International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2019, Vol. 15(5) 70-91

Students’ Experiences of Design-Based Research in Science Applications Course: A Design and Development Research           

Munise Seckin Kapucu

pp. 70 - 91   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1905-15-0004

Published online: October 16, 2019  |   Number of Views: 175  |  Number of Download: 533


The purpose of this study is to examine students' experience of design-based research in science applications courses. The study was carried out during the fall semester of the 2018-2019 academic year in the science application course. The participants of the study were 44 eighth grade students attending in two classes of a secondary school located in Odunpazarı district of Eskisehir. In the study, a design-based research method was used. The students were asked to describe a problem from daily life during the application phase of the study. Afterwards, they were expected to design products to solve this problem. Data collection tools of this study were the Reflection Form for Design Steps, which was developed by the researcher, and the Self-Assessment Form included in the Technology Design Course Curriculum. The application was completed in an eight-week period. Content analysis was used to analyze the obtained data. It is seen that students have mostly departed from their own life in the identification of the problem, and the ideas that they have generated were about problem solving, new ideas, and making life easier. Students followed the stages of the design process such as research, design, problem identification, and drawing sketches. Regarding the evaluation of their experience during the design process, most of the students stated that they learned how to design, but they found it difficult to combine materials. Students stated that next time they would pay more attention to choosing design features, identifying the problem, and finding interesting products. Research can be carried out to examine the skills that are thought to be effective in the design process such as decision making, critical thinking, and problem solving. Within the scope of the 2023 Education Vision, it is planned to establish “Design-Skill Workshops”. With such an application, students' design skills can be improved.

Keywords: Science applications, design-based science education, design and development research, content analysis

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Kapucu, M.S. (2019). Students’ Experiences of Design-Based Research in Science Applications Course: A Design and Development Research            . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), 70-91. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.6

Kapucu, M. (2019). Students’ Experiences of Design-Based Research in Science Applications Course: A Design and Development Research            . International Journal of Progressive Education, 15(5), pp. 70-91.

Chicago 16th edition
Kapucu, Munise Seckin (2019). "Students’ Experiences of Design-Based Research in Science Applications Course: A Design and Development Research            ". International Journal of Progressive Education 15 (5):70-91. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2019.212.6.

