Advertisement

Journal of Science Education and Technology

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 382–398 | Cite as

The Role of Simulation-Enabled Design Learning Experiences on Middle School Students’ Self-generated Inherence Heuristics

  • Alejandra J. MaganaEmail author
  • Sindhura Elluri
  • Chandan Dasgupta
  • Ying Ying Seah
  • Aasakiran Madamanchi
  • Mireille Boutin
Article

Abstract

In science and engineering education, the use of heuristics has been introduced as a way of understanding the world, and as a way to approach problem-solving and design. However, important consequences for the use of heuristics are that they do not always guarantee a correct solution. Learning by Design has been identified as a pedagogical strategy that can guide individuals to properly connect science learning via design challenges. Specifically, we focus on the effect of simulation-enabled Learning by Design learning experiences on student-generated heuristics that can lead to solutions to problems. A total of 318 middle school students were exposed to a lesson that integrated design practices in the context of energy consumption and energy conservation considerations when designing buildings using an educational CAD tool. The students were pre- and posttested before and after the 2-week long intervention. The data analysis procedures combined qualitative with quantitative methods along with machine learning approaches. Our analysis revealed two distinct groups of students based on their learning achievement: the naive developing heuristic group and semi-knowledgeable fixated heuristic group. Differences between the groups are discussed in terms of performance, as well as implications for the use of computer simulations to improve student learning.

Keywords

Science learning Engineering design Computer simulations Quantitative study Heuristics 

