Facilitating educationally disadvantaged students' learning of torque using a design-based activity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.10.1.1664Keywords:
design-based learning, disadvantaged students, STEM education, torqueAbstract
Attention is increasingly being paid to integrated science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education as a way to increase the workforce for STEM-related careers as well as to promote STEM literacy among citizens. This means that all students, including those who are educationally disadvantaged, are expected to not only acquire STEM knowledge but also to apply it to relevant situations in the future. Among the various approaches to STEM education, the design-based approach is promising. Although a significant amount of research has investigated students’ STEM learning as a result of the design-based approach, little research has addressed the transfer of such learning, especially in the case of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. This mixed-methods research with an embedded design examines whether 18 ninth-grade students, who are from low-income families and attend an underfunded school, developed an understanding of torque and examines their ability to apply such understanding to new situations. Data were collected using a multiple-choice test comprising both conceptual and application questions (i.e., quantitative data) with prompts for students to write the reasons for their answers (i.e., qualitative data). Based on Wilcoxon signed-rank tests, a non-parametric statistical method, the quantitative results indicate that the students’ scientific understanding significantly improved, but they struggled to apply that understanding to new situations. These quantitative results are augmented by an information-rich student and discussed based on a theory of learning transfer. Recommendations are proposed for improving the design-based activity to ensure STEM education is inclusive.
References
Apedoe, X. S., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2012). Learning together while designing: Does group size make a difference? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9284-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9284-5
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6
Arik, M., & Topcu, M. S. (2020). Implementation of engineering design process in the K-12 science classrooms: Trends and issues. Research in Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09912-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-09912-x
Bloom, B. S. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of education goals. Michigan: David McKay Company.
Broer M., Bai Y., & Fonseca F. (2019) Socioeconomic inequality and educational outcomes: Evidence from twenty years of TIMSS. Cham: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11991-1
Capobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high-leverage practices through engineering design-based science instruction. Science Education, 102(2), 342–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21325 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21325
Chang, J-Y., Cheng, M-F., Lin, S-Y., & Lin, J-L. (2021). Exploring students’ translation performance and use of intermediary representations among multiple representations: Example from torque and rotation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, 103209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103209 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103209
Chase, C. C., Malkiewich, L., & Kumar, A. S. (2019). Learning to notice science concepts in engineering activities and transfer situations. Science Education, 103(2), 440–471. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21496 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21496
Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Children’s responses to anomalous scientific data: How is conceptual change impeded? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 327–343. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.327 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.327
Chusinkunawut, K., Henderson, C., Nugultham, K., Wannagatesiri, T., & Fakcharoenphol, W. (2021). Design-based science with communication scaffolding results in productive conversations and improved learning for secondary students. Research in Science Education. 51(4), 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09926-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-020-09926-w
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. California: SAGE Publications.
De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31(2), 105–113. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3102_2
Dixon, R. A., & Brown, R. A. (2012). Transfer of learning: Connecting concepts during problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 24(1), 2–17. http://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i1.a.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i1.a.1
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
Ellefson, M. R., Brinker, R. A., Vernacchio, V. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Design-based learning for biology: Genetic engineering experience improves understanding of gene expression. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292–298. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20203
https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20203 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bmb.20203
Falloon, G., Hatzigianni, M., Bower, M., Forbes, A., & Stevenson, M. (2020). Understanding K-12 STEM education: A framework for developing STEM literacy. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 29(3), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-020-09823-x
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. California: SAGE Publications.
