
Penner, D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 429–449.
Riskowski, J. L., Todd, C. D., Wee, B., Dark, M., & Harbor, J. (2009). Exploring the effectiveness of an interdisciplinary water resources engineering module in an eighth grade science course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181–195.
Roth, W. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(2), 129–166.
Schnittka, C. G., & Bell, R. L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in the middle school science classroom. International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1861–1887.
Valtorta, C. G., & Berland, L. K. (2015). Math, science, and engineering integration in a high school engineering course: A qualitative study. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 5(1), 15–29.
Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) grant DRL no. 1238140 to the University of Minnesota and Purdue University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Guzey, S.S., Ring-Whalen, E.A., Harwell, M. et al. Life STEM: A Case Study of Life Science Learning Through Engineering Design. Int J of Sci and Math Educ 17, 23–42 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9860-0
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9860-0