Technology/Engineering*
Concept and Skill Progressions
Sequenced concepts and skills to support student learning of science and
technology/engineering from PreK to high school, informed by preconception, conceptual change, and learning progression research
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
November 15, 2010
* Please note there are corresponding documents available for:
Earth & Space Science
Life Science—Biology
Physical Science—Chemistry/Introductory Physics
The concept and skill progressions are meant to inform and support curriculum and instruction,
but are not meant to replace the current Science and Technology/Engineering (STE) standards.
Curricular and instructional goals should continue to be aligned with current STE standards;
the state’s STE MCAS tests will also continue to reference current STE standards.
November 15, 2010
Table of Contents
Section
Page
Introduction to the Concept and Skill Progressions
2
Visual organization of the Concept and Skill Progressions (Figure 1)
4
Technology/Engineering Concept and Skill Progressions**
Engineering Design
5
Manufacturing Technologies
14
Materials
19
Contributors:
Adam Carberry, Tufts University, Massachusetts
Kate Hester, Museum of Science, Boston, Massachusetts
Dr. Daniel Householder, Utah State University, Utah
Dr. Morgan Hynes, Tufts University, Massachusetts
Dr. Jacquelyn Kelly, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Arizona
Dr. Steve Krause, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Arizona
Dr. Cathy Lachapelle,, Museum of Science, Boston, Massachusetts
Dr. Merredith Portsmore, Tufts University, Massachusetts
Dr. Chris Rogers, Tufts University, Massachusetts
Kristen Bethke Wendell, Tufts University, Massachusetts
** There is not a concept and skill progression for every topic typically found in state
Technology/Engineering standards; limited research in technology/engineering topics is available
and authors were only available for the three topics included. **
1
November 15, 2010
Introduction to the Concept and Skill Progressions
This document presents concept and skill progressions for three common
Technology/Engineering topics. These concept and skill progressions articulate idealized
sequences of concepts and skills that can effectively support student learning of core scientific
ideas from PreK to high school. These summaries draw from a variety of research genres,
including pre-conception, conceptual change, and learning progression research on science
education. These summaries are written and reviewed by educational researchers who study
student learning of each science and technology/engineering (STE) topic. They are set up to
reflect a learning progression approach to student understanding of core STE ideas. These are
research-based resources that can inform work in curriculum development, instruction, and
assessment. These are also have been referenced, in conjunction with the many available STE
resources, by the Massachusetts STE Review Panel in the revision of Massachusetts STE student
learning standards.
Learning progression research is beginning to provide a framework for understanding student
preconceptions, obstacles to learning, and transitional ideas about the world as they learn
science. A learning progression makes explicit the successively more complex ways of thinking
about STE concepts and skills that students develop over time (Smith, Wiser, Anderson, &
Krajcik, 2006). While learning progressions are research-based, they are hypothetical; they
propose how to bridge the intuitive ideas children have developed about core ideas before formal
instruction with the scientific version of that idea if students are exposed to appropriate curricula
(Corcoran et al, 2009). Additionally, ideas in learning progressions are not always scientifically
accurate. For example, the idea that any piece of matter, however small, has weight is not
completely scientifically accurate as it only applies to matter in a gravitational field. It belongs in
the learning progression, however, because it makes the idea that atoms are the key components
of matter easier to accept (students often believe that weight is not a property of matter, and if a
piece of material gets very small it has no weight). Considering student cognition from a learning
progression basis allows us to take students’ initial ideas into account, to characterize productive
transitional ideas, and to design curricula that move students' network of ideas toward scientific
understanding in a purposeful way.
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education has asked educational
researchers to draw from the research literature on students’ pre-conceptions, conceptual change,
and, where available, learning progressions to provide up-to-date summaries of how to sequence
student thinking and learning of common STE topics. The research base to complete this task is
certainly not complete, so for the grade ranges, domains, and/or concepts for which learning
progression research is not available, each author used available pre-conception and conceptual
change research to provide informed estimates of what a progression of learning is likely to look
like. So while the authors have made informed recommendations about when certain concepts
and skills should be introduced, these do not limit what or when students can learn those
concepts and skills. These are idealized articulations of how we would want students to progress.
The concept and skill progressions do, however, help to convey how to move young children’s
initial conceptualizations to scientific theory over time.
2
November 15, 2010
Each concept and skill progression includes both a “narrative storyline” as well as a “concept
and skill details” section that are intended to convey a story of how students’ conceptual growth
can develop over time. Both sections tell the same story, just at different levels of detail. Each
concept and skill progression is organized to reflect the nature of initial ideas in a topic (lower
anchor); the 'stepping stones' that can serve as intermediary targets between initial ideas and
scientific theory; and specify the scientific core ideas, concepts and skills in that domain students
should achieve as the result of their education (upper anchor). It is important to note that each
grade-span cell in the details section should be read in its entirety; the individual concepts and
skills should be viewed as a set rather than individually. See Figure 1 on page 4 for more details
on the organization of the summaries. Providing a common template across topics allows
curriculum developers, educators, and others to make sense of particular core ideas, concepts and
skills in relation to each other across grade levels and topics. It is important to be clear that the
individual elements in the concept and skill progressions are not standards; taken together they
describe what students can know and do over time as they come to learn core scientific ideas.
These concept and skill progressions can be used in conjunction with the 2001/2006 STE strand
maps (http://www.doe.mass.edu/omste/maps/default.html; modeled on the AAAS Atlases of
Science Literacy) to visualize student learning over time. Productively building upon
relationships between ideas that span multiple grade levels will require greater communication
and coordination than is currently typical. Teaching that honors progressions of learning will also
require educators to clearly understand where their students currently are relative to desired
outcomes. This can be accomplished with pre-assessment strategies—including strategies that
move beyond simple identification of misconceptions—as well as greater differentiation of
lessons to meet the needs of particular students. Being able to access a variety of instructional
and learning resources, such as through the National Science Digital Library (NSDL;
http://strandmaps.nsdl.org/), will help educators implement these strategies. Coordinated use of
strand maps will help educators approach teaching and learning from a perspective where ideas
are consistently related to each other over extended periods of time. Such an approach can
effectively account for student conceptions and more effectively promote achievement of science
and technology/engineering standards.
Please note: Topics included in this document were selected based on both available research
and the availability of an author to write the summary. In some cases research is available but an
author was not, or some common concepts within a topic were omitted due to lack of a research
base; these are not exhaustive summaries. These concept and skills progressions will likely be
updated in the future as additional research and information is available. Please direct any
comments, feedback, resources or research that may inform edits or additions to these concept
and skill progressions to mathscitech@doe.mass.edu.
References
Corcoran, T., Mosher, F., Rogat, A. (2009). Learning Progression in Science: An evidence-based
approach to reform. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Smith, C.L., Wiser, M., Anderson, C.W., Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on
children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for
matter and the atomic molecular theory. Focus Article. Measurement: Interdisciplinary
Research and Perspectives, 14, 1-98.
3
Possible misconceptions, placed in the grade span
before they are addressed, are highlighted gray.
Read concept and skill detail section from left to right, from initial
ideas (pre-instruction) to culminating scientific ideas (high school).
Page 1:
Narrative
storyline
provides an
overview of
how student
ideas develop
across grade
spans.
Page 2+:
Concept and
skill detail
section (pg 2 &
3 of this
example)
provide specific
concepts by
core idea (rows)
and grade-span
(columns).
Stepping
stones move
students from
initial ideas to
scientific
understanding
(read each
grade-span cell
in its entirety).
Key
vocabulary
is indicated
in the grade
span it is
introduced.
Endnotes on
final page(s)
include
comments on
particular
concepts,
including
instructional
strategies, limits
to student
understanding,
and additional
explanation.
Figure 1. Features of the concept and skill progressions, using Plate Tectonics as an example.
4
Engineering Design
November 15, 2010
Engineering Design
Concept and Skill Progression for Engineering Design
Engineering Design changes with regard to the ability to organize, evaluate, and redesign possible solutions to an identified need or problem. Students represent and carry out the
steps of the engineering design process in increasingly complex ways that take into account the iterative nature of problem-solving, constraints and specifications of the task, and
weighing and balancing trade-offs in search of the best solution.
NARRATIVE STORYLINE
Initial Ideas
Before instruction students have experience drawing and making things, but generally have not had opportunities to systematically make things that address specific needs or problems.
When presented with simple constraints or specifications students understand how these limitations will impact their design. However, they struggle to keep multiple constraints or
specifications in mind when they begin designing, and may focus on just one or disregard them altogether. Students can evaluate whether their design passes or fails a simple test. They
understand that by “trying again” they can improve their work.
Conceptual Stepping Stones
Elementary school students differentiate between a need and a defined solution. They tend not to naturally engage in planning in design contexts, but possible solutions emerge as
they engage in design problems. Students can make drawings (plans) that represent their constructed solution to a design problem, but they need support understanding how to interpret
why a design failed and often see the construction of a functional prototype as the final goal of a design process. Prototypes are often viewed as small versions or exact replicas of real
things. Students can work with materials that allow for trial and error or multiple redesigns, and can evaluate the outcome of a test (often as binary outcomes: yes, no; break/stay
together). Students understand basic tradeoffs. Students can solve a problem with a small number of constraints and requirements, which are generally used interchangeably.
Middle school students are able to identify multiple constraints in a problem. They often skip research and solution generation and jump directly into constructing a prototype.
Students can conduct research independently and begin to develop decision matrices where they evaluate multiple solutions based on the constraints of the problem. Students view a
model as a representation that intentionally eliminates the complexity of the real world to better evaluate its function, but may still think of prototypes as exact replicas. They can
create fair tests and measure what is important in a design. They judge whether or not they have optimized their design and justify their reasoning. Students understand that some
design goals may be in conflict with each other. They are able to weigh the tradeoffs and make decisions and then justify these decisions. Students may struggle with identifying the
design goals or specifications that are in conflict with each other. Students are capable of iterating on their design and understand such iterations lead to improvements. While they will
likely iterate quite often during designing, they might not always recognize that is what they are doing. Students can identify constraints and specifications within a design problem,
but may need assistance distinguishing between those.
Culminating Scientific Ideas
High school students can frame and deconstruct problems, as well as intentionally organize information. They can use words, drawings, and prototypes to explore solutions and
balance systems of benefits and tradeoffs. They develop multiple solutions and engage in iterative revision of possible solutions. Their solutions include clearly defined
specifications that are based on constraints and evidence. Students construct iterative prototypes to achieve a workable solution. They develop valid experimental tests to evaluate
their solution and determine what methods and tools are appropriate to use in determining how well designs meet requirements. Students can implement their tested prototype as a final
product. They fully document their solution through written documents, presentations, and constructions. Students recognize that no one solution to an ill-defined problem will ever be
perfect. Improvement to one component will often times mean another component suffers. Steps taken in a design process are often repeated multiple times in search of a final solution.
Developing a design solution means a constant back and forth over including what is required (specifications) while limiting restrictions (constraints).
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
5
Engineering Design
November 15, 2010
Lower Anchor
Reflective of student concepts
Reconceptualization
Engineering Design
Upper Anchor
Reflective of science concepts
CONCEPT & SKILL DETAILS
Initial Ideas
Before instruction, students often
believe and can:
Prior to instruction
Design requires engagement in
a dynamic and iterative
Engineering Design process.3
Steps include:
Identify the need or problem
Conceptual Stepping Stones1, 2
Culminating Scientific Ideas
Students who view the world in this way believe and can:
Students who fully understand this topic believe and can:
By the end of elementary (Gr. 5)
Design requires engagement in a
dynamic and iterative
Engineering Design process
Identify the need or problem
Students understand the difference
between a need and a defined
solution.4
Middle school
Design requires engagement in a
dynamic and iterative Engineering
Design process
Identify the need or problem
Students are able to address multiple
constraints.7
High school
Design requires engagement in a dynamic and
iterative Engineering Design process
Identify the need or problem
Students perform problem decomposition (break down
into smaller units) (Koehler et al., 2005).
Students can frame the problem (Lemons et al., 2010).
Students can recognize a need.
Research the need or problem
Research the need or problem
Students can engage in classroombased research (looking at pictures,
objects, asking an expert questions)
and resources (books, magazines,
videos, etc...).5
Research the need or problem
Students can conduct research
independently whether through the
Internet, by communicating with
stakeholders or visiting sites.
Research the need or problem
Students identify information seeking as an integral part
of the design process (Ennis & Greszly, 1991).
They are capable of delaying decisions until the challenge
has been fully explored (Crismond, unpublished).13
Students can accurately interpret and recognize
appropriate research sources.
Students can organize information according to some
intention; there is a goal in mind rather than collecting
information for the sake of collecting information
(Christiaans & Dorst, 1992).14
Students are capable of building rich representations of
unfamiliar problems (Larkin, McDermott, Simon, &
Simon, 1980; Christiaans & Dorst, 1992).
Develop possible solutions
Develop possible solutions
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
6
Engineering Design
November 15, 2010
Develop possible solutions
Planning a solution is likely to
emerge as students are engaged in
design problems (Roden, 1999).
Students can brainstorm on their own
with some guidance from the teacher to
ensure they do not get “stuck” on a
single path of ideas.8
Young students are capable of
making drawings (plans) that relate
their constructed solution to a
design problem (Fleer 2000b;
Portsmore 2010).
Possible stumbling block:
Middle school students often skip
research and solution generation and
jump directly into constructing a
prototype (Hynes, 2009).
Engineering Design
Develop possible solutions
Students initiate and lead brainstorming because they
recognize the need to do so. (Crismond, unpublished).
Students can use words, drawings, and prototypes in
conjuction to explore ideas (Crismond, unpublished;
Stauffer & Ullman, 1991; Radcliffe & Lee, 1989).
Students can balance systems of benefits and tradeoffs
(Crismond, unpublished).
Students recognize the need to develop multiple solutions
(idea fluency) (Crismond, unpublished).
Possible stumbling block:
Young students (5-7) tend not to
naturally engage in planning in
design contexts (Johnsey, 1995) as
well as other contexts (Gauvain &
Rogoff, 1998).
Students can consider problem criteria and constraints
(Mullins & Atman, 1999; Radcliffe & Lee, 1989).
Students will engage in iterative revision of possible
solutions (Adams & Atman, 2000; Dym et al., 2005).
Student solutions include clearly defined specifications:
detailed, qualifiable, and measurable (Crismond,
unpublished; Gassert et al., 2005; Gentilli et al., 1999).
Select the best possible solution
Select the best possible solution
Students generally focus on a single
idea.
Select the best possible solution
Students can begin to develop decision
matrices where they evaluate multiple
solutions based on the constraints of the
problem.
Select the best possible solution
Students can engage in systematic reasoning and
justifying the best possible solution (Crismond,
unpublished).
Students can perform a rudimentary feasibility analysis to
inform their decision (Radcliffe & Lee, 1989).
Students can make design decisions based on proper
consideration of evidence and issues (Dym et al., 2005).
Construct a prototype
Construct a prototype
Students see the construction of a
functional prototype as the final
goal.
Students can work with materials
that allow for trial and error and/or
Construct a prototype
Students begin to understand that the
purpose of a model is to test ideas; they
realize a model isn’t simply a copy of
the real world object, but that it
intentionally eliminates the complexity
of the real world object for use in
experiments (Grosslight, Unger, Jay, &
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Construct a prototype
Students can use a model or prototype to explore and
show how things work; they realize this is not the final
product.
Students are capable of iterative prototyping until they
achieve an acceptable product (Koehler et. al, 2005).
Engineering Design
7
Engineering Design
November 15, 2010
multiple redesigns.6
Smith, 1991).
Possible misconception:
Students often think of models as exact
replicas or close to exact replicas
(Treagust, Chittleborough, & Mamiala,
2002).
Test and evaluate solutions
Test and evaluate solutions
Students can evaluate the outcome
of a simple test. For younger
students this means that tests are
generally binary outcomes (yes/no;
break/stay together).
Engineering Design
Test and evaluate solutions
Students can create fair test experiments
and measure what is important (Krajcik
et al., 1998).9
Students can understand the logic
underlying each part of the experimental
design (Schauble, Glaser, Duschl,
Schulze, & John, 1995).10
Students judge whether or not they have
optimized their design and justify their
reasoning.
Students can physically construct a model of the
solution(s) (Carberry, Lemons, Swan, Jarvin, & Rogers,
2009).
Test and evaluate solutions
Students can develop their own valid experimental tests
to evaluate their solution (Trevisan et al., 1998).
Students can show how things work to help themselves
learn about product features (Koehler et al., 2005).
Students can determine what methods and tools are
appropriate to use in determining how well concepts meet
requirements (Gentilli et. al., 1999).
Students can take their tested prototype and implement it
as a final product (Gentilli et. al., 1999).
Students are capable of making advance design decisions
toward delivery of design products desired by clients
(Dym et al., 2005; Gentilli et al., 1999).
Communicate solutions
Communicate solutions
Students can draw representations
of their solutions (Portsmore, 2010).
Communicate solutions
Students can communicate their designs
including the features and drawbacks of
the design.11
Communicate solutions
Students can fully document their solution through
written documents, presentations, and constructions.
Student presentations include specifications,
performance, issues, limitations, and constraints (Gassert
& Milkowski, 2005).
Students can communicate their solutions in the several
languages of design,15 and present in a style
understandable by a target audience (Dym et al., 2005).
Students can accurately and completely document
information pertaining to their solution. They organize
information for understanding and clarity16 (Gentilli et al.,
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
8
Engineering Design
November 15, 2010
Engineering Design
1999).
Redesign
Students understand that by “trying
again” they can improve their
work.
Redesign
Students need scaffolding to
understand how and why their
design failed, and support with
considering how to change it.
("Why did it break? Where did it
break?).
Possible stumbling block:
Young students tend not to naturally
engage in systematic iteration.
Constraints and. Specifications
Possible stumbling block:
Students struggle to keep multiple
constraints or specifications in
mind when they begin designing,
and may focus on just one or
disregard them altogether.
Constraints and specifications
Students can solve a problem with a
small number of constraints and
requirements.
Possible stumbling block:
Constraints and requirements are
generally used interchangeably.
Redesign
Students can make changes to their
designs based on results from their
testing and evaluation.12
Students are capable of refining and
progressively improving on their designs
and understand such iterations lead to
better solutions.
Possible stumbling block:
While students will likely iterate during
the design process, they might not
always recognize that is what they are
doing.
Constraints and specifications
Students can identify constraints and
specifications within a design problem.
Students may need assistance
distinguishing between the constraints
and specifications.
Redesign
Students can focus their redesign attention on key
problems (Koehler et al., 2005).
Students are capable of troubleshooting (Crismond,
unpublished).
Students understand that engineering design is not a
linear process. Steps taken along the way are often visited
multiple times in search of a final solution.
Constraints and specifications
Students conceptualize design constraints as limitations
or restrictions imposed by the nature of the need or
problem. They perceive why constraints are necessary to
eliminate solutions that would be inefficient, costly,
and/or physically impossible to create. They recognize
constraints can be imposed by a number of sources such
as the physical environment for the solution, the potential
users, the materials and resources available, and
limitations of technology.
Students understand specifications as requirements
imposed by the designer or client that must be met to
satisfy the need or problem. Specifications must be
satisfied for the solution to be viable. Engineers often set
specifications once they have researched the need or
problem and understand the associated constraints.
Students realize developing a design solution means a
constant back and forth over including what is required
(specifications) while limiting restrictions (constraints).