Figliano, F. J., & Wells, J. G. (2019). Evidencing STEM content knowledge transfer: Abstraction in technological/engineering design challenges. Journal of Technology Education, 31(1), 19–41. http://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v31i1.a.2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v31i1.a.2
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), 1018–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040
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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
Gallagher, J. J. (2000). Teaching for understanding and application of science knowledge. School Science and Mathematics, 100(6), 310–318. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17325.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2000.tb17325.x
Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M. W., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.493185
Godwin, A., & Potvin, G. (2017). Pushing and pulling Sara: A case study of the contrasting influences of high school and university experiences on engineering agency, identity, and participation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(4), 439–462. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21372 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21372
Gomez Puente, S. M., & Kroesen, G. M. W. (2020). Facilitating retention and transfer of physics concepts with challenging assignments in design-based learning projects. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 8(12), 366–387. https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2020.812030 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2020.812030
Goss-Sampson, M. A. (2020). Statistical analysis in JASP: A guide for students. https://jasp-stats.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Statistical-Analysis-in-JASP-A-Students-Guide-v14-Nov2020.pdf
Hake, R. R. (1998). Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: A six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. American Journal of Physics, 66(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809
Han, S., Capraro, R., & Capraro, M. M. (2015). How science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project-based learning (PBL) affects high, middle, and low achievers differently: The impact of student factors on achievement. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(5), 1089–1113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9526-0
Holzer, S. M., & Andruet, R. H. (2000). Experiential learning in mechanics with multimedia. International Journal of Engineering Education, 16(5), 372–384.
Institute for the Promotion of Teaching Science and Technology. (2015). Basic Knowledge about STEM Education. http://www.stemedthailand.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/newIntro-to-STEM.pdf
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806298224
Kavousi, S., Miller, P. A., & Alexander, P. A. (2020). Modelling metacognition in design thinking and design making. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30(4), 709–735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09521-9
Kellaghan, T. (2001). Towards a definition of educational disadvantage. The Irish Journal of Education, 32, 3–22.
Kelly, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework of integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-016-0046-z
Kelly, T., & Sung, E. (2017). Examining elementary school students’ transfer of learning through engineering design using think-aloud protocol analysis. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 83–108. http://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v28i2.a.5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v28i2.a.5
Kerby, D. S. (2014). The simple difference formula: An approach to teaching nonparametric correlation. Comprehensive Psychology, 3, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1
Kitrungloadjanaporn, P., Phothong, A., & Precharattana, M. (2018). Seesaw balancing: A hands-on model to understand moment of force in classroom. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 879, 269–275. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.879.269 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.879.269
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, C. D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). 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, 12(4), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20111 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20111
Li, Y., Wang, K., Xiao, Y., & Froyd, E. (2020). Research and trends in STEM education: A systematic review of journal publications. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(11). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00207-6
Lobato, J., Rhodehamel, B., & Hohensee, C. (2012). “Noticing” as an alternative transfer of learning process. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21(3), 433–482. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21496 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.682189
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, 41(11), 1475–1495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613583 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2019.1613583
Marulcu, I, & Barnett, M. (2013). Fifth graders’ learning about simple machines through engineering design-based instruction using LEGOTM materials. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1825–1850. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9335-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-012-9335-9
McGinn, M. K., & Roth, W-M. (1998). Assessing students’ understanding about levers: Better test instruments are not enough. International Journal of Science Education, 20(7), 813–832. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200705 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069980200705
McKenna, A., & Agogino, A. (1998). A web-based instructional module for teaching middle school students engineering de-sign with simple machines. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00376.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1998.tb00376.x
Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Middle-school science through design-based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71–85. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00955.x
Morgan, G. A., Leech, N. L., Gloeckner, G. W., & Barrett, K. C. (2013). IBM SPSS for Introductory Statistics. New York: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203127315
National Statistical Office. (2019). Average monthly income/household (2019). http://www.nso.go.th/sites/2014en
Norman, D. (2013). The Design of Everyday Things. (Revised and expanded edition). New York: Basic Books.
Novak, E. (2014). Effects of simulation-based learning on students’ statistical factual, conceptual and application knowledge. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30(2), 148–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12027
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2018). Equity in education: Breaking down barriers to social mobility. Paris: OECD Publishing.
Ozcan, O. (2017). Examination the preservice physics teachers’ cognitive structure about the concept of “torque”. SHS Web of Conferences, 37, 01050. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173701050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20173701050
Park, D., Park, M., & Bates, A. B. (2018). 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, 16(2), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9776-0 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-016-9776-0
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. California: SAGE Publications.