  1. Altan, E. B., Yamak, H., & Kirikkaya, E. B. (2016). Hizmetöncesi öğretmen eğitiminde FETEMM eğitimi uygulamaları: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi. [A proposal of the STEM education for teacher training: Design based science education]. Trakya Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 6(2), 212-232. [Google Scholar]
  2. Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: the heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454-465. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aydeniz, M., Cakmakcı, G., Cavas, B., Ozdemir, S., Akgunduz, D., Corlu, M. S., & Oner, T. (2015). STEM eğitimi Türkiye raporu: Günün modası mı yoksa gereksinim mi?[A report on STEM Education in Turkey: A provisional agenda or a necessity?][White Paper]. İstanbul, Turkey: Aydın Üniversitesi.  [Google Scholar]
  4. Barger, M., Gilbert, R., Poth, R., &  Little, R.,  (2005). Adapting the engineering design process for elementary education applications. In Annual Conference, Portland, Oregon. https://peer. asee. org/15533 adresinden (Vol. 1, p. 2015). [Google Scholar]
  5. Bozkurt, E. (2014). Mühendislik tasarım temelli fen eğitiminin fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının karar verme becerisi, bilimsel süreç becerileri ve sürece yönelik algılarına etkı̇si (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Gazi University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  6. Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about STEM about conceptions of STEM in education and patnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112, 3-11. [Google Scholar]
  7. Buyukozturk, S., Cakmak, E. K., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz, S., & Demirel, F. (2018). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri [Scientific research methods]. Ankara: Pegem Akademi. [Google Scholar]
  8. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369-387. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The Case for STEM Education: Challenges and Opportunities. Arlington,  Virginia: NSTA Press. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bybee, R. W. (2010). What is STEM education. Science, 329,966. Doi. 10.1126/science.1194998 Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  11. Capobianco, B. M. (2011). Exploring a science teacher’s uncertainty with integrating engineering design: an action research study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 645-660.  [Google Scholar]
  12. Capobianco, B. M. (2013). Learning and teaching science through engineering design: insights and implications for professional development. Association for Science Teacher Education, Charleston, SC.  [Google Scholar]
  13. Cavanagh, S., & Trotter, A. (2008). Where’s the ‘T’ in STEM? Technology counts, STEM: The push to improve sciecne, technology, engineering and maths. In education week, Retrieved May 8, 2019, from  [Google Scholar]
  14. Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd edition). USA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  15. Crismond, D. (2001). 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. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 791–820. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The bridge, 30(3), 11-17. [Google Scholar]
  17. Doppelt, Y. (2009). Assessing creative thinking in design-based learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19(1), 55-65. [Google Scholar]
  18. Doppelt, Y., Mehalik, M. M., Schunn, C. D., Silk, E., & Krysinski, D. (2008). Engagement and achievements: a case study of design-based learning in a science context. Journal of Technology Education, 19(2), 22-39. [Google Scholar]
  19. Dugger, W. E. (2010, December). Evolution of STEM in the United States. 6th Biennial International Conference on Technology Education Research, Queensland, Australia. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ellefson, M. R., Brinker, R. A., Vernacchio, V. J., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Design-based learning for biology. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 36(4), 292-298. [Google Scholar]
  21. Ercan, S. (2014). Fen eğitiminde mühendislik uygulamalarının kullanımı: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marmara University, İstanbul. [Google Scholar]
  22. Ercan, S., & Sahin, F. (2015). The usage of engineering practices in science education: effects of design based science learning on students' academic achievement. Necatibey Faculty of Education Electronic Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 9(1), 128-164. [Google Scholar]
  23. Felix, A. L. (2010). Design-based science for STEM Student recruitment and teacher professional development. Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, Villanova University. [Google Scholar]
  24. 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. [Google Scholar]
  25. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2005). Design-based science and real-world problem-solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855-879. [Google Scholar]
  26. Green, A., (2012). The integration of engineering design projects into the secondary science classroom. Master’s Thesis. Michigan State University, Michigan. [Google Scholar]
  27. Hsu, M. C., Purzer S., & Cardella M. E., (2011). Elementary teachers’ views about teaching design, engineering and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research,1(2),31–39. [Google Scholar]
  28. Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., & Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education, Retrieved May 14 2019 from [Google Scholar]
  29. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J. et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design(tm) Into Practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495-547. [Google Scholar]
  30. Marulcu, İ., & Sungur, K. (2012). Fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının mühendis ve mühendislik algılarının ve yöntem olarak mühendislik-dizayna bakış açılarının incelenmesi [Investigating pre-service science teachers’ perspectives on engineers, engineering and engineering design as context]. Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, 12(1), 13-23. [Google Scholar]
