Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding Strategies For Integrating Engineering Design and Scientific Inquiry in Project-Based Learning Environments

  • Chapter
Fostering Human Development Through Engineering and Technology Education

Part of the book series: International Technology Education Studies ((ITES,volume 6))

Abstract

Project- and Problem-Based Learning are instructional methods that, although not identical, have been used to support learning skills in scientific inquiry and concepts in science, engineering and technology via the investigation of questions, solving of problems, and completion of projects that can sometimes involve design challenges. This chapter describes some of the unique capabilities related to using design tasks in project-based learning environments, and some challenges and controversies associated with using these approaches in K-16 classrooms. One controversy involves a dilemma of teaching (Wiggins & McTighe, 2005) that educators face when implementing project-based tasks: when to use direct instruction and when to opt for constructivist approaches.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  • Atman, C. J., & K. M. Bursic. (1996). Teaching engineering design: Can reading a textbook make a difference? Research in Engineering Design, 8, 240–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barak, M., & Raz, E. (2000). Hot-air balloons: Project-centered study as a bridge between science and technology education. Science Education, 84(1), 27–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlex, D. (1995). Nuffield design and technology student’s book. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., et al. & the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problemand project-based learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 271–311.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). Problem-Based Learning: An approach to medical education. New York: Springer Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black, P. (2008). Strategic decisions: Ambitions, feasibility and context. Educational Designer, 1(1). Retrieved on January 18, 2010, from http://www.educationaldesigner.org/ed/volume1/issue1/article1/

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (2000) Commentary on part I: Process and product in problem-based learning (PBL) research. In D. Evensen & C. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research perspective. (pp. 185–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt [CTGV]. (1992). The Jasper Series as an example of anchored instruction: Theory, program description, and assessment data. Educational Psychologist, 27(3), 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Committee on Engineering Design. (1961). Report on engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 51(8), 645–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in short-term memory: A reconsideration of mental storage capacity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 87–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. (2005, April 4). Design strategies table: Identifying and contrasting behaviors of beginner versus informed designers. Invited Paper at NSF’s Special Interest Session: Research on Design in Technology and Engineering, ITEA 67th annual conference, Kansas City, MO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. (2006, October 9–12). Design’s different uses in science, technology education and math classrooms: Case studies from the US. Invited Paper for the 5th Global Colloquium on Engineering Education, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. (2008, June 22–25). Case studies of diagnostic reasoning’s role in engineering design. Paper presented at the ASEE annual conference & Exposition, Pittsburgh, PA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D., & Adams, R. (article under revision, 2010). Beginning designers’ perceptions of their performance and the impact of selected designer strategies on design work. Journal of Engineering Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D., Lo, J., & Lohani, V. (2006, April 7–11). Beginning designers’ perceptions of their performance and the impact of selected designer strategies on design work. Paper presented at the National AERA Conference, San Francisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D., & Wilson, D. G. (1992, November 11–14). Designing an evaluation of an interactive multimedia program: Assessing MIT’s EDICS. Proceedings of 22nd Annual IEEE Frontiers in Education conference, Nashville, Tennessee (pp. 656–661).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, M., Evens, H., & McCormick, R. (1998). Bridging the gap: the use of concepts from science and mathematics in design and technology at KS 3. IDATER’98, 48–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eastman, C. (1970). On the analysis of intuitive processes. In G. T. Moore (Ed.), Emerging methods in environmental design and planning (pp. 21–37). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elstein, A. S., & Schwarz, A. (2002). Evidence base of clinical diagnosis: Clinical problem solving and diagnostic decision making: selective review of the cognitive literature. British Medical Journal, 324, 729–732.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J. S., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Georgia Tech Research Corporation. (2010). Project-based inquiry science: Teachers planning guide. Armonk, NY: It’s About Time, Herff Jones Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, M., & Burghardt, D. (2004). Technology education: Learning by design. Boston: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problembased and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Swell, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsiung, C. M. (2010). Identification of dysfunctional cooperative learning teams based on students’ academic achievement. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 45–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, M. M. (2010 (in press)). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (2002). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Allyn Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Learning to solve problems: An instructional design guide. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H., & Hung, W. (2006). Learning to troubleshoot: A new theory-based design architecture. Educational Psychology Review, 18(1), 77–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, D. (2010). Doing the project and learning the content: Designing project-based science curricula for meaningful understanding. Science Education, 94(3), 525–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimbell, R., & Stables, K. (2008). Researching design learning: Issues and findings from two decades of research and development. Lexington, KY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquirybased teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoll, M. (1997). The project method: Its vocational education origin and international development. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 34(3), 59–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D. (2010). Coming up for air: But is it oxygen or phlogiston? Education Review, 13(13).