Piyatissa, M, L. S., Johar, M. G. M., & Tarofder, A. K. (2018). Evaluating the effectiveness of a PhET simulation for teaching and learning of ‘turning effect of force’ in physics at secondary school level. International Journal of Advanced Research and Publications, 2(8), 32–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.137.2018.22.122.135
Promboon, S., Finley, F. N., & Kaweekijmanee, K. (2018). The evolution and current status of STEM education in Thailand: Policy directions and recommendations. In G. W. Fry (Ed.). Education in Thailand: An old elephant in search of a new mahout (pp. 423–459). Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7857-6_17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-7857-6_17
Provincial Community Development Office of Chiang Rai. (2019). A summary of basic-needs information at village levels in Chiang Rai in 2019. https://chiangrai.cdd.go.th/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/07/0019.3-_%E0%B8%A717288.pdf
Quinn, C. M., Reid, J. W., & Gardner, G. E. (2020). S + T + M = E as a convergent model for the nature of STEM. Science and Education, 29(4), 881–898. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00130-w DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00130-w
Rimoldini, L. G., & Singh, C. (2005). Student understanding of rotational and rolling motion concepts. Physical Review Special Topics - Physics Education Research, 1, 010102. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevSTPER.1.010102
Royer, J. M. (1979). Theories of the transfer of learning. Educational psychologist, 14(1), 53–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527909529207 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527909529207
Samuel, C. K., Cosmas, R., & Dinah, S. C. (2021). Improving students’ application of moment of force concepts in physics through experimental approach, a case of secondary schools in Marakwet West Sub-Country, Elgeyo Marakwet Country, Kenya. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology, 6(2), 236–244.
Sarioglan, A. B., & Kucukozer, H. (2014). 11th grade students’ conceptual understanding about torque concept: A longitudinal study. Eurasia Journal of Physics and Chemistry Education, 6(2), 162–175.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280910 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660280910
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, 13(1), 1861–1887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.529177 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.529177
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-009-9144-8
Simons, P. R. J. (1999). Transfer of learning: Paradoxes for learners. International Journal of Educational Research, 31(7), 577–589. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00025-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(99)00025-7
Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn’t natural: Women’s belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(2), 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212468332. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212468332
University of Colorado. (2020). Balancing Act. https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulation/balancing-act.
Vattam, S. S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2008). On foundations of technological support for addressing challenges facing de-sign-based science learning. Pragmatics and Cognition, 16(2), 406–437. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.2.08vat DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.16.2.08vat
Verdugo, J. J., Solaz-Portoles, J. J., & Sanjose, V. (2016). Pre-service primary school teachers’ science content knowledge: An instrument for its assessment. International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 24(2), 37–51 https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/CAL/article/view/10322.
Wang, T., & Andre, T. (1991). Conceptual change text versus traditional text and application questions versus no questions in learning about electricity. Contemporary Education Psychology, 16(2), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(91)90031-F DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(91)90031-F
Wannagatesiri, T., Nukultham, K., Kruea-In, N., & Thongperm, A. (2014). Lesson learned from the experiences of small schools in Thailand. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 141, 1095–1100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.184 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.05.184
Wendell, K. B., & Lee, H. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruction based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 580–601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9225-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-010-9225-8
White, D., & Delaney, S. (2021). Full STEAM ahead, but who has the map? – A PRISMA systematic review on the incorporation of interdisciplinary learning into schools. LUMAT: International Journal on Math, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.2.1387 DOI: https://doi.org/10.31129/LUMAT.9.2.1387
Wieselmann, J. R., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Roehrig, G. H. (2020). “I just do what the boys tell me”: Exploring small group student interactions in an integrated STEM unit. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(1), 112–144. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21587 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21587
Yu, K-C., Lin, K-Y., & Fan, S-C. (2015). An exploratory study on the application of conceptual knowledge and critical thinking to technological issues. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(3), 339–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9289-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9289-5
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Luecha Ladachart, Sirinapa Khamlarsai, Wilawan Phothong
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