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
9
Engineering Design
Design Decision-Making:
Tradeoffs
November 15, 2010
Design Decision-Making: Tradeoffs
Young students understand basic
tradeoffs (binary: yes/no;
success/failure).
Engineering Design
Design Decision-Making: Tradeoffs
Design Decision-Making: Tradeoffs
Students understand that some design
goals may be in conflict with each other.
Students understand that tradeoffs involve improving one
design requirement at the expense of another.
Students are able to weigh tradeoffs and
make design decisions, then justify these
decisions based on an explanation of
how the tradeoffs were balanced.
Students recognize that the nature of engineering
problems, as ill-defined problems with multiple solutions,
means there is often no clear path to maximizing all
design requirements.
Possible stumbling blocks:
Students may struggle with identifying
the design goals or specifications that
are in conflict with each other.
Students realize that no one solution to an ill-defined
problem will ever be perfect. The goal is to devise
optimal solutions. Improvement to one component will
often times mean another component suffers.
They may have difficulty weighing and
balancing the effects of two dependent
constraints or specifications.
Grades
Pre-instruction
Elementary school (K-5)
Middle school (6-8)
High school
Key Vocabulary
engineer, need, problem, solution,
research, design, plan, prototype,
test, trade-off, requirement, limit,
improve, redesign, outcome
iteration, constraint, specification,
maximize, optimal, experimental design,
justify, evaluate, decision matrix,
product, brainstorm
system, feasibility analysis, problem decomposition
Authors and Reviewers
Dr. Merredith Portsmore, Adam Carberry, and Dr. Morgan Hynes, Center for Engineering Education and Outreach, Tufts University, Massachusetts (authors)
Dr. Daniel Householder, Utah State University, Utah (reviewer)
Notes
1
Students understand the EDP is a tool used to help make decisions and ensure details are not overlooked leading to high quality solutions and products. The EDP guides
engineers to consider multiple solutions to the need or problem as they consider the constraints and requirements imposed by the need or problem. The fact that there are
multiple solutions to ill-defined engineering problems means that there is likely no perfect solution, thus all solutions can be improved. Engineers must decide at what point the
solution is complete and meets the need(s) of the problem. When engaged in the EDP, engineers may skip from step to step and may iterate back and forth a number of times.
As Figure 1 illustrates, the process is not always linear or cyclical. Figure 2 depicts a representation of the EDP we believe would be appropriate for early elementary students.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
10
Engineering Design
November 15, 2010
Figure 1. EDP for upper elementary and beyond
Engineering Design
Figure 2. EDP for early elementary students
2
The research base is so thin that these allocations will be tentative at best. The field clearly does not have a comprehensive view of learning progressions in engineering design.
The development of a comprehensive understanding of reasonable progress will take considerable time and effort.
3
It may be helpful to distinguish “engineering design” from “design” as used by science educators.The use of design activities in science education may not be generalizable to
engineering design.
4
Students need guidance to identify the requirements and constraints of a problem (Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1997; Penner, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1998).
5
Students have limited abilities to locate and interpret their own research sources.
6
The amount of experience students have with a set of materials has a significant impact in their ability to construct a solution (Portsmore, 2010).
7
Additionally, students need guidance to appropriately address multiple criteria (Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1997; Penner, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1998; Hynes, 2009).
8
Middle school students who are new to design projects don't naturally engage in planning solutions (McCormick, Hennesey, & Murphy, 1993; Welch&Lim, 2000). Avoid rote
"must generate 3 possible solutions" and attempt to create more authentic reasoning behind the need for brainstorming solutions.
9
Generally they need guidance at this age. Students find it difficult to interpret simple patterns of data with respect to their meaning in the real world (Schauble, Glaser, Duschl,
Schulze, & John, 1995) .
10
Recommendation: Take time to talk to students about the logic of the experiments they will be performing, discuss the relationship being explored, the rationale for the
procedures, and the logic underlying the choice of variables. (Schauble, Glaser, Duschl, Schulze, & John, 1995).
11
It is important to create authentic opportunities for students to communicate their solutions (other than just to teacher or fellow students) (Hynes, 2009).
12
Watch for students wanting to abandon a design rather than identifying what doesn’t work and redesigning. (Hynes, 2009).
13
Students can conduct in depth compatible research without teacher assistance (Cross, 2001; Gassert & Milkowski, 2005).
14
Students can process information actively to ensure understanding (Dym et. al, 2005).
15
“Languages” can mean the different forms of representations, but it can also refer to speaking to an expert vs. novice and/or speaking to a colleague vs. a client.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
11
Engineering Design
16
November 15, 2010
Engineering Design
This is a presentation skill. It’s not just putting everything on a platter and saying “here is what I did”; rather there is some logic and organization to the presentation of the
solution.
References
Adams, R.S., & Atman, C.J. (2000). Characterizing engineering student design processes: An illustration of iteration. Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference, Session 2330,
June 18-21. St. Louis, MO.
Akin, Ö., & Lin, C. (1996). Design protocol data and novel design decisions. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing design activity (pp. 35-63). Chichester,
England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Bursic, K.M., & Atman, C.J. (1997). Information gathering: A critical step for quality in the design process. Quality Management Journal, 4(4), 60-75.
Carberry, A., Lemons, G., Swan, C., Jarvin, L., & Rogers, C. (2009). Investigating engineering design through model-building. Paper presented at the Research in Engineering
Education Symposium, Queensland, Australia.
Christiaans, H., & Dorst, K. (1992). Cognitive models in industrial design engineering. Design Theory and Methodology, 42, 131-140.
Coates, C., Johnson, W., and McCarthy, C. (2007). Pushing the limit: Exposure of high school seniors to enginering research, design, and communication, ASEE Conference &
Exposition.
Crismond, D.P. (unpublished). Contasting the work of beginning and informed engineering designers in a research-based design strategies rubric.
Cross, N. (2001). Design cognition: Results from protocol and other empirical studies of design activity. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing
and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 79-103). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Cunningham, C., & Knight, M. (2004, June). Draw an Engineer Test: Development of a Tool to Investigate Students’ Ideas about Engineers and Engineering. Presented at the
Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, UT.
Cunninghan, C., Lachapelle, C., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2005, June). Assessing Elementary School Students’ Conceptions of Engineering and Technology. Presented at the
Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Washington, DC.
Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D.D. and L.J. Leifer (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Educaiton, 94(1), 104-120.
Ennis, C.W., & Gyeszly, S.W. (1991). Protocol analysis of the engineering systems design approach. Research in Engineering Design, 3(1), 15-22.
Fleer, M. (2000b). Working Technologically: Investigations into How young Children Design and Make During Technology Education. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 10, 43-59.
Gassert, J.D. and L. Milkowski (2005). Using rubrics to evaluate engineering design and to assess program outcomes, ASEE Conference & Exposition.
Gauvain, M., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Collaborative Problem Solving and Children's Planning Skills. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 139-151.
Gentili, K.L., McCauley, J.F., Christianson, R.K., Davis, D.C., Trevisan, M.S., Calkins, D.E., and M.D. Cook (1999). "Assessing students design capabilities in an introductory
design class”, Frontiers in Education Conference.
Grosslight, L., Unger, C., Jay, E., & Smith, C. L. (1991). Understanding Models and their Use in Science: Conceptions of Middle and High School Students and Experts. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 799-822.
Hynes, M. (2009). Teaching Middle-school Engineering: An Investigation of Teachers' Subject Matter and Pedagogical Content Knowledge. Unpublished Dissertation, Tufts
University, Medford, MA.
Johnsey, R. (1995). The place of the process skill making in design and technology: Lessons from research into the way primary children design and make. Paper presented at the
International Conference on Design and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough, UK:Loughborough University of Technology.
Koehler, C., Faraclas, E., Sanchez, S., Latif, S.K. and K. Kazerounian (2005). "Engineering Frameworks for High School Setting: Guidelines for Technical Literacy for High
School Students, ASEE Conference & Exposition.
Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Bass, K. M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in Project-Based Science Classrooms: Initial Attempts by Middle School
Students. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3/4), 313-350.
Larkin, J.H., McDermott, J., Simon, D.P., & Simon, H.A. (1980). Models of competence in solving physics problems. Cognitive Science, 4, 317-345.
Lemons, G., Carberry, A., Swan, C., Rogers, C. and L. Jarvin (2010). The importance of problem interpretation for engineering students. ASEE Conference & Exposition.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
12
Engineering Design
November 15, 2010
Engineering Design
McCormick, R., Hennessy, S., & Murphy, P. (1993). A pilot study of children's problem solving processes. Paper presented at the IDATER93: International Conference on Design
and Technology Educational Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough, UK:Loughborough University of Technology
Moskal, B. M. et al (2007). K-12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts of four outreach projects. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 173-189.
Mullins, C. A., Atman, C. J., & Shuman, L. J. (1999). Freshman engineers' performance when solving design problems. IEEE Transactions on Education, 42(4), 281-287.
Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building Functional Models: Designing an Elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125-143.
Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From Physical Models to Biomechanics: A Design-Based Modeling Approach. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3 & 4),
429-449.
Radcliffe, D. F., & Lee, T. Y. (1989). Design methods used by undergraduate engineering students. Design Studies, 10(4), 199-209.
Roden, C. (1995). Young children's learning strategies in design and technology. Paper presented at the IDATER95: International Conference on Design and Technology
Educational Research and Curriculum Development, Loughborough, UK:Loughborough University of Technology.
Roden, C. (1999). How Children's Problem Solving Strategies Develop at Key Stage 1. The Journal of Design and Technology Education, 4(1), 21-27.
Schauble, L., Glaser, R., Duschl, R. A., Schulze, S., & John, J. (1995). Students' Understanding of the Objectives and Procedures of Experimentation in the Science Classroom.
The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(2), 131-166.
Stauffer, L. A., & Ullman, D. G. (1991). Fundamental processes of mechanical designers based on empirical data. Journal of Engineering Design, 2(2), 113-125.
Treagust, D. F., Chittleborough, G., & Mamiala, T. L. (2002). Students' Understanding of the Role of Scientific Models in Learning Science. International Journal of Science
Education, 24(4), 357-368.
Trevisan, M.S., Davis, D.C., Crain, R.W., Clakins, D.E., Gentili, K.L. (1998). Developing and assessing statewide competencies for engineering design. Journal of Engineering
Education. 87(2), 185-193.
Welch, M., & Lim, H. S. (2000). The Strategic thinking of Novice Designers: Discontinuity Between Theory and Practice. The Journal of Technology Studies, XXVI(2).
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Engineering Design
13
Manufacturing Technologies
November 15, 2010
Manufacturing Technologies
Concept and Skill Progression for Manufacturing Technologies
The learning progression for manufacturing technologies is based on three core ideas: properties of objects and materials, manufacturing processes, and control of devices.
Building on concepts about matter and change, students come to understand the processes and techniques by which particular materials are transformed into useful products, and
can explain and justify design choices from both molecular and functional perspectives.
NARRATIVE STORYLINE
Initial Ideas
Before instruction: As children begin learning about the properties of objects and materials, these ideas contribute to understanding how materials are manipulated and crafted into
useful products. Initially, students often believe that materials change when objects undergo a physical change, for example, a powder ground from a solid is no longer made of the same
“stuff.” Objects are defined by characteristics such as color, shape, or material kind , and physical properties are explained by perceptual attributes (e.g., a toothpick is stiff because it
is straight), not by material properties. Students may also believe that physical properties are not intrinsic to materials but can be added to and removed from them. Choosing an
appropriate manufacturing process is dependent on each particular material and desired product. Before instruction, students often believe that choices about how to make an object
can be justified by feelings and intuition. They may believe that their belongings simply exist or come from stores. However, most children have had opportunities to assemble some
things on their own, such as arts-and-crafts projects, sandwiches, or props for play. Understanding how devices are controlled is important to automating and scaling manufacturing
technologies to efficiently produce products. Before instruction, students often believe that devices simply do what they are supposed to do. They may also believe that using robots or
automation is dangerous.
Conceptual Stepping Stones
Elementary school: Building on related concepts about properties of matter, students can describe and understand observable properties of materials. In particular, students now
recognize that a material’s properties remain the same regardless of amount or physical changes such as shape or size. They may, however, continue to believe that physical properties
are not intrinsic to a material. Students can perceive there is a relationship between a material’s properties and a product’s use, and can describe products by both properties of the
material and the object. Students can explain different basic manufacturing techniques they might see in their world. They can cite examples of transforming materials into useful
objects by hand, by hand-held tools, by human-operated machines, or by robots. They likely continue to believe, however, that choices about how to make an object can be justified by
feelings and intuition, or things simply come from stores. Students realize that machines need directions to do their work, such as from computers. They may still view the use of
automation as dangerous.
Middle school: Building upon concepts of chemical and physical change, students now understand manufacturing from a particulate perspective. Students can explain that the kind and
structure of particles in a material determine its physical properties. Students know that materials maintain their composition under various kinds of physical processing, but understand
that if a process changes the particulate structure of a material, some of its properties may change. Students often continue to explain properties of materials by perceptual attributes but
refer to particulate structure when needed. Students now see manufacturing as a process: beginning as raw material, objects are subject to a product cycle. Students can categorize
manufacturing processes by the material on which they work and the stage of the creation process at which they occur. They provide clear explanations and examples of how the
structure of a product is based on the function for which it is designed. They also understand the need to use fair tests to evaluate a new product. Students have developed an
understanding of how robots are controlled and used in manufacturing. Students can provide examples of robot use in a manufacturing system, typically for jobs that are very tedious,
small, or dangerous. They can explain how robots use sensors to gather information and take action based on instructions.
Culminating Scientific Ideas
High school: Students understand manufacturing processes from a molecular perspective. Drawing upon chemistry concepts, students can explain relationships between changes in
properties of a material and corresponding molecular changes due to the application of manufacturing processes. They can provide examples of how the physical and chemical properties
of a material determine which tools, machines, and processes will enable its transformation. Students contextualize the process of manufacturing by considering where raw materials
come from, specific manufacturing techniques, specific advantages of automation, and cost and time constraints.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Manufacturing Technologies
14
Manufacturing Technologies
November 15, 2010
Lower Anchor
Reflective of student concepts
Manufacturing Technologies
Upper Anchor
Reflective of science concepts
Reconceptualization
CONCEPT & SKILL DETAILS
Initial
Ideas1
Before instruction, students often believe
and can:
Conceptual Stepping Stones2
Culminating Scientific Ideas3
Students who view the world in this way believe and can:
Students who fully understand this topic believe and can:
Prior to instruction
By the end of elementary (gr. 5)
Middle school
High school
Properties of Objects and Materials
Properties of Objects and Materials
Properties of Objects and Materials
Properties of Objects and Materials
Initially, children may believe that
materials change when objects change
shape or size. For example, when a
solid is ground into a powder, it is no
longer made out of the same kind of
“stuff” (Dickinson, 1987).
Students recognize that when objects
undergo changes in shape or amount, the
materials of which they are made remain
the same. (Smith, Carey, & Wiser,
1985).
Students understand that materials will
maintain their composition under various
kinds of physical processing. However, if
a transformational process changes the
particulate structure of a material, some
of its properties will change.
Students understand many important material
properties, including strength, durability,
hardness, and elasticity, can be changed by
manufacturing processes. They explain that
changes occur because the processes change the
size and orientation of the particulate
components within the material.
Possible misconception:
Children are likely to view and
characterize objects by their color,
shape, and material kind (Krnel,
Glazar, & Watson, 2003).
Students can fully describe products by
both the properties of the material and
the properties of the object.
Children are also likely to explain the
physical properties of objects by
observable characteristics (i.e.,
perceptual attributes For example, a
toothpick is stiff because it is straight; a
bridge is strong because it is heavy
(Nakhleh & Samarapungavan, 1999).
[Link to Physical Science: Matter]
Students understand that properties of
materials do not change with the amount
of material or with physical changes.
Students understand properties of objects
depend on the amount and shape of a
material.
Possible misconception:
Physical properties are not intrinsic to
materials but can be added to or removed
from them (Krnel, Watson, & Glazar,
1998).4
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
[Link to Physical Science: Chemical Change]
Students have learned that the kind and
structure of particles (atoms, molecules,
bonds) in a material determine its
physical properties (Smith, Wiser,
Anderson, & Krajcik, 2006).
Students recognize that material
properties can only partly be explained
by what is perceptually accessible. But
the physical properties of materials can
always be explained by their particulate
structure, which can be examined with
instruments that let us observe them at
the microscopic level (Smith et. al.,
2006).
Students can identify a set of materials needed to
manufacture a finished product.
Students can explain and predict how the
particulate structure and molecular composition
of a material determines which tools, machines,
and processes will enable transformation of a
material (ABET, 2009).
Manufacturing Technologies
15
Manufacturing Technologies
Manufacturing Processes
November 15, 2010
Manufacturing Technologies
Manufacturing Processes
Manufacturing Processes
Manufacturing Processes
Based on their experience, children
may have the naive belief that things,
or goods, come from stores.
Students can identify the ways an
object’s shape and material are related to
its use.
Students can explain how the structure of
a human-made object (shape, form, and
configuration) is based on the function
for which it is designed.
Students understand how manufacturing
processes are chosen based on four main factors:
raw material, desired characteristics of the end
product, cost constraints, and time constraints.
Possible misconception:
Initially, children may also believe that
things simply exist; the notion of “how
things are made” is not problematic
(Whitin, 2009).
Students understand that manufacturing
processes are used to change raw
materials into products.
Students are aware that when objects are
produced, they must be tested to
determine whether they meet the needs for
which they were designed.
Students can determine the manufacturing
processes most suitable for turning a particular
material into a particular end product or part.
Possible misconception:
Students may believe choices about how
to make an object can be justified by
feelings and intuition (Gustafson et al.,
1999).
Students understand testing methods
must be fair; all objects should be used
and measured in the same ways.
Students can design fair tests.
Students can categorize manufacturing
processes by the material on which they
work and they stage of the creation
process at which they occur.
Students are able to identify and describe
a product cycle; they can explain how,
beginning as raw material, objects are
designed, produced, tested, packaged,
sold, and used.
Students can conduct measurements and tests
that determine the quality of a product.
Students can describe how forming (molding of
plastics, casting of metals, shaping, rolling,
forging, and stamping) and machining
(separating) are conducted to create parts of
desired shape and size, after the raw material has
been extracted and prepared (conditioned).
Students can explain how finishing, joining, and
assembling bring manufactured parts into a
complete finished product.
Students understand that the raw materials for
physical goods can originate from the earth or
from the synthesis of new chemicals.
Students can describe how physical goods are
made by machines and processes which
typically use high forces, heat, electricity, or
chemicals to alter a raw material into a desired
shape and size (AAAS, 1993; ITEA, 2000).
Students can examine products to identify likely
manufacturing processes used in their
production.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Manufacturing Technologies
16
Manufacturing Technologies
Control of Devices
Initially, children may believe that
devices simply do what they are
supposed to do; how devices are
controlled is non-problematic.
November 15, 2010
Control of Devices
Control of Devices
Students realize that materials are
transformed into useful objects by hand,
by hand-held tools, by human-operated
machines, or by computer-operated
machines.
Students understand that the processes
which transform materials into products
can be controlled by humans or by
computers (i.e., robotic or automated
manufacturing).
Students are aware that computercontrolled machines need directions or
instructions to do their work.
Students understand that computers can
be used to give instructions to machines
so that they perform routine tasks.
Students are able to describe how robots
use sensors to gather information about
their environment and take action based
on the instructions.
Students can identify computercontrolled devices, and know these are
called robots or robotic devices.
Students can explain how computers and
robots are used at different stages of a
manufacturing system, typically for jobs
that are very tedious, very small, or very
dangerous.
Possible misconception:
Students may believe that using robots
or automation to carry out tasks is
dangerous (AAAS, 1993).
Students can use a simple computer
programming language to control a
virtual (i.e., on-screen) or hardware (i.e.,
robotic) device.
Manufacturing Technologies
Control of Devices
Students understand that manufacturing
processes need to be well controlled to safely
produce goods. Computer control often allows
products to be created more quickly, more
precisely, or less expensively than human
control, but it requires electronic sensors and
detectors as well as computer programs (AAAS,
1993).
Students can use both human operation and
robotic automation to control several devices
working together in a simple production
process.5
Grades
Before instruction
By the end of elementary (gr. 5)
Middle school
High school6
Key Vocabulary
material, product, property, physical
change, transform, robotics, machine
composition, particulate structure, atoms,
molecules, bonds, microscopic, function,
manufacturing processes, product cycle,
automation, sensors, manufacturing system
durability, hardness, elasticity, molecular
composition, constraint, forming, machining,
conditioning, finishing
Notes
(1) Many of these initial beliefs are typically exhibited as students start learning about the properties of materials and objects; they are assumed to apply also to students’ initial
learning about manufacturing processes. No research has been conducted explicitly on students’ developing conceptions of manufacturing.
(2) Must be consistent with particulate nature of matter in physical science; elements, compounds, and mixtures; and physical and chemical change.
(3) Must link with properties of materials and types of forces. The big ideas can be achieved fully by the end of a high school technology/engineering course.
(4) Please note that initial beliefs in this column are student ideas that students carry with them through time; they are not something to be taught or even the result of instruction.
Student’s initial beliefs are often formed pre-instruction, but formal instruction cannot address all those at once. Some initial beliefs (such as those identified in this column) are
part of how the student conceptually “sees the world” from this perspective. These initial beliefs are to be addressed in the next stepping stone.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Manufacturing Technologies
17
Manufacturing Technologies
November 15, 2010
Manufacturing Technologies
(5) In high school, the skill of “using robotic automation to control a production process” need not involve heavy-duty machines nor result in finished products. Rather, students
may use simple robots to model a portion of a production process. For example, a group of high school students might program a series of LEGO™ robots to move a set of 50
balls from one location to another.
(6) Related concepts that could be addressed in upper-level electives or college:
o Metallic materials are typically cast in liquid form into molds, or transformed in solid form via cutting tools, rolling, forging, stamping, or welding. Plastics and composites
are typically injected in liquid form into molds or deposited as liquid in particular configurations. Electronic materials are typically processed with microscopic, optical
cutting technology, such as laser beams (Kalpakjian, 2001).
o To determine whether a manufacturing process has been controlled well, measurements and tests are conducted on the quality, cost, rate, and flexibility of the process
(ABET, 2009).
Authors and Reviewers
Kristen Bethke Wendell, Tufts University, Massachusetts (primary author)
Dr. Chris Rogers, Tufts University, Massachusetts (contributor)
Dr. Cathy Lachapelle and Kate Hester, Museum of Science, Boston, Massachusetts (reviewers)
References
AAAS/American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
ABET Engineering Accreditation Commission. (2009) 2010-2011 Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs. Baltimore, MD: ABET, Inc. Accessed online at
http://www.abet.org/forms.shtml#For_Engineering_Programs_Only
Dickinson, D. K. (1987). The development of a concept of material kind. Science Education, 71(4), 615–628
Gustafson, B. J., Rowell, P. M., & Guilbert, S. M. (2000). Elementary children's awareness of strategies for testing structural strength: a three year study. Journal of Technology
Education, 11(2), 5-22.
Gustafson, B. J., Rowell, P. M., & Rose, D. P. (1999). Elementary children's conceptions of structural stability: a three year study. Journal of Technology Education, 11(1), 27-44.
ITEA/International Technology Education Association. (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (Second ed.). Reston, Virginia:
International Technology Education Association.
Kalpakjian, S. (2001). Manufacturing engineering and technology. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Krnel, D., Glazar, S. S., & Watson, R. (2003). The development of the concept of “matter”: A cross-age study of how children classify materials. Science Education, 87, 621-639.
Krnel, D., Watson, R., & Glazar, S. S. (1998). Survey of research related to the development of the concept of “matter.” International Journal of Science Education, 20(3), 257–
289.
Nakhleh, M. B., & Samarapungavan, A. (1999). Elementary school children’s beliefs about matter. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36, 777–805.
Smith, C., Carey, S., & Wiser, M. (1985). On differentiation: A case study of the development of the concepts of size, weight, and density. Cognition, 21, 177–237.
Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., & Krajcik, J. (2006). Implications of research on children’s learning for standards and assessment: A proposed learning progression for matter
and atomic-molecular theory. Measurement, 14(1–2), 1–98.
Wells, D. (2006). A framework for student learning in manufacturing engineering. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education.
Whitin, D. (2009). Why are things shaped the way they are? Teaching Children Mathematics, 15(4), 464-472.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Manufacturing Technologies
18
Materials
November 15, 2010
Materials
Concept and Skill Progression for Materials
The study of materials centers on two core ideas: micro-level structures explain macro-level properties and an understanding of processing and use of materials. Students must
have a clear understanding of atomic bonding by high school to successfully grasp these core ideas.
NARRATIVE STORYLINE
Initial Ideas
NA
Conceptual Stepping Stones
Elementary school students can identify basic characteristics and properties of metals, polymers, and ceramics. They can predict and explain uses for objects from each of the three
families of materials and predict how processing these materials might be similar or different based on their properties.
Middle school students can explain characteristics and predict properties (stiffness, strength, ductility, hardness, thermal conductivity, electrical conductivity, melting temperature) of
metals, polymers, ceramics. They can predict which types of materials would be best suited for different applications and are able to identify these materials in “real world” situations.
Culminating Scientific ideas
High school students understand micro-level structures and can use them to explain and predict macro-level properties and phenomena. Understanding of materials is integrated and
coordinated with content taught in natural sciences.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Materials
19
Materials
Lower Anchor
Reflective of student concepts
November 15, 2010
Materials
Upper Anchor
Reflective of science concepts
Reconceptualization
CONCEPT & SKILL DETAILS
Initial Ideas
Conceptual Stepping Stones1
Culminating Scientific Ideas2
Before instruction, students often believe
and can:
Students who view the world in this way believe and can:
Students who fully understand this topic believe and
can:
Prior to instruction
By the end of elementary (gr. 5)
Middle school
High school
Micro-level structures explain
macro-level properties
Micro-level structures explain
macro-level properties
Micro-level structures explain
macro-level properties
Micro-level structures explain
macro-level properties
(link to chemistry)
Processing and use of materials
(link to manufacturing technologies)
Students can describe characteristics and
properties of three families of materials:
metals, polymers, and ceramics.
