The Impact of Design-Based Modeling Instruction on Seventh Graders\u27 Spatial Abilities and Model-Based Argumentation

Due to the call of current science education reform for the integration of engineering practices within science classrooms, design-based instruction is receiving much attention in science education literature. Although some aspect of modeling is often included in well-known design-based instructional methods, it is not always a primary focus. The purpose of this study was to better understand how design-based instruction with an emphasis on scientific modeling might impact students\u27 spatial abilities and their model-based argumentation abilities. In the following mixed-method multiple case study, seven seventh grade students attending a secular private school in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States underwent an instructional intervention involving design-based instruction, modeling and argumentation. Through the course of a lesson involving students in exploring the interrelatedness of the environment and an animal\u27s form and function, students created and used multiple forms of expressed models to assist them in model-based scientific argument. Pre/post data were collected through the use of The Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotation, the Mental Rotation Test and interviews. Other data included a spatial activities survey, student artifacts in the form of models, notes, exit tickets, and video recordings of students throughout the intervention. Spatial abilities tests were analyzed using descriptive statistics while students\u27 arguments were analyzed using the Instrument for the Analysis of Scientific Curricular Arguments and a behavior protocol. Models were analyzed using content analysis and interviews and all other data were coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Findings in the area of spatial abilities included increases in spatial reasoning for six out of seven participants, and an immense difference in the spatial challenges encountered by students when using CAD software instead of paper drawings to create models. Students perceived 3D printed models to better assist them in scientific argumentation over paper drawing models. In fact, when given a choice, students rarely used paper drawing to assist in argument. There was also a difference in model utility between the two different model types. Participants explicitly used 3D printed models to complete gestural modeling, while participants rarely looked at 2D models when involved in gestural modeling. This study\u27s findings added to current theory dealing with the varied spatial challenges involved in different modes of expressed models. This study found that depth, symmetry and the manipulation of perspectives are typically spatial challenges students will attend to using CAD while they will typically ignore them when drawing using paper and pencil. This study also revealed a major difference in model-based argument in a design-based instruction context as opposed to model-based argument in a typical science classroom context. In the context of design-based instruction, data revealed that design process is an important part of model-based argument. Due to the importance of design process in model-based argumentation in this context, trusted methods of argument analysis, like the coding system of the IASCA, was found lacking in many respects. Limitations and recommendations for further research were also presented

The Impact of Design-Based Modeling Instruction on Seventh Graders\u27 Spatial Abilities and Model-Based Argumentation

Due to the call of current science education reform for the integration of engineering practices within science classrooms, design-based instruction is receiving much attention in science education literature. Although some aspect of modeling is often included in well-known design-based instructional methods, it is not always a primary focus. The purpose of this study was to better understand how design-based instruction with an emphasis on scientific modeling might impact students\u27 spatial abilities and their model-based argumentation abilities. In the following mixed-method multiple case study, seven seventh grade students attending a secular private school in the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States underwent an instructional intervention involving design-based instruction, modeling and argumentation. Through the course of a lesson involving students in exploring the interrelatedness of the environment and an animal\u27s form and function, students created and used multiple forms of expressed models to assist them in model-based scientific argument. Pre/post data were collected through the use of The Purdue Spatial Visualization Test: Rotation, the Mental Rotation Test and interviews. Other data included a spatial activities survey, student artifacts in the form of models, notes, exit tickets, and video recordings of students throughout the intervention. Spatial abilities tests were analyzed using descriptive statistics while students\u27 arguments were analyzed using the Instrument for the Analysis of Scientific Curricular Arguments and a behavior protocol. Models were analyzed using content analysis and interviews and all other data were coded and analyzed for emergent themes. Findings in the area of spatial abilities included increases in spatial reasoning for six out of seven participants, and an immense difference in the spatial challenges encountered by students when using CAD software instead of paper drawings to create models. Students perceived 3D printed models to better assist them in scientific argumentation over paper drawing models. In fact, when given a choice, students rarely used paper drawing to assist in argument. There was also a difference in model utility between the two different model types. Participants explicitly used 3D printed models to complete gestural modeling, while participants rarely looked at 2D models when involved in gestural modeling. This study\u27s findings added to current theory dealing with the varied spatial challenges involved in different modes of expressed models. This study found that depth, symmetry and the manipulation of perspectives are typically spatial challenges students will attend to using CAD while they will typically ignore them when drawing using paper and pencil. This study also revealed a major difference in model-based argument in a design-based instruction context as opposed to model-based argument in a typical science classroom context. In the context of design-based instruction, data revealed that design process is an important part of model-based argument. Due to the importance of design process in model-based argumentation in this context, trusted methods of argument analysis, like the coding system of the IASCA, was found lacking in many respects. Limitations and recommendations for further research were also presented

Discursive design thinking: the role of explicit knowledge in creative architectural design reasoning

The main hypothesis investigated in this paper is based upon the suggestion that the discursive reasoning in architecture supported by an explicit knowledge of spatial configurations can enhance both design productivity and the intelligibility of design solutions. The study consists of an examination of an architect’s performance while solving intuitively a well-defined problem followed by an analysis of the spatial structure of their design solutions. One group of architects will attempt to solve the design problem logically, rationalizing their design decisions by implementing their explicit knowledge of spatial configurations. The other group will use an implicit form of such knowledge arising from their architectural education to reason about their design acts. An integrated model of protocol analysis combining linkography and macroscopic coding is used to analyze the design processes. The resulting design outcomes will be evaluated quantitatively in terms of their spatial configurations. The analysis appears to show that an explicit knowledge of the rules of spatial configurations, as possessed by the first group of architects can partially enhance their function-driven judgment producing permeable and well-structured spaces. These findings are particularly significant as they imply that an explicit rather than an implicit knowledge of the fundamental rules that make a layout possible can lead to a considerable improvement in both the design process and product. This suggests that by externalizing th

From research to practice: The case of mathematical reasoning

Mathematical proficiency is a key goal of the Australian Mathematics curriculum. However, international assessments of mathematical literacy suggest that mathematical reasoning and problem solving are areas of difficulty for Australian students. Given the efficacy of teaching informed by quality assessment data, a recent study focused on the development of evidence-based Learning Progressions for Algebraic, Spatial and Statistical Reasoning that can be used to identify where students are in their learning and where they need to go to next. Importantly, they can also be used to generate targeted teaching advice and activities to help teachers progress student learning. This paper explores the processes involved in taking the research to practice

Design reuse research : a computational perspective

This paper gives an overview of some computer based systems that focus on supporting engineering design reuse. Design reuse is considered here to reflect the utilisation of any knowledge gained from a design activity and not just past designs of artefacts. A design reuse process model, containing three main processes and six knowledge components, is used as a basis to identify the main areas of contribution from the systems. From this it can be concluded that while reuse libraries and design by reuse has received most attention, design for reuse, domain exploration and five of the other knowledge components lack research effort

A systematic review of protocol studies on conceptual design cognition: design as search and exploration

This paper reports findings from the first systematic review of protocol studies focusing specifically on conceptual design cognition, aiming to answer the following research question: What is our current understanding of the cognitive processes involved in conceptual design tasks carried out by individual designers? We reviewed 47 studies on architectural design, engineering design and product design engineering. This paper reports 24 cognitive processes investigated in a subset of 33 studies aligning with two viewpoints on the nature of designing: (V1) design as search (10 processes, 41.7%); and (V2) design as exploration (14 processes, 58.3%). Studies on search focused on solution search and problem structuring, involving: long-term memory retrieval; working memory; operators and reasoning processes. Studies on exploration investigated: co-evolutionary design; visual reasoning; cognitive actions; and unexpected discovery and situated requirements invention. Overall, considerable conceptual and terminological differences were observed among the studies. Nonetheless, a common focus on memory, semantic, associative, visual perceptual and mental imagery processes was observed to an extent. We suggest three challenges for future research to advance the field: (i) developing general models/theories; (ii) testing protocol study findings using objective methods conducive to larger samples and (iii) developing a shared ontology of cognitive processes in design

Space is the machine, part four: theoretical syntheses

Part IV of the book, ‘Theoretical Syntheses’, begins to draw together some of the questions raised in Part I, the regularities shown in Part II and the laws proposed in Part III, to suggest how the two central problems in architectural theory, namely the form-function problem and the form-meaning problem, can be reconceptualised. Chapter 10, ‘Space is the machine’, reviews the form-function theory in architecture and attempts to establish a pathology of its formulation: how it came to be set up in such a way that it could not be solved. It then proposes how the configuration paradigm permits a reformulation, through which we can not only make sense of the relation between form and function in buildings, but also we can make sense of how and why buildings, in a powerful sense are ‘social objects’ and in fact play a powerful role in the realisation and sustaining of human society. Finally, in Chapter 11, ‘The reasoning art’, the notion of configuration is applied to the study of what architects do, that is, design. Previous models of the design process are reviewed, and it is shown that without knowledge of configuration and the concept of the non-discursive, we cannot understand the internalities of the design process. A new knowledge-based model of design is proposed, with configuration at its centre. It is argued from this that because design is a configurational process, and because it is the characteristic of configuration that local changes make global differences, design is necessarily a top down process. This does not mean that it cannot be analysed, or supported by research. It shows however that only configurationally biased knowledge can really support the design Introduction Space is the machine | Bill Hillier Space Syntax Introduction process, and this, essentially, is theoretical knowledge. It follows from this that attempts to support designers by building methods and systems for bottom up construction of designs must eventually fail as explanatory systems. They can serve to create specific architectural identities, but not to advance general architectural understanding. In pursuing an analytic rather than a normative theory of architecture, the book might be thought by some to have pretensions to make the art of architecture into a science. This is not what is intended. One effect of a better scientific understanding of architecture is to show that although architecture as a phenomenon is capable of considerable scientific understanding, this does not mean that as a practice architecture is not an art. On the contrary, it shows quite clearly why it is an art and what the nature and limits of that art are. Architecture is an art because, although in key respects its forms can be analysed and understood by scientific means, its forms can only be prescribed by scientific means in a very restricted sense. Architecture is law governed but it is not determinate. What is governed by the laws is not the form of individual buildings but the field of possibility within which the choice of form is made. This means that the impact of these laws on the passage from problem statement to solution is not direct but indirect. It lies deep in the spatial and physical forms of buildings, in their genotypes, not their phenotypes. Architecture is therefore not part art, and part science, in the sense that it has both technical and aesthetic aspects, but is both art and science in the sense that it requires both the processes of abstraction by which we know science and the processes of concretion by which we know art. The architect as scientist and as theorist seeks to establish the laws of the spatial and formal materials with which the architect as artist then composes. The greater scientific content of architecture over art is simply a function of the far greater complexity of the raw materials of space and form, and their far greater reverberations for other aspects of life, than any materials that an artist uses. It is the fact that the architect designs with the spatial stuff of living that builds the science of architecture into the art of architecture. It may seem curious to argue that the quest for a scientific understanding of architecture does not lead to the conclusion that architecture is a science, but nevertheless it is the case. In the last analysis, architectural theory is a matter of understanding architecture as a system of possibilities, and how these are restricted by laws which link this system of possibilities to the spatial potentialities of human life. At this level, and perhaps only at this level, architecture is analogous to language. Language is often naïvely conceptualised as a set of words and meanings, set out in a dictionary, and syntactic rules by which they may be combined into meaningful sentences, set out in grammars. This is not what language is, and the laws that govern language are not of this kind. This can be seen from the simple fact that if we take the words of the dictionary and combine them in grammatically correct sentences, virtually all are utterly meaningless and do not count as legitimate sentences. The structures of language are the laws which restrict the combinatorial possibilities of words, and through these restrictions construct the sayable and the meaningful. The laws of language do not therefore tell us what to say, but prescribe the structure and limits of the sayable. It is within these limits that we use language as the prime means to our individuality and creativity. In this sense architecture does resemble language. The laws of the field of architecture do not tell designers what to do. By restricting and structuring the field of combinatorial possibility, they prescribe the limits within which architecture is possible. As with language, what is left from this restrictive structuring is rich beyond imagination. Even so, without these laws buildings would not be human products, any more than meaningless but syntactically correct concatenations of words are human sentences. The case for a theoretical understanding of architecture then rests eventually not on aspiration to philosophical or scientific status, but on the nature of architecture itself. The foundational proposition of the book is that architecture is an inherently theoretical subject. The very act of building raises issues about the relations of the form of the material world and the way in which we live in it which (as any archaeologist knows who has tried to puzzle out a culture from material remains) are unavoidably both philosophical and scientific. Architecture is the most everyday, the most enveloping, the largest and the most culturally determined human artefact. The act of building implies the transmission of cultural conventions answering these questions through custom and habit. Architecture is their rendering explicit, and their transmutation into a realm of innovation and, at its best, of art. In a sense, architecture is abstract thought applied to building, even therefore in a sense theory applied to building. This is why, in the end, architecture must have analytic theories

On Formal Methods for Collective Adaptive System Engineering. {Scalable Approximated, Spatial} Analysis Techniques. Extended Abstract

In this extended abstract a view on the role of Formal Methods in System Engineering is briefly presented. Then two examples of useful analysis techniques based on solid mathematical theories are discussed as well as the software tools which have been built for supporting such techniques. The first technique is Scalable Approximated Population DTMC Model-checking. The second one is Spatial Model-checking for Closure Spaces. Both techniques have been developed in the context of the EU funded project QUANTICOL.Comment: In Proceedings FORECAST 2016, arXiv:1607.0200