Advertisement

The effects of engineering design processes on spatial abilities of middle school students

  • Sevda Goktepe YildizEmail author
  • Ahmet Sukru Ozdemir
Article

Abstract

The spatial ability is defined as the combination of some abilities such as imagining the movements of objects, mental rotation, and spatial transformations. Students’ spatial abilities can be enhanced through specific education programs. This study investigated the effects of engineering design-based instruction on spatial abilities of 8th grade students. The study was conducted with a total of 75 students: two experimental groups (n = 35) and two control groups (n = 40). Three different engineering design modules were developed. Using a mixed method approach, qualitative data were analysed to identify students’ engineering design processes. In the quantitative part of the study, a quasi-experiment was used to examine the effects of engineering design-based mathematical activities on spatial abilities of students. Results revealed that engineering design-based activities positively affect the development of students’ spatial abilities. In addition, findings related to the qualitative data on students’ design processes were presented; and suggestions for further research were introduced.

Keywords

Design processes Engineering design-based instruction Middle school students Spatial ability 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study is a part of first author’s doctoral dissertation and supported by Marmara University Scientific Research Projects Department (Project No: EGT-C-DRP-091215-0543).

References

  1. Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465.Google Scholar
  2. Goktepe Yildiz, S., & Özdemir, A. S. (2017). Development of the spatial ability test for middle school students. Acta Didactica Napocensia, 10(4), 41–54.Google Scholar
  3. Bosnyak, A., & Nagy-Kondor, R. (2008). The spatial ability and spatial geometrical knowledge of university students majored in mathematics. Acta Didactica Universitatis Comenianae, 8, 1–25.Google Scholar
  4. Brunsell, E. (2012). The engineering design process. In E. Brunsell (Ed.), Integrating engineering and science in your classroom (pp. 3–6). Arlington: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  5. Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2016). Sosyal bilimler için veri analizi el kitabı [Data analysis handbook for social sciences] (22nd ed.). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.Google Scholar
  6. Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 US States: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Çepni, S. (2010). Araştırma ve proje çalışmalarına giriş [Introduction to research and project work] (Extended (5th ed.). Trabzon: Author.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, C. A., & Hegarty, M. (2012). Inferring cross sections of 3D objects: A new spatial thinking test. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(6), 868–874.Google Scholar
  10. Colom, R., Contreras, M. J., Botella, J., & Santacreu, J. (2001). Vehicles of spatial ability. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 903–912.Google Scholar
  11. Cunningham, C. M., Knight, M. T., Carlsen, W. S., & Kelly, G. (2007). Integrating engineering in middle and high school classrooms. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 3–8.Google Scholar
  12. Dabney, K. P., Tai, R. H., Almarode, J. T., Miller-Friedmann, J. L., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., et al. (2012). Out-of-school time science activities and their association with career interest in STEM. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 2(1), 63–79.Google Scholar
  13. Duesbury, R., & O’Neil, H. (1996). Effect of type of practice in a computer-aided design environment in visualizing three-dimensional objects from two-dimensional orthographic projections. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 249–260.Google Scholar
  14. Dym, C. L. (1994). Engineering design: A synthesis of views. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Ercan, S. (2014). The usage of engineering practices in science education: Design based science learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Marmara University, Educational Sciences Institute, Istanbul.Google Scholar
  16. Ercan, S., & Şahin, F. (2015). The usage of engineering practices in science education: Effects of design based science learning on students’ academic achievement. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 9(1), 128–164.Google Scholar
  17. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879.Google Scholar
  18. Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2000). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and application. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill an imprint of Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Hegarty, M., & Waller, D. (2005). Individual differences in spatial abilities. In P. Shah & A. Miyake (Eds.), The cambridge handbook of visuospatial thinking (pp. 121–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Leonard, M., & Derry, S. (2011). “What’s the science behind it?” The interaction of engineering and science goals, knowledge, and practices in a design-based science activity. WCER working paper no. 2011-5, University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
  21. Linn, M. C., & Petersen, A. C. (1985). Emergence and characterization of sex differences in spatial ability: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 56(6), 1479–1498.Google Scholar
  22. Lohman, D. F. (1988). Spatial abilities as traits, processes, and knowledge. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 181–248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 344–351.Google Scholar
  24. Maier, P. H. (1996). Spatial geometry and spatial ability–How to make solid geometry solid. In Selected papers from the Annual Conference of Didactics of Mathematics (pp. 63–75).Google Scholar
  25. Marulcu, I. (2010). Investigating the impact of a LEGO™-based, engineering-oriented curriculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple machines. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (UMI No. 3419134), Boston College, Chestnut Hill.Google Scholar