Notes

Funding

This research was funded by the US National Science Foundation under the award DRL #1503436.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent and parental consent were obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bertin, J. (1983). Semiology of graphics: diagrams, networks, maps. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bertin, J. (2000). Matrix theory of graphics. Information Design Journal, 10(1), 5–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer, W. F., & Samarapungavan, A. (1991). Children’s theories vs. scientific theories: differences in reasoning or differences in knowledge?Google Scholar
  4. Chinn, C. A., & Malhotra, B. A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: a theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Sci Educ, 86(2), 175–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: a case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. J Res Sci Teach, 51(10), 1275–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014a). The inherence heuristic: an intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behav Brain Sci, 37(5), 461–480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cimpian, A., & Salomon, E. (2014b). Refining and expanding the proposal of an inherence heuristic in human understanding. Behav Brain Sci, 37(5), 506–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. D’Angelo, C., Rutstein, D., Harris, C., Bernard, R., Borokhovski, E., & Haertel, G. (2014). Simulations for STEM learning: systematic review and meta-analysis. Menlo Park: SRI International.Google Scholar
  9. Dasgupta, C., Magana, A. J., & Vieira, C. (2019). Investigating the affordances of a CAD enabled learning environment for promoting integrated STEM learning. Computers and Education, 129, 122–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.10.014.
  10. de Jong, T. (1991). Learning and instruction with computer simulations. Education and Computing, 6(3-4), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. de Jong, T., & van Joolingen, W. R. (1998). Scientific discovery learning with computer simulations of conceptual domains. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 179–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dede, C., Salzman, M. C., Loftin, R. B., & Sprague, D. (1999). Multisensory immersion as a modeling environment for learning complex scientific concepts. Modeling and Simulation in Science and Mathematics Education, 282–319.Google Scholar
  13. Dori, Y. J., & Belcher, J. (2005). How does technology-enabled active learning affect undergraduate students’ understanding of electromagnetism concepts? The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 243–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Douglass, B. G., & Moustakas, C. (1985). Heuristic inquiry: the internal search to know. Journal of humanistic Psychology, 25(3), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. The nature of insight, 18, 365–395.Google Scholar
  16. Feist, G. J., & Gorman, M. E. (1998). The psychology of science: review and integration of a nascent discipline. Review of general psychology, 2(1), 3–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleming, R. (1986). Adolescent reasoning in socio-scientific issues part II: nonsocial cognition. Journal of research in science teaching, 23(8), 689–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Foundations: inquiry: thoughts, views, and strategies for the K-5 classroom (Vol. 1). Arlington: National_Science_Foundation.Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert, J. K., Bulte, A. M., & Pilot, A. (2011). Concept development and transfer in context-based science education. International Journal of Science Education, 33(6), 817–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hennessy, S., Wishart, J., Whitelock, D., Deaney, R., Brawn, R., La Velle, L., … Winterbottom, M. (2007). Pedagogical approaches for technology-integrated science teaching. Computers & Education, 48(1), 137–152.Google Scholar
  21. Hogan, K. (2002). Small groups’ ecological reasoning while making an environmental management decision. Journal of research in science teaching, 39(4), 341–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jansson, D. G., & Smith, S. M. (1991). Design fixation. Design Studies, 12(1), 3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1988). The child is a theoretician, not an inductivist. Mind & Language, 3(3), 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Klahr, D., Fay, A. L., & Dunbar, K. (1993). Heuristics for scientific experimentation: a developmental study. Cognitive Psychology, 25(1), 111–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolodner, J. L. (2002a). Facilitating the learning of design practices: lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 9–40.Google Scholar
  26. Kolodner, J. L. (2002b). Learning by design™: iterations of design challenges for better learning of science skills. Cognitive Studies, 9(3), 338–350.Google Scholar
  27. Kolodner, J. L., Crismond, D., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Puntambekar, S. (1998). Learning by design from theory to practice. In Proceedings from the proceedings of the international conference of the learning sciences.Google Scholar
  28. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., … Ryan, M. (2003a). 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.Google Scholar
  29. Kolodner, J. L., Gray, J., & Fasse, B. B. (2003b). Promoting transfer through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design classrooms. Cognitive Science Quarterly, 3(2), 183–232.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhn, D. (1989). Children and adults as intuitive scientists. Psychological review, 96(4), 674–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maeyer, J., & Talanquer, V. (2010). The role of intuitive heuristics in students’ thinking: ranking chemical substances. Science Education, 94(6), 963–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Niaz, M. (2001). Understanding nature of science as progressive transitions in heuristic principles. Science Education, 85(6), 684–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. NSF. (2002). Foundations: A monograph for professionals in science, mathematics, and technology education. Inquiry. Thoughts, Views, and Strategies for the K-5 Classroom (Vol. 2). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  34. Pearl, J. (1984). Heuristics: intelligent search strategies for computer problem solving. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  35. Rehn, D. A., Moore, E. B., Podolefsky, N. S., & Finkelstein, N. D. (2013). Tools for high-tech tool use: a framework and heuristics for using interactive simulations. Journal of teaching and learning with technology, 2(1), 31–55.Google Scholar
  36. Roth, W. (1993). An investigation of problem framing and solving in a grade 8 open-inquiry science program. J Learn Sci, 3(2), 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science education. Comput Educ, 58(1), 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sampson, V., & Walker, J. P. (2012). Argument-driven inquiry as a way to help undergraduate students write to learn by learning to write in chemistry. Int J Sci Educ, 34(10), 1443–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Schauble, L., Klopfer, L. E., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. J Res Sci Teach, 28(9), 859–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Seah, Y. Y., & Magana, A. J. (2019). Exploring students’ experimentation strategies in engineering design using an educational CAD tool. Journal of Science Education and Technology.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-018-9757-x.
  41. Seroussi, D. E. (1995). Heuristic hypotheses in problem solving: an example of conceptual issues about scientific procedures. Science Education, 79(6), 595–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shaffer, D. W., & Resnick, M. (1999). “Thick” authenticity: new media and authentic learning. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(2), 195–215.Google Scholar
  43. Soler, L., Trizio, E., Nickles, T., & Wimsatt, W. (2012). Characterizing the robustness of science: after the practice turn in philosophy of science (Vol. 292). Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Swaak, J., & de Jong, T. (2001). Discovery simulations and assessment of intuitive knowledge. J Comput Assist Learn, 17(3), 284–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Taleyarkhan, M., Dasgupta, C., Garcia, J. M., & Magana, A. J. (2018). Investigating the impact of using a CAD simulation tool on students’ learning of design thinking. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(4), 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1975). Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases utility, probability, and human decision making (pp. 141–162). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tytler, R. (2001). Dimensions of evidence, the public understanding of science and science education. International Journal of Science Education, 23(8), 815–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Joolingen, W. R., de Jong, T., & Dimitrakopoulout, A. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Veermans, K., van Joolingen, W., & de Jong, T. (2006). Use of heuristics to facilitate scientific discovery learning in a simulation learning environment in a physics domain. International Journal of Science Education, 28(4), 341–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Vieira, C., Seah, Y. Y., & Magana, A. J. (2018). Students’ experimentation strategies in design: is process data enough? Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 25(5), 1903–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Von Aufschnaiter, C., Erduran, S., Osborne, J., & Simon, S. (2008). Arguing to learn and learning to argue: case studies of how students’ argumentation relates to their scientific knowledge. Journal of research in science teaching, 45(1), 101–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Walker, J., Sampson, V., Southerland, S., & Enderle, P. (2016). Using the laboratory to engage all students in science practices. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 17(4), 1098–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Xie, C., Zhang, Z., Nourian, S., Pallant, A., & Hazzard, E. (2014). A time series analysis method for assessing engineering design processes using a CAD tool. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(1), 218–230.Google Scholar
  54. Xie, C., Schimpf, C., Chao, J., Nourian, S., & Massicotte, J. (2018). Learning and teaching engineering design through modeling and simulation on a CAD platform. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(4), 824–840.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.21920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Yellamraju, T., & Boutin, M. (2018). Clusterability and clustering of images and other “real” high-dimensional data. IEEE Transactions on Image Processing., 27(4), 1927–1938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yellamraju, T., Magana, A. J., & Boutin, M. (2019). Investigating students’ habits of mind in a course on digital signal processing. To appear in IEEE Transactions on Education.Google Scholar
  57. Yilmaz, S., & Seifert, C. M. (2011). Creativity through design heuristics: a case study of expert product design. Design Studies, 32(4), 384–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Demoulin, S. (2014). Inherence heuristic versus essentialism: issues of antecedence and cognitive mechanism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(5), 505–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Zacharia, Z. C. (2007). Comparing and combining real and virtual experimentation: an effort to enhance students’ conceptual understanding of electric circuits. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 120–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Computer and Information Technology and Engineering EducationPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Computer and Information TechnologyPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  3. 3.Educational TechnologyIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia
  4. 4.Purdue Polytechnic Institute and Agricultural and Biological EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  5. 5.Electrical and Computer EngineeringPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations