C

Transforming Elementary Science Through LEGO Engineering Design

Investigators -
Kristen Wendell, Chris Wright, Amber Kendall & Chris Rogers, (CEEO) Kathleen Connolly & Linda Jarvin (Tufts University, PACE Center), Ismail Marulcu & Michael Barnett (Boston College, Lynch School of Education)



Funding Source - This project is funded by the National Science Foundation REESE program, grant # DRL-0633952, and it is a collaboration with the Tufts PACE Center and the Boston College Lynch School of Education. (Any opinion, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.)

Research Overview - To address the dual challenge in the United States of improving both students' science achievement (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000) and their technological literacy (Pearson & Young, 2002), educators have suggested that technological design activities be used as a context for science instruction (Fortus, Dershimer, Krajcik, Marx, & Mamlok-Naaman, 2004; Kolodner, 2006). Primary grade students (grades K-4) may be particularly receptive to design-based science instruction, since children of this age tend to exhibit less apprehension toward designerly endeavors than do adults or adolescents (Baynes, 1994). Educators argue that when children engage in design activities whose successful completion requires understanding of specific science content, the children will make progress toward two major educational objectives simultaneously. On the one hand, the young students will develop knowledge of and skills in engineering design, which are fundamental components of technological literacy (Pearson & Young, 2002). On the other hand, the children will develop deeper understanding of science content because they are using it in the service of design completion (Layton, 1993). In the Transforming Elementary Science through LEGO Engineering research study, we are investigating this design-based approach to primary science instruction.

 Goals - The main goal of our work is to determine how curriculum based on LEGO engineering design challenges affects science learning in third and fourth grade classrooms. We have developed four new science curriculum modules based on LEGO engineering challenges, and we are studying the enactment of these modules by collaborating teachers in local urban schools. The new engineering-design-based curriculum modules are: (1) The Science of Sound: Design a Musical Instrument; (2) The Properties of Materials: Design a Model House; (3) Animal Studies: Design an Animal Model; (4) Simple Machines: Design a People Mover.  Each module takes about 12 hours of instructional time, and throughout each module, students use LEGO MINDSTORMS materials for artifact construction, electronic sensing, and robotic programming.

Research Questions

1) What and how do students learn from engineering design challenges tailored to standards-based science concepts?

2) What are best practices for designing effective engineering-based science curricula?

3) Can engineering contexts support elementary school teachers' practice of science instruction?

Preliminary Findings - 

During the 2008-09 year, we conducted a study of science content learning in 14 experimental (engineering-design-based curriculum) and 6 comparison (traditional curriculum) classrooms. Pretests and posttests were used to measure science content performance in the domains of material properties, sound, simple machines, and animal adaptations.

Overall, paired t-tests revealed significant gains from individual pretests to posttests, across all four domains and both treatment groups. However, there was a main effect of treatment (engineering vs. traditional curriculum) on the magnitude of the pre-post gain score. On average, in three of the four science domains (material properties, simple machines, and animal adaptations), the engineering-design-based science students improved significantly more (p<.01) than the comparison students, as shown. In the domain of sound, the engineering students' average gain was higher than that of comparison students, but this difference was not significant. However, the engineering students earned equivalent sound posttest scores, despite having significantly lower sound pretest scores than the comparison students. Thus, after the engineering-design-based curriculum module on sound, students were able to achieve at levels equal to those of comparison students who had previously been outperforming them.

For additional background information and further results, please visit the CEEO publications list to find papers by Wendell, Connolly, Wright, Jarvin, Rogers, Barnett, & Marulcu.

Curriculum Materials

Design a Musical Instrument: The Science of Sound 

Design a Model House: The Properties of Materials

Design an Animal Model: Animal Studies

Design a People Mover: Simple Machines

Paper-and-Pencil Science Content Tests

Sound Unit Test and Rubric

Properties of Materials Unit Test and Rubric

Animal Studies Unit Test and Rubric

Simple Machines Unit Test and Rubric