Developing physics concepts through hands-on problem solving: a perspective on a technological project design

In a contest featuring hands-on projects, college students were required to design a simple crawling worm using planning, self-monitoring and self-evaluation processes to solve contradictive problems. To enhance the efficiency of problem solving, one needs to practice meta-cognition based on an application of related scientific concepts. The objective of this study, then, was to analyze the physics concepts employed by the students as they completed a hands-on project named “Crawling Worm,” during which they had to overcome problems encountered by the requirements of their design as well as those brought on by competition. Based on the analysis of the participants’ working portfolios and on reviews and interviews by engineering professors, the results of this study show that the crawling worm design competition encouraged the practice of problem solving, and it facilitated the learning of physics concepts such as friction, torque, four bar link, material properties, and so on.

[1]  De Luca,et al.  Survey of Technology Education Problem-Solving Activities. , 1992 .

[2]  Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.  Learning science through technological design , 2001 .

[3]  Bernard Zubrowski,et al.  Integrating Science into Design Technology Projects: Using a Standard Model in the Design Process , 2002 .

[4]  Ron Hansen.  The Value of a Utilitarian Curriculum: The Case of Technological Education , 1997 .

[5]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The Transfer of Scientific Principles Using Concrete and Idealized Simulations , 2005, Journal of the Learning Sciences.

[6]  Kaye Stacey,et al.  The place of problem solving in contemporary mathematics curriculum documents , 2005 .

[7]  Brenda J. Gustafson,et al.  Characterization of Technology Within an Elementary Science Program , 1999 .

[8]  Sara Hennessy,et al.  The Potential for Collaborative Problem Solving in Design and Technology , 1999 .

[9]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[10]  B. Wilson.  Constructivist Learning Environments: Case Studies in Instructional Design , 1995 .

[11]  Content analysis of reminiscences of elderly women. , 1991, Research in nursing & health.

[12]  Rodney L. Custer,et al.  An Assessment Model for a Design Approach to Technological Problem Solving , 2001 .

[13]  David Mioduser,et al.  The contribution of Project-based-learning to high-achievers’ acquisition of technological knowledge and skills , 2007 .

[14]  Michael K. Thomas,et al.  Our Designs and the Social Agendas They Carry , 2007 .

[15]  P. Lichstein.  “My most meaningful patient” , 1996 .

[16]  David Crismond,et al.  Learning and using science ideas when doing investigate‐and‐redesign tasks: A study of naive, novice, and expert designers doing constrained and scaffolded design work , 2001 .

[17]  Lisa C. Yamagata-Lynch.  Confronting Analytical Dilemmas for Understanding Complex Human Interactions in Design-Based Research From a Cultural—Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) Framework , 2007 .

[18]  Robert McCormick,et al.  The general problem-solving process in technology education: myth or reality? , 2002 .

[19]  Carol K. K. Chan,et al.  Student-Directed Assessment of Knowledge Building Using Electronic Portfolios , 2007 .

[20]  Nancy L Kondracki,et al.  Content analysis: review of methods and their applications in nutrition education. , 2002, Journal of nutrition education and behavior.

[21]  Fernando Cajas.  The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy , 2001 .

[22]  Margarita Pavlova,et al.  Knowledge and Values in Technology Education , 2002 .

[23]  S. Hüsig,et al.  Potential benefits, current supply, utilization and barriers to adoption: An exploratory study on German SMEs and innovation software , 2006 .

[24]  Steven W. Duck,et al.  Studying Interpersonal Interaction , 1992 .

[25]  J. Piaget.  Judgement and Reasoning in the Child , 1962 .

[26]  K. Krippendorff.  Krippendorff, Klaus, Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1980. , 1980 .

[27]  B Downe-Wamboldt,et al.  Content analysis: method, applications, and issues. , 1992, Health care for women international.

[28]  Kenneth Tobin,et al.  Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools , 2001 .

[29]  Albert P. Shulte,et al.  New Directions for Elementary School Mathematics. 1989 Yearbook. , 1989 .

[30]  Hanni Muukkonen,et al.  Technology-Mediation and Tutoring: How Do They Shape Progressive Inquiry Discourse? , 2005 .

[31]  Daniel C. Edelson.  Learning-for-use : A framework for the design of technology-supported inquiry activities , 2001 .

[32]  Theodore Lewis,et al.  Coming to Terms with Engineering Design as Content , 2005 .

[33]  Yaron Doppelt,et al.  Assessment of Project-Based Learning in a MECHATRONICS Context , 2005 .

[34]  Denise Polit-O'Hara,et al.  Nursing Research: Principles and Methods , 1978 .

[35]  Y.-M. Deng,et al.  Supporting design decision-making when applying materials in combination , 2007 .

[36]  A. N. Leont’ev.  The Problem of Activity in Psychology , 1974 .

[37]  David Barlex,et al.  Design-without-make: challenging the conventional approach to teaching and learning in a design and technology classroom , 2008 .

[38]  Thomas M. Duffy,et al.  Problem Based Learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework , 1995 .

[39]  J. Frederiksen,et al.  Inquiry, Modeling, and Metacognition: Making Science Accessible to All Students , 1998 .

[40]  Klaus Krippendorff,et al.  Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology , 1980 .