    Google Scholar 

  • Klahr, D., & Nigam, M. (2004). The equivalence of learning paths in early science instruction: Effects of direct instruction and discovery learning. Psychological Science, 15(10), 661–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kolodner, J., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. (2003). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 119–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredericks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 313–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, J., & Sanders, M. (1993). Integrating technology, science, and mathematics in the middle school. The Technology Teacher, 52(6), 17–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • LaPorte, J., & Sanders, M. (1996). Technology science mathematics. New York: Glenco/McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Layton, D. (1993). Technology’s challenge to science education. Buckingham, UK: Open Univ. Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loepp, F. (1999). Models of curriculum integration. Journal of Technology Studies, 25(2), 21–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R. (1962, September 5–7). Design and experiment - scope and reality. Paper given at the Education for Engineering Design conference, UCLA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, R.W. (1981). Engineering design education: U.S. – retrospective and contemporary. Journal of Mechanical Design, 103, 696–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2004). Should there be a three-strikes rule against pure discovery learning? The case for guided methods of instruction. American Psychologist, 59(1), 14–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, N. M., & Rouse, W. B. (1985). Review and evaluation of empirical research in troubleshooting. Human Factors, 27(5), 503–530.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2010). New national science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press (draft in work).

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul, T. D. (1981). How to design an independent powers system. Necedah, WI: Best Energy Systems for Tomorrow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. (2005). Towards implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J. (1984). Strategies for state identification and diagnosis in supervisory control tasks, and design of computer-based support systems. Advances in Man–machine Systems Research, 1, 139–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J., Tabak, I., Sandoval, W. A., Smith, B. K., Steinmuller, F., & Leone, A. J. (2001). BGuILE: Strategic and conceptual scaffolds for scientific inquiry in biology classrooms. In S. M. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, A. (1999). Stuckness in the design studio. Design Studies, 20(2), 195–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G., & Globerson, T. (1989). When teams do not function the way they ought to. International Journal of Educational Research, 13(1), 89–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott D. J., Dixon, R., Daugherty, J., & Lawanto, O. (2011). General versus specific intellectual competencies: The question of learning transfer. In M. Barak & M. Hacker (Eds.), Fostering Human Development Through Engineering and Technology Education (pp. 55–71). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who can understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, K. A., Sheppard, S. D., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2005). Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom- based practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(1), 87–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, D. G. (1997). The mechanical design process. Boston: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, D. (1992). Research in design thinking. In N. Cross, K. Dorst, & N. Roozenburg (Eds.), Research in design thinking. Proceedings of a Workshop Meeting held at the Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, May 29–31, 1991. Delft: Delft University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiggins, G, & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/ Merrill Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zubrowski, B. (2002). Integrating science into design technology projects: Using a standard model in the design process. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 48–67.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, City College, City University of New York, USA

    David P. Crismond

Authors
  1. David P. Crismond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel

    Moshe Barak

  2. Hofstra University on Long Island, New York, USA

    Michael Hacker

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Crismond, D.P. (2011). Scaffolding Strategies For Integrating Engineering Design and Scientific Inquiry in Project-Based Learning Environments. In: Barak, M., Hacker, M. (eds) Fostering Human Development Through Engineering and Technology Education. International Technology Education Studies, vol 6. SensePublishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-549-9_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation