SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1

An Investigation of the Effects of Design-Based Science Education on the Technological Problem-Solving Skills of Seventh-Grade Middle School Students

Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitiminin Ortaokul 7.Sınıf Öğrencilerinin Teknolojik Problem Çözme Becerilerine Yansımalarının İncelenmesi

Yeliz Subaşı(milli eğitim bakanlığı)0000-0002-9559-2840
Fatma Şahin(MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-6291-0013
Pages
18–47
Publication Date
2026-05-31
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In light of the findings, it was concluded that design-based science education positively contributed to various dimensions of students’ technological problem-solving skills, including problem identification, drawing/designing solution proposals, applying and improving technologies, selecting and using appropriate materials, evaluating the design, and incorporating aesthetic elements into the design.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Abstract The aim of this study is to examine the effect of design-based science education on the technological problem-solving skills of seventh-grade middle school students.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Instructional content was developed in accordance with design-based science education principles, and the implementation was carried out over a period of 15 weeks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In light of the findings, it was concluded that design-based science education positively contributed to various dimensions of students’ technological problem-solving skills, including problem identification, drawing/designing solution proposals, applying and improving technologies, selecting and using appropriate materials, evaluating the design, and incorporating aesthetic elements into the design.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Tasarım Temelli Fen Eğitimi · Teknolojik Problem Çözme · Mühendislik

Abstract

Abstract The aim of this study is to examine the effect of design-based science education on the technological problem-solving skills of seventh-grade middle school students. Instructional content was developed in accordance with design-based science education principles, and the implementation was carried out over a period of 15 weeks. A convergent parallel design, one of the mixed-methods research approaches, was employed in the study. Quantitative (test scores) and qualitative (in-depth analysis) data were collected concurrently and subsequently compared and interpreted together. In order to enable an in-depth analysis of the data, three students with differing levels of academic achievement were selected as the study group. As a data collection tool, the Technological Problem-Solving Skills Performance Assessment Instrument developed by the researcher was utilized. The data were analyzed using a rubric also developed by the researcher. The total post-test scores of all students on technological problem-solving skills showed an increase. In light of the findings, it was concluded that design-based science education positively contributed to various dimensions of students’ technological problem-solving skills, including problem identification, drawing/designing solution proposals, applying and improving technologies, selecting and using appropriate materials, evaluating the design, and incorporating aesthetic elements into the design. Furthermore, it was observed that, by the end of the implementation, students produced more detailed designs, included working principles in their designs, and placed greater emphasis on aesthetics. It was also found that students generated more creative and diverse solutions in ill-structured problems compared to well-structured problems.

Özet

BBu çalışmanın amacı, tasarım temelli fen eğitiminin ortaokul 7. Sınıf öğrencilerinin teknolojik problem çözme becerilerini nasıl etkilediğini incelemektir. Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi doğrultusunda ders içeriği hazırlanarak 15 hafta boyunca uygulama yapılmıştır. Araştırmada karma yöntem araştırma yaklaşımlarından yakınsayan paralel desen kullanılmıştır. Araştırmada nicel (test puanları) ve nitel (derinlemesine inceleme) veriler aynı süreçte toplanmış ve sonrasında bu iki veri türü birlikte karşılaştırılıp yorumlanmıştır. Verilerin derinlemesine incelenmesi adına farklı akademik başarılarda olan üç öğrenci çalışma grubunu oluşturmaktadır. Veri toplama aracı olarak araştırmacının geliştirdiği Teknolojik Problem Çözme Becerileri Performans Değerlendirme Aracı kullanılmıştır. Araştırmacının geliştirdiği rubrik ile veriler analiz edilmiştir. Tüm öğrencilerin Teknolojik Problem Çözme Becerileri son testinden aldıkları toplam puanlar artış göstermiştir Araştırmadan elde edilen bulgular ışığında tasarım temelli fen eğitiminin öğrencilerin teknolojik problem çözme becerilerinden problemi tanımlama, çözüm önerilerinin çizimi, teknolojileri uygulayabilme ve geliştirebilme, uygun malzemelerin seçimi ve kullanımı, tasarımın değerlendirilmesi, tasarıma estetik katkı basamaklarına olumlu katkı sağladığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Öğrencilerin uygulama sonunda tasarımlarını daha detaylı yaptıkları ve tasarımlarında çalışma prensiplerine yer verdikleri ve estetiğe önem verdikleri görülmüştür. Öğrencilerin iyi yapılandırılmamış problemlerde iyi yapılandırılmış problemlere göre daha yaratıcı ve birbirinden farklı çözümler ürettikleri görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

Subaşı, Y., Şahin, F. (2026). An Investigation of the Effects of Design-Based Science Education on the Technological Problem-Solving Skills of Seventh-Grade Middle School Students. Türkiye Bilimsel Araştırmalar Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 1, 18–47. https://ajindex.com/articles/1603491

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (58)

