Fifth Graders' Learning About Simple Machines Through Engineering Design-Based Instruction Using LEGO™ Materials

Research in Science Education

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 1825-1850

  Marulcu, Ismail ^a   Barnett, Mike ^b  

^a ERCIYES UNIVERSITY   (Turkey)

^b BOSTON COLLEGE   (United States)

Author keywords

Design based instruction; Elementary science education; LEGO materials; Simple machines

Indexed keywords

EID: 84884535284     PISSN: 0157244X     EISSN: 15731898     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11165-012-9335-9     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Apedoe, X., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M., & Schunn, C. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 454-465.
3. Atman, C. J., & Indira, N. (1996). Engineering in context: An empirical study of freshmen students' conceptual frameworks. Journal of Engineering Education, 85(4), 317-326.
4. Atman, C., Adams, R., Cardella, M., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering-design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359-379.
5. Atman, C., Kilgore, D., & McKenna, A. (2008). Characterizing design learning: A mixed-methods study of engineering-designers' use of language. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 309-326.
6. Augustine, N. R. (2005). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
7. Augustine, N., Barrett, C., Cassell, G., Grasmick, N., Holliday, C., Hackson, S., et al. (2010). Rising above the gathering storm, revisited: Rapidly approaching category 5. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8. Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182.
9. Barab, S. A., Barnett, M., Yamagata-Lynch, L., Squire, K., & Keating, T. (2002). Using activity theory to understand the systemic tensions characterizing a technology-rich introductory astronomy course. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 9(2), 76-107.
10. Barnett, M. (2005). Engaging inner city students in learning through designing remote operated vehicles. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 87-100.
11. Barnett, M., Keating, T., Barab, S., & Hay, K. (2000). Conceptual change through building three-dimensional models. In B. J. Fishman & S. F. O'Connor (Eds.), Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 134-142). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering student teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 59-73.
13. Bucciarelli, T. L. (1996). Designing engineers. Cambridge: MIT.
14. Cantrell, P., & Robinson, M. (2002). How do 4th through 12th grade science textbooks address applications in engineering and technology? Bulletin of Science Technology Society, 22, 31-41.
15. de Vries, M. J. (1997). Science and technology teacher training: What kind of training for what type of teaching. European Journal of Education, 32(1), 59-73.
16. Eshach, H. (2006). Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools. Dordrecht: Springer.
17. Fensham, P. J. (1990). What will science educators do about technology? Australian Science Teachers Journal, 36(3), 8-21.
18. Ferguson, E. L., & Hegarty, M. (1995). Learning with real machines or diagrams: Application of knowledge to real-world problems. Cognition and Instruction, 13(1), 129-160.
19. Grigorenko, E., Jarvin, L., & Sternberg, R. (2002). School-based tests of the triarchic theory of intelligence: Three settings, three samples, three syllabi. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(2), 167.
20. Hegarty, M., & Just, M. A. (1993). Constructing mental models of machines from text and diagrams. Journal of Memory and Language, 32(6), 717-742.
21. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
22. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Education and Psychology, 92, 126-136.
23. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.) (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
24. Kilgore, D., Atman, C., Yasuhara, K., Barker, T., & Morozov, A. (2007). Considering context: A study of first-year engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 321-334.
25. Kolodner, J. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9-40.
26. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In K. L. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225-242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. In: Proceedings of the International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS 98) (pp. 16-22). Charlottesville: AACE.
28. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Fasse, B. B., Gray, J. T., Holbrook, J., Ryan, M., et al. (2003a). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting a learning-by-design curriculum into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-548.
29. Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J. T., & Fasse, B. B. (2003b). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in Learning by Design™ classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 119-170.
30. Lehrer, R., & Romberg, T. (1996). Exploring children's data modeling. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 69. Retrieved from http://search. ebscohost. com.
31. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Basis for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255-281.
32. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 30, 73-84.
33. 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.
34. McKenna, A. F., & Agogino, A. M. (2004). Supporting mechanical reasoning with a representationally-rich learning environment. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(2), 97-104.
35. National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students' motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
36. National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
37. Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A design-based modeling approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 429-449.
38. Resnick, M., Berg, R., & Eisenberg, M. (2000). Beyond black boxes: Bringing transparency and aesthetics back to scientific investigation. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(1), 7-30.
39. Ringwood, J., Monaghan, K., & Maloco, J. (2005). Teaching engineering-design through LEGO® Mindstorms™. European Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 91-104. doi: 10. 1080/03043790310001658587. Retrieved February 16, 2008.
40. Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 5(3/4), 17-28. Retrieved from Education Research Complete Database.
41. Roth, W. M. (1996). Art and artifact of children's designing: A situated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 129-166.
42. Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Strand-Cary, M. (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.
43. Steinberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
44. Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New York: Plume.
46. Sternberg, R., Grigorenko, E., & Jarvin, L. (2001). Improving reading instruction: The triarchic model. Educational Leadership, 58(6), 48.
47. Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Teaching for wisdom, intelligence, creativity, and success. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.
48. Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of mixed-methods in social and behavioral research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
49. Wengraf, T. (2001). Qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.