  26. Marulcu, I., & Barnett, M. (2016). Impact of an engineering design-based curriculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple machines. Research in Science & Technological Education, 34(1), 85–104.Google Scholar
  27. McGee, M. G. (1979). Human spatial abilities: Psychometric studies and environmental, genetic, hormonal, and neurological influences. Psychological Bulletin, 86(5), 889.Google Scholar
  28. Merriam, S. B. (2013). A guide to qualitative research design and practice. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.Google Scholar
  29. Ministry of National Education. (2013). Ortaokul matematik dersi öğretim programı [Middle school mathematics curriculum]. Ankara, Turkey: Author. Retrieved from http://ttkb.meb.gov.tr/www/ogretim-programlar-i/icerik/72.
  30. Moreno, N. P., Tharp, B. Z., Vogt, G., Newell, A. D., & Burnett, C. A. (2016). Preparing students for middle school through after-school STEM activities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 889–897.Google Scholar
  31. Museum of Science Boston. (2009). Engineering is elementary engineering design process. Retrieved from http://www.mos.org/eie/engineering_design.php.
  32. Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann–Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 4(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  33. Nargund-Joshi, V., & Liu, X. (2013). Understanding in-service teachers’ orientation towards interdisciplinary science inquiry. In National association for research in science teaching annual conference, Rio Grande, Puerto Rico.Google Scholar
  34. National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2010). Standarts for K-12 engineering education?. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  35. National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & National Research Council [NRC]. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education understanding the status and improving the prospects. In Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.), Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]. (2008). Cubed cans. Retrieved from https://illuminations.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/Content/Lessons/Resources/6-8/CubedCans-AS.pdf.
  37. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  38. Olkun, S. (2003). Making connections: Improving spatial abilities with engineering drawing activities. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  39. Olkun, S., & Altun, A. (2003). İlköğretim öğrencilerinin bilgisayar deneyimleri ile uzamsal düşünme ve geometri başarıları arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between elementary school students’ computer experiences and spatial thinking and geometry achievements]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(4), 86–91.Google Scholar
  40. Pittalis, M., & Christou, C. (2010). Types of reasoning in 3D geometry thinking and their relation with spatial ability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 75(2), 191–212.Google Scholar
  41. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, December/January, 20–26.Google Scholar
  42. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research: Learning trajectories for young children. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Shahali, E. H. M., Halim, L., Rasul, M. S., Osman, K., & Zulkifeli, M. A. (2017). STEM learning through engineering design: Impact on middle secondary students’ interest towards STEM. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 13(5), 1189–1211.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Sönmez, V., & Alacapınar, F. (2014). Örneklendirilmiş bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Exemplified scientific research methods] (3rd ed.). Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  46. Sorby, S. A., & Baartmans, B. G. (1996). A course for the development of 3-D spatial visualisation skills. Engineering Design Graphics Journal, 60(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
  47. Turgut, M. (2007). Investigation of 6, 7 and 8 grade students’ spatial ability. Unpublished master thesis, Dokuz Eylül University, Izmir.Google Scholar
  48. Turgut, M. (2015). Development of the spatial ability self-report scale (SASRS): Reliability and validity studies. Quality & Quantity, 49, 1997–2014.Google Scholar
  49. Turner, S., & Ireson, G. (2010). Fifteen pupils’ positive approach to primary school science: When does it decline? Educational Studies, 36(2), 119–141.Google Scholar
  50. Uttal, D. H., & Cohen, C. A. (2012). Spatial thinking and STEM education: When, why, and how? Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 57, 147–181.Google Scholar
  51. Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835.Google Scholar
  52. Wang, H. H. (2012). A new era of science education: Science teachers’ perceptions and classroom practices of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
  53. Wendell, K. B. (2008). The theoretical and empirical basis for design-based science instruction for children. Unpublished Qualifying Paper, Tufts University.Google Scholar
  54. Wendell, K. B., Connolly, K. G., Wright, C. G., Jarvin, L., Rogers, C., Barnett, M., & Marulcu, I. (2010). Incorporating engineering design into elementary school science curricula. In American Society for engineering education annual conference and exposition, Louisville, KY.Google Scholar
  55. Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2008). Sosyal bilimlerde araştırma yöntemleri [Research methods in social sciences] (7th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.Google Scholar
  56. Zhou, N., Pereira, N. L., George, T. T., Alperovich, J., Booth, J., Chandrasegaran, S., et al. (2017). The influence of toy design activities on middle school students’ understanding of the engineering design processes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(5), 481–493.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Elementary Mathematics Education, Faculty of EducationYildiz Technical UniversityEsenler/IstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Elementary Mathematics Education, Ataturk Faculty of EducationMarmara UniversityKadikoy/IstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations