Effects of Design-based Learning on Tenth-grade Students’ Scientific Understanding and Design-thinking Mindsets: A Case Study on the Topic of Inclined Planes
Keywords:
Design-based learning, Scientific understanding, Design-thinking mindsetsAbstract
The purpose of this research was to examine the effects of design-based learning on six female tenth-grade students’ scientific understanding and design-thinking mindsets. The researchers collected data using a multiple-choice conceptual test comprising of 24 items and a Likert five-point scale measuring design-thinking mindsets comprising of 30 items before and after the implementation of design-based learning in the topic of inclined planes. The researchers analyzed the data using descriptive and inferential statistics. Research results reveal that the students significantly developed scientific understanding (p < 0.05) but did not exhibit a significant change in design-thinking mindsets (p > 0.05) These research results indicate that developing design-thinking mindsets is a challenge. Future research is necessary to find an effective way to develop students’ design-thinking mindsets.
References
Royal Thai Government Gazette. National Strategy (B.E. 2561 – 2580). [Internet]. Bangkok: Government Gazette; 2018 [cited 2021 December 14]. Available from: http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2561/A/082/T_0001.PDF.
Li Y, Schoenfeld AH, Disessa AA, Graesser AC, Benson LC, English LD, et al. Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal of STEM Education Research. 2019; 2(2): 93-104.
Bureau of Academic Affairs and Educational Standards. Indicators and core learning content in science according to the basic education core curriculum B.E. 2551 (revised version B.E. 2560). Bangkok: Press of the Agricultural Co-operative Federation of Thailand; 2017.
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology (IPST) [Internet]. Bangkok: [publisher unknown]; [date unknown]. STEM education and engineering design process. [cited 2021 November 13]. Available from: http://designtechnology.ipst.ac.th/?page_id=1082.
Dym CL, Agogino AM, Eris O, Frey DD, Leifer LJ. Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education. 2005: 94(1): 103-120.
Institute of Design at Stanford [Internet]. Stanford: Hasso Plattner Institute of Design; c2020. An introduction to design thinking process guide; 2019; [cited 2021 November 13]. Available from: https://web.stanford.edu/~mshanks/MichaelShanks/files/509554.pdf.
Lammi M, Becker K. Engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education 2013; 24(2): 55-77.
Ladachart L, Ladachart L. Please mind the gap between science and design. Suranaree Journal of Social Sciences. 2020; 14(2): 118-132.
Schauble L. Belief revision in children: The role of prior knowledge and strategies for generating evidence. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1990; 49(1): 31-57.
Dankenbring C, Capobianco BM. Examining elementary school students’ metal models of Sun-Earth relationships as a result of engaging in engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 2016; 14(5): 825-845.
Promboon S, Finley FN, Kaweekijmanee K. The evolution and current status of STEM education in Thailand: Policy directions and recommendations. Education in Thailand: An old elephant in search of a new mahout. 2018. p. 423-459.
Fortus D, Dershimer RC, Krajcik J, Marx RW, Mamlok-Naaman R. Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2004; 41(10): 1018-1110.
Kolodner JL, Camp PJ, Crismond CD, Fasse B, Gray J, Holbrook J, et al. Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by designTM into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences. 2003; 12(4): 495-547.
Apedoe XS, Reynolds B, Ellefson MR, Schunn CD. Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology. 2008; 17(5): 454-465.
Marulcu I, Barnett M. Impact of an engineering design-based curriculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple machines. Research in Science and Technological Education. 2016; 34(1): 85-104.
Mehalik MM, Doppelt Y, Schunn CD. Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education. 2008; 97(1): 71-85.
Carroll M, Goldman S, Britos L, Koh J, Royalty A, Hornstein M. Destination, imagination and the fires within: Design thinking in a middle school classroom. International Journal of Art and Design Education. 2010; 29(1): 37-53.
Sung E, Kelly TR. Identifying design process patterns: A sequential analysis study of design thinking. International Journal of Technology and Design Education. 2019; 29(2): 283-302.
Paparo M, Dosi C, Vignoli M. Towards a DT Mindset Tool Evaluation: Factors identification from theory and practice. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Engineering Design: 2017 August 21-25; Vancouver, Canada. p. 367-376.
Dosi C, Rosati F, Vignoli M. Measuring design mindset. Proceedings of the 15th International Design Conference: 2018 May 21-24; Dubrovnik: Croatia. p. 1991-2002.
Schweitzer J, Groeger L, Sobel L. The design thinking mindset: An assessment of what we know and what we see in practice. Journal of Design, Business and Society. 2016; 2(2): 71-94.
Cook KL, Bush SB. Design thinking in integrated STEAM learning: Surveying the landscape and exploring exemplars in elementary grades. School Science and Mathematics. 2018; 118(3-4): 93-103.
Ladachart L, Cholsin J, Kwanpet S, Teerapanpong R, Dessi A, Phuangsuwan L, et al. Ninth-grade students’ perceptions on the design-thinking mindset in the context of reverse engineering. International Journal of Technology and Design Education [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 December 14]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-021-09701-6.
Merriam SB. Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers; 1998.
Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: SAGE Publications; 2011.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California: SAGE Publications; 2002.
Sadler PM, Coyle HP, Schwartz M. Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. The Journal of the Learning Science. 2000; 9(3): 299-327.
Pleasants J, Olson JK. What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education. 2019; 103(1): 145-166.
Chini JJ. Comparing the scaffolding provided by physical and virtual manipulatives for students’ understanding of simple machines [Dissertation Ph.D.]. Kansas: Kansas State University; 2010.
Ladachart L. Qualitative research for science teachers. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press; 2015.
Morgan GA, Leech NL, Gloeckner GW, Barrett KC. IBM SPSS for introductory statistics. New York: Routledge; 2013.
De Winter JCF. Using the student’s t-test with extremely small sample sizes. Practical Assessment Research and Evaluation [Internet]. 2013 [cited 2021 December 14]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.7275/e4r6-dj05.
Hake RR. Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics. 1998; 66(1): 64-74.
Erickson F. Qualitative research methods for science education. In Fraser BJ, Tobin K, McRobbie CJ, editors. Second international handbook of science education. Springer, Dordrecht; 2012. p. 1451-1469.
Apedoe XS, Schunn CD. Strategies for success: Uncovering what makes students successful in design and learning. Instructional Science. 2013; 41(4): 773-791.
Park DY, Park MH, Bates AB. 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. 2018; 16(2): 275-294.
Brotman JS, Moore FM. Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 2008; 45(9): 971-1002.
Schnittka C, Bell R. Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education. 2011; 13(1): 1861-1887.
Stump GS, Hilpert JC, Husman J, Chung WT, Kim W. Collaborative learning in engineering students: Gender and achievement. Journal of Engineering Education. 2011; 100(3): 475-497.
Chusinkunawut K, Henderson C, Nugultham K, Wannagatesiri T, Fakcharoenphol W. Design-based science with communication scaffolding results in productive conversations and improved learning for secondary students. Research in Science Education. 2020; 51(4): 1123-1140.
Wangka K. Ladachart L. Exploring Thai Seventh Grade Students’ Understandings of Design Thinking. Journal of Physics: Conference Series. 2021; 1835(012011): 1-4.
Goldman S, Zielezinski MB, Vea T, Baschas-Daunert S, Kabayadondo Z. Capturing middle school students’ understandings of design thinking. In Goldman S, Kabayadondo Z, editors. Taking design thinking to school. New York: Routledge; 2006. p. 76-93.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