Students can explain characteristics and
properties of metals, polymers, and
ceramics.
Students can identify, explain, and predict
characteristics and properties of three families
of materials: metals, polymers, and ceramics.
Students are able to predict and explain
uses for objects made from each of the
three families of materials.
Students can predict and explain
properties of the three families of
materials: stiffness, strength, ductility,
hardness, thermal conductivity, electrical
conductivity, and melting temperature.
Students can identify which primary and
secondary atomic bonds exist in the three
different families of materials, and understand
how each of these bonds affect material
properties.
Processing and use of materials
Processing and use of materials
Students can predict how processing
materials from each of the three families
might be similar or different based on
their properties.
Students can predict which types of
materials would be best suited for
different applications.
Students are able to identify these
materials in “real world” situations and
discuss why a particular material was
probably chosen for a certain application
(e.g., why plates are made of ceramics, or
why we use polymers for tires, etc).
Processing and use of materials
Students understand how bonding type may
predict how a material is processed.
Students are able to interpret and
conceptualize graphs related to material
properties (extension vs. load-as for a rubber
band, stiffness vs. melting temperature-as for
metals, etc)
Grades
Pre-instruction
By the end of elementary (gr. 5)
Middle school
High school
Key Vocabulary
Characteristic, property, material, metal,
polymer, ceramic, processing
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Stiffness, strength, ductility, hardness,
thermal conductivity, electrical
conductivity, melting temperature
Atomic bond
Materials
20
Materials
November 15, 2010
Materials
Notes
(1) Stepping stones for these ideas are hypotheses; there is little research on this topic.
(2) Students typically enter college with a number of misconceptions about bonding in materials. See table below from: Kelly, J., Heinert, K., Triplett, J., Baker, D., & Krause, S.
(submitted for 2010). Uncovering atomic bonding misconceptions with multimodal topical module assessments of student understanding in an introductory materials course.
Accepted Pending Changes for 2010 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.
Category (Excluding Null Categories)
Bonding
Incorrect Constituents Category
Magnetic Attraction
Crystal Structures
Incorrect Configuration
Extra and/or Missing Atom(s)
Deformation
Incorrect Bond Behavior
Incorrect Atom Behavior
Grain Boundaries Change
Phase Change
Crystal Structure
Polymers
Polymer Chains Stretch
Incorrect Bond or Atom
Behavior
Misconceptions Present in Category
 Incorrect classification of elements involved in bond
 Caused by or create magnetic “reactions”
 Atoms touching when should not;
 Atoms not touching when should
 Extra atoms are in unit cell;
 Atoms are missing from unit cell
 Bonds weaken; Bonds damaged;
 Confusing macroscopic stretching with microscopic stretching;
 Bonds slipping
 Atoms shift;
 Atoms separate;
 Atoms rub,
 Create heat;
 Atoms get closer to each other
 Increased size;
 New boundaries form;
 Shifting along the boundary
 Phase change;
 Phase transformation
 Forced from crystalline structure;
 Crystal structure breaks
 Chains stretch;
 Chains elongate;
 Intermolecular bonds stretch;
 Van der Waals are cross linked;
 Van der Waals are flexible;
 Covalent bonds are weak;
 Atoms get softer;
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Materials
21
Materials
November 15, 2010
Materials
 Atoms become brittle;
 Atoms snap;
 Secondary bonds are strong
Electrical Properties
Impurities and Conductivity
Dislocation and Grain Boundary
Atomic Scale
 Conductivity with addition of more higher conductivity metal;
 Arsenic is not conductive;
 Conductivity of As changes overall conductivity;
 Group V elements decrease conductivity
 Dislocations form;
 Grain boundaries reduce in size and reduces conductivity;
 Impurities bend grains
 Atom size effects conductivity
Authors and Reviewers
Dr. Jacquelyn Kelly and Dr. Steve Krause, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, Arizona State University, Arizona (authors)
References
Kelly, J. (2009). Using multimodal expressions of student mental models of atomic bonding to promote conceptual change in materials science, unpublished Master’s thesis, Ira. A
Fulton College of Engineering, Arizona State University.
Kelly, J., Corkins, J., Baker, D., Tasooji, A., & Krause, S. (2009). Using Concept-Building Context Modules with Technology and 5E Pedagogy to Promote Conceptual Change in
Materials Science. ASEE 2010 Annual Conference Proceedings.
Kelly, J., Heinert, K., Triplett, J., Baker, D., & Krause, S. (submitted for 2010). Uncovering atomic bonding misconceptions with multimodal topical module assessments of
student understanding in an introductory materials course. Submitted and Accepted Pending Changes for 2010 ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.
Krause, S. (2007). Assessing Conceptual Transfer of Phase Behavior from the Domain of Chemistry to the Domain of Materials Engineering. International Conference on
Research in Engineering Education.
Krause, S. (2008). Effect of Pedagogy on Learning by Conceptual Change for Deformation-Processing Misconceptions in Structure-Property Relationships in Materials
Engineering Classes. 2nd Research in Engineering Education International Conference.
Krause, S. and Tasooji, A. (2007). Diagnosing students' misconceptions on solubility and saturation for understanding of phase diagrams, American Society for Engineering
Education Annual Conference Proceedings, on CD.
Krause, S., Decker, J., Niska, J., & Alford, T., & Griffin, R. (2003). Identifying student misconceptions in introductory materials engineering courses. 2003 ASEE Annual
Conference Proceedings, 732-740
Krause, S., Kelly, J., Corkins, J., and Tasooji, A. (2009). The Role of Prior Knowledge on the Origin and Repair of Misconceptions in an Introductory Class on Materials Science
and Engineering. 3rd Research in Engineering Education International Conference.
Krause, S., Kelly, J., Corkins, J., Tasooji, A., and Purzer, S. (2009) Using Students' Previous Experience and Prior Knowledge to Facilitate Conceptual Change in an Introductory
Materials Course. Frontiers in Education Annual Conference.
Krause, S., Kelly, J., Tasooji, A., Corkins, J., Baker, D., Purzer, S. (2010). Effect of pedagogy on conceptual change in an introductory materials science course. Manuscript
accepted for publication in International Journal of Engineering Education.
Purzer, S., Krause, S., and Kelly, J. (2009). What Lies Beneath the Materials Science and Engineering Misconceptions of Undergraduate Students? Paper 2009-759, ASEE Annual
Conference Proceedings.
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Materials
22