What’s your goal? The importance of shaping the goals of engineering tasks to focus learners on the underlying science

Instructional Science

Volumn 47, Issue 5, 2019, Pages 551-588

  Malkiewich, Laura J ^a   Chase, Catherine C ^a  

^a Columbia University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Contrasting cases; Engineering education; Learning goals; Physics learning; Transfer

Indexed keywords

EID: 85069843527     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: 15731952     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-019-09493-2     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1–11.
2. Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2016). Help helps, but only so much: Research on help seeking with intelligent tutoring systems. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 26(1), 205–223.
3. Aleven, V., Stahl, E., Schworm, S., Fischer, F., & Wallace, R. (2003). Help seeking and help design in interactive learning environments. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 277–320.
4. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.
5. Amrhein, V., Korner-Nievergelt, F., & Roth, T. (2017). The earth is flat (p > 0.05): Significance thresholds and the crisis of unreplicable research. PeerJ, 5, e3544. 10.7717/peerj.3544.
6. Apedoe, X. S., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Strategies for success: Uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning. Instructional Science, 41(4), 773–791.
7. Arbreton, A. (1998). Student goal orientation and help seeking strategy use. In S. A. Karabenick (Ed.), Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching (pp. 95–116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do I apply what I learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 612–637.
9. Barron, B. J., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem-and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3–4), 271–311.
10. Berland, M., Martin, T., Benton, T., Petrick Smith, C., & Davis, D. (2013a). Using learning analytics to understand the learning pathways of novice programmers. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(4), 564–599.
11. Berland, L., Martin, T., Ko, P., Baker Peacock, S., Rudolph, J., & Golubski, C. (2013b). Student learning in challenge-based engineering curricula. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(1), 53–64.
12. Bottoms, G., & Anthony, K. (2005). Project lead the way: A pre-engineering curriculum that works. Southern Regional Education Board. Atlanta, GA. Retrieved June 27, 2014 from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/publications/briefs/05V08_Research_PLTW.pdf.
13. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
14. Bransford, J. D., Franks, J. J., Vye, N. J., & Sherwood, R. D. (1989). New approaches to instruction: Because wisdom can’t be told. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 470–497). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
15. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Chapter 3: Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 61–100.
16. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.
17. Bundy, B. M. (2013). AP physics 1: Algebra-based course planning and pacing guide. New York: The College Board.
18. Chase, C. C., Harpstead, E., & Aleven, V. (2017). Inciting out-of-game transfer: Adapting contrast-based instruction for educational games. In Paper presented at Games+Learning+Society, Madison, WI.
19. Chase, C. C., Malkiewich, L. J., & Kumar, A. (2019). Learning to notice science concepts in engineering activities and transfer situations. Science Education, 103(2), 440–471. 10.1002/sce.21496.
20. Chi, M. T., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121–152.
21. Chi, M. T., & VanLehn, K. A. (2012). Seeing deep structure from the interactions of surface features. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 177–188.
22. Day, S. B., & Goldstone, R. L. (2012). The import of knowledge export: Connecting findings and theories of transfer of learning. Educational Psychologist, 47(3), 153–176.
23. Detterman, D. K. (1993). The case for the prosecution: Transfer as an epiphenomenon. In D. K. Detterman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction (pp. 1–24). Westport, CT: Able Publishing.
24. Dow, S. P., Heddleston, K., & Klemmer, S. R. (2009, October). The efficacy of prototyping under time constraints. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM conference on creativity and cognition (pp. 165–174). ACM.
25. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048.
26. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(5), 968–980.
27. 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.
28. Gardner, A. K., Diesen, D. L., Hogg, D., & Huerta, S. (2016). The impact of goal setting and goal orientation on performance during a clerkship surgical skills training program. The American Journal of Surgery, 211(2), 321–325.
29. Gentner, D., Levine, S. C., Ping, R., Isaia, A., Dhillon, S., Bradley, C., et al. (2016). Rapid learning in a children’s museum via analogical comparison. Cognitive Science, 40(1), 224–240.
30. Gero, J. S., Jiang, H., & Williams, C. (2013). Design cognition differences when using unstructured, partially structured and structured concept generation creativity techniques. International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 1(4), 196–214.
31. Gertzman, A. D., & Kolodner, J. L. (1996, July). A case study of problem-based learning in a middle school science classroom: Lessons learned. In Proceedings of the 1996 international conference on learning sciences (pp. 91–98). International Society of the Learning Sciences.
32. Gibson, E. J. (1988). Exploratory behavior in the development of perceiving, acting, and the acquiring of knowledge. Annual Review of Psychology, 39(1), 1–41.
33. Gibson, J. J., & Gibson, E. J. (1955). Perceptual learning: Differentiation or enrichment? Psychological Review, 62(1), 32–41.
34. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38.
35. Greeno, J. G., Moore, J. L., & Smith, D. R. (1993). Transfer of situated learning. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
36. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learning about complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247–298.
37. Holbrook, J., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Scaffolding the development of an inquiry-based (science) classroom. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Proceedings of international conference of the learning sciences ICLS 2000 (pp. 221–227). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
38. Kanter, D. E. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551.
39. Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424.
40. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., Cook, W. L., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
41. Klahr, D., Triona, L. M., & Williams, C. (2007). Hands on what? The relative effectiveness of physical versus virtual materials in an engineering design project by middle school children. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 183–203.
42. Koh, J. H. L., Chai, C. S., Wong, B., & Hong, H.-Y. (2015). Design thinking for education. Singapore: Springer.
43. 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 (tm) into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.
44. Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. (2003b). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design™ classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 183–232.
45. Kurtz, K. J., Miao, C. H., & Gentner, D. (2001). Learning by analogical bootstrapping. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 417–446.
46. Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2007, June). Engineering is elementary: Children’s changing understandings of science and engineering. In Paper presented at American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI.
47. Lammi, M., Denson, C., & Asunda, P. (2018). Search and review of the literature on engineering design challenges in secondary school settings. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 8(2), 49–66.
48. Latham, G. P., & Brown, T. C. (2006). The effect of learning vs. outcome goals on self-efficacy, satisfaction and performance in an MBA program. Applied Psychology, 55(4), 606–623.
49. Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50. Lee, A. (2017). Productive responses to failure for future learning. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
51. Lobato, J., Rhodehamel, B., & Hohensee, C. (2012). “Noticing” as an alternative transfer of learning process. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 433–482.
52. Locke, E. A., & Bryan, J. (1969). The directing function of goals in task performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4(1), 35–42.
53. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting & task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc.
54. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.
55. Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 125–152.
56. Loibl, K., Roll, I., & Rummel, N. (2017). Towards a theory of when and how problem solving followed by instruction supports learning. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 693–715.
57. Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). Knowing what you don’t know makes failure productive. Learning and Instruction, 34, 74–85. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.08.004.
58. Malkiewich, L. J., & Chase, C. C. (2019). Focusing processes: Potential pathways for transfer of science concepts from an engineering task. International Journal of Science Education. 10.1080/09500693.2019.1613583.
59. Mandl, H., Gräsel, C., & Fischer, F. (2000). Problem-oriented learning: Facilitating the use of domain-specific and control strategies through modeling by an expert. In W. J. Perrig & A. Grob (Eds.), Control of human behavior, mental processes and consciousness (pp. 165–182). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
60. Marks, J. (2017). The impact of a brief design thinking intervention on students’ design knowledge, iterative dispositions, and attitudes towards failure. Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University.
61. Mercier, E. M. (2017). The influence of achievement goals on collaborative interactions and knowledge convergence. Learning and Instruction, 50, 31–43.
62. Miller, C. S., Lehman, J. F., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). Goals and learning in microworlds. Cognitive Science, 23(3), 305–336.
63. National Research Council. (2012). Education for life and work: Developing transferable knowledge and skills in the 21st century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
64. Nokes, T. J., & Belenky, D. M. (2011). Incorporating motivation into a theoretical framework for knowledge transfer. In J. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), Psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 55, pp. 109–135)., Cognition in Education San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
65. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1988). Teaching for transfer. Educational Leadership, 46(1), 22–32.
66. Petrosino, A. J. (1998). The use of reflection and revision in hands-on experimental activities by at-risk children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
67. Pick, H. L. (1992). Eleanor J. Gibson: Learning to perceive and perceiving to learn. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 787–794.
68. Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning & Instruction, 12, 529–556.
69. 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 Either Grade Science Course. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 181–195.
70. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2011, January). Outcomes and mechanisms of transfer in invention activities. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 33(33), 2824–2829.
71. Roth, W. M., Tobin, K., & Ritchie, S. (2001). Re/constructing elementary science. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
72. Rothkopf, E. Z., & Billington, M. J. (1979). Goal-guided learning from text: Inferring a descriptive processing model from inspection times and eye movements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(3), 310–327.
73. Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “ Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 329–341.
74. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859–882.
75. Schnittka, C., & Bell, R. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1861–1887.
76. Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1993). Goals and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and writing achievement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18(3), 337–354.
77. Schunn, C. (2011). Design principles for high school engineering design challenges: Experiences from high school science classrooms. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. Retrieved July 18, 2019 from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED537383.
78. Schwartz, D. L., & Arena, D. (2013). Measuring what matters most: Choice-based assessments for the digital age. Cambridge: MIT Press.
79. Schwartz, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 475–5223.
80. Schwartz, D. L., Chase, C. C., Oppezzo, M. A., & Chin, D. B. (2011). Practicing versus inventing with contrasting cases: The effects of telling first on learning and transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103(4), 759–775. 10.1037/a0025140.
81. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.
82. Shemwell, J. T., Chase, C. C., & Schwartz, D. L. (2015). Seeking the general explanation: A test of inductive activities for learning and transfer. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(1), 58–83. 10.1002/tea.21185.
83. Shute, V. J., & Gluck, K. A. (1996). Individual differences in patterns of spontaneous online tool use. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5, 329–355.
84. Silk, E. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008, January). Utilizing contrasting cases to target science reasoning and content in a design-for-science unit. In Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching (NARST), Baltimore, MD.
85. 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.
86. Svarovsky, G. N., & Shaffer, D. W. (2007). Soda constructing knowledge through exploratoids. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(1), 133–153.
87. Tavakol, M., & Dennik, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
88. University of Bristol (n.d.). Sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Retrieved January 5, 2019 from http://www.bristol.ac.uk/cmm/learning/multilevel-models/samples.html.
89. Vattam, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2008). On foundations of technological support for addressing challenges facing design-based science learning. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 406–437.
90. Wood, D. (2001). Scaffolding, contingent tutoring, and computer-supported learning. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 280–292.
91. Worsley, M., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Assessing the Makers: The Impact of Principle-Based Reasoning on Hands-on, Project-Based Learning. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, … L. D’Amico (Eds.) Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 1147–1151). Boulder, CO.