  31. Marulcu, İ. (2010). Investigating the impact of a lego-based, engineering-oriented curriculum compared to an inquiry-based curriculum on fifth graders’ content learning of simple machines, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Lynch School of Education, Boston College. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ministry of National Education [MEB], (2018a). Fen Bilimleri Dersi Öğretim Programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar). [Science Education Curriculum (Primary, Secondary, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Classes)]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  33. Ministry of National Education [MEB], (2018b). Teknoloji ve Tasarım Dersi Öğretim Programı (Ortaokul 7 ve 8. Sınıflar [Technology and Design Course Curriculum (Secondary School 7 and 8 Classes)]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  34. Ministry of National Education [MEB], (2018c). Bilim Uygulamaları Dersi Öğretim Programı. (Ortaokul ve İmam Hatip Ortaokulu 5, 6, 7 ve 8. Sınıflar) [Science Applications Course Curriculum. (Secondary School and İmam Hatip Secondary School 5, 6, 7 and 8 Grades)]. Ankara: Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Yayınları. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mehalik, M. M., Doppelt, Y., & Schuun, C. D. (2008). Middle‐school science through design‐based learning versus scripted inquiry: Better overall science concept learning and equity gap reduction. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(1), 71-85. [Google Scholar]
  36. Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  37. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, M. A. (1994). An expanded sourcebook qualitative data analysis. London: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  38. National Academy of Engineering [NAE], & National Research Council [NRC] (2009). Engineering in K-12 education understanding the status and improving the prospects. Edt. Katehi, L., Pearson, G. & Feder, M. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  [Google Scholar]
  39. National Academy of Engineering [NAE], & National Research Council. [NRC]  (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects and agenda research. Washington, DC: National Academies. [Google Scholar]
  40. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A Framework for k-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington DC: The National Academic Press.  [Google Scholar]
  41. Next Generations Science Standards [NGGS]. (2013). The next generation science standards executive summary. Retrieved May 8, 2019,from  [Google Scholar]
  42. Norris, T. (2010). Obama says STEM education critical for competing with asia., Retrieved May 8, 2019, from  [Google Scholar]
  43. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2013). STEM education for 14-19 year old. Retrieved May 8, 2019, from  [Google Scholar]
  44. P21. (2015). Partnership for 21st century learning 2015. Retrieved April, 18, 2019, from P21_framework_0515.pdf [Google Scholar]
  45. Pekbay, C. (2017). Fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik etkinliklerinin ortaokul öğrencileri üzerindeki etkileri (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Hacettepe University, Ankara. [Google Scholar]
  46. Penner, D., Giles, N., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125-143. [Google Scholar]
  47. Richey, R. C., & Klein, J. D. (2007). Design and Development Research. New Jersey, USA : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  48. Roth, W. (2001). Learning Science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790. [Google Scholar]
  49. Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: Key elements in developing effective design challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 299–327. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sanders, M. (2009). STEM, STEM education, STEMmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26. [Google Scholar]
  51. Schnittka, C., & Bell, R. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1861-1887. [Google Scholar]
  52. Silk, E. M., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). The Impact of an Engineering Design Curriculum on Science Reasoning in an Urban Setting, Journal of Science Education and Technology, 41(10), 1081-1110. [Google Scholar]
  53. Smith, J., & Karr-Kidwell, P. (2000). The interdisciplinary curriculum: A literary review and a manual for administrators and teachers. Retrieved May 8, 2019,from [Google Scholar]
  54.  Smith, K. A. (1988). The nature and development of engineering expertise. European Journal of Engineering Education, 13(3), 317-330. [Google Scholar]
  55. Sungur Gul, K., & Marulcu, İ. (2014). Yöntem olarak mühendislik-dizayna ve ders materyali olarak legolara öğretmen ile öğretmen adaylarının bakış açılarının incelenmesi [Investigation of in service and pre-service science teachers’ perspectives about engineering-design as an instructional method and legos as an instructional material]. International Periodical for The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic, 9(2), 761-786. [Google Scholar]
  56. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  57. Tal, T., Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Urban schools' teachers enacting project‐based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(7), 722-745. [Google Scholar]
  58. Topalsan, A. K. (2018). Sınıf öğretmenliği öğretmen adaylarının geliştirdikleri mühendislik tasarım temelli fen öğretim etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the elementary school teacher candidates’ engineering design based science instruction activities]. Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 186-219. [Google Scholar]
  59. Vattam, S. S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2008). On foundations of technological support for addressing challenges facing design-based science learning. Pragmatics & Cognition, 16(2), 406-437. [Google Scholar]
  60. Wang, F., & Hannafin, M. J. (2005). Design-based research and technology-enhanced learning environments. Educational technology research and development, 53(4), 5-23. [Google Scholar]
  61. Wells, J. G. (2016). PIRPOSAL Model of Integrative STEM Education: Conceptual and Pedagogical Framework for Classroom Implementation. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 75(6), 12-19. [Google Scholar]
  62. Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design‐based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513-540. [Google Scholar]
  63. Wendell, K. B. (2008). The theoretical and empirical basis for design-based science instruction for children. Qualifying Paper, Tufts University. [Google Scholar]
  64. Williams, J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1). [Google Scholar]
  65. Yamak, H., Bulut, N., & Dundar, S. (2014). 5. sınıf öğrencilerinin bilimsel süreç becerileri ile fene karşı tutumlarına FeTeMM etkinliklerinin etkisi. [The impact of STEM activities on 5th grade students’ scientific process skills and their attitudes towards science]. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 34(2), 249-265. [Google Scholar]
  66. Yasak, M. T. (2017). Tasarım temelli fen eğitiminde, fen, teknoloji, mühendislik ve matematik uygulamaları: Basınç konusu örneği (Unpublished Master’s Thesis). Cumhuriyet University, Sivas. [Google Scholar]
  67. Yasar, S., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Development of a survey to assess K-12 teachers’ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(3), 205-216. [Google Scholar]