  1. 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), 454465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9752-0
  2. Barak, M. (2020). Problem project and design-based learning: Their relationship to teaching science, technology, and engineering in school. Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 7(2), 94-97. https://doi.org/10.24313/jpbl.2020.00227
  3. Barak, M., & Zadok, Y. (2009). Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology, and problem solving. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 19, 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-007-9043-3
  4. Baynes, K. (1994). Designerly play. Loughborough University of Technology.
  5. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3-4), 369-398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
  6. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2
  7. Burghardt, M. D., & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. Technology Teacher, 64(1), 6-8.
  8. Büyüköztürk, Ş., Kılıç Çakmak, E., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2011). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Pegem.
  9. Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., Mena, I., & Weller, J. (2011). What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(2), 304-328. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00015.x
  10. Chiapetta, E. L., Koballa, T. R. Jr., & Collette, A. T. (2002). Science instruction in the middle and secondary schools (5th ed.). Prentice-Hall.
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (1st ed.). Sage Publications Ltd.
  12. Crismond, D. (2013). Troubleshooting: A bridge that connects engineering design and scientific inquiry. Science Scope, 36, 74-79.
  13. Custer, R. L. (1999). Design and problem solving in technology education. National Association of Secondary School Principals, 83(608), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659908360803
  14. Custer, R. L., Valesey, B. G., & Burke, B. N. (2001). An assessment model for a design approach to technological problem solving. Journal of Technology Education, 12(2). https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v12i2.a.1
  15. Dare, E., Ellis, J., & Roehrig, G. (2018). Understanding science teachers’ implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z
  16. Daugherty, J. (2012). Infusing engineering concepts: Teaching engineering design. National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537384.pdf
  17. Davis, G. A., & Colangelo, N. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of gifted education. Allyn and Bacon.
  18. Ercan, S. (2014). Fen eğitiminde mühendislik uygulamalarının kullanımı: Tasarım temelli fen eğitimi (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marmara Üniversitesi, İstanbul, Turkey.
  19. Eshach, H. (2006). Science literacy in primary schools and pre-schools. Springer.
  20. Esch, C. (2000). Project-based and problem-based learning: The same or different? Retrieved from http://pblmm.k12.ca.us/PBLGuide/Pbl&Pbl.htm
  21. Fan, S., & Yu, K. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27, 107-129.
  22. Fang, R. J., Teng, C. C., & Chen, C. C. (2007). How Taiwanese and Americans think about technology. Journal of Technology Education, 18(2), 7-23.
  23. Felix, A. L. (2010). Design-based science for STEM student recruitment and teacher professional development. Mid-Atlantic ASEE Conference, Villanova University.
  24. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690500038165
  25. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., & Marx, R. W. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040
  26. Gerber, E. (2010). Learning to waste and wasting to learn? How to use cradle to cradle principles to improve the teaching of design. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(2), 314-323.
  27. Halfin, H. H. (1973). Technology: A process approach (Doctoral dissertation). West Virginia University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 11(1), 1111A.
  28. Hill, R. B., & Wicklein, R. C. (1999). A factor analysis of primary mental processes for technological problem-solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(2), 83-100.
  29. Hancock, R. D., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Doing case study research. Teachers College Press.
  30. Hu, S. J. (2013). Evolving paradigms of manufacturing: From mass production to mass customization and personalization. Procedia CIRP, 7, 3-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2013.05.002
  31. Hutchinson, J., & Hutchinson, P. (1991). Process-based technology education. The Technology Teacher, 50(8), 3-7.
  32. Hutchinson, J., & Karsnitz, J. (1994). Design and problem-solving in technology. Delmar Publishers.
  33. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-004-0003-0
  34. International Technology Education Association (ITEA/ITEEA). (2000/2002/2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Author.
  35. INTEL. (2004). Proje tabanlı öğrenmenin gücünden faydalanmak. http://www.intel.com/corporate/education/emea/tur/elem_sec/tools_resources/plans/harness.htm (Ekim 2023’te alınmıştır)
  36. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technology literacy [executive summary]. Retrieved September 10, 2006, from http://www.iteaconnect.org/
  37. Joseph, D. (2004). The practice of design-based research: Uncovering the interplay between design, research, and the real-world context. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 235–242. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3904_5
  38. Kang, N.-H. (2019). A review of the effect of integrated STEM or STEAM (science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics) education in South Korea. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 5(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-019-0034-y
  39. Kelly, G. J., & Cunningham, C. M. (2019). Epistemic tools in engineering design for K‐12 education. Science Education, 103(4), 1080-1111. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21513
  40. Kelly, A. E. (2014). Design-based research in engineering education. In Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 497–518). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139013451.032
  41. Kennedy, T. J., & Odell, M. R. L. (2014). Engaging students in STEM education. Science Education International, 25(3), 246-258.
  42. Kim, G.-H. (2019). A learning model for software coding education. Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 67-75. https://doi.org/10.24313/jpbl.2019.00164
  43. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3). http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v39n3/Wendell
  44. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: Putting learning by DesignTM into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
  45. Leonard, M., & Derry, S. (2011). "What’s the science behind it?" The interaction of engineering and science goals, knowledge, and practices in a design-based science activity (WCER Working Paper No. 2011-5). University of Wisconsin–Madison.
  46. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20111
  47. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2013). The constructivist credo. Left Coast Press.
  48. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı (MEB). (2024). Türkiye Yüzyılı Maarif Modeli Öğretim Programları Ortak Metni. https://mufredat.meb.gov.tr/
  49. Mehalik, M., Doppelt, Y., & Schunn, 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), 1-15.
  50. Merriam, S. B. (2013). Nitel araştırma: Desen ve uygulama için bir rehber (S. Turan, Çev.). Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.
  51. Mettas, A., & Constantinou, C. (2006). The development of optimisation decision-making skills within the area of technology education through a technology fair [Paper presentation]. International Research Conference 2006, Telford, England.
  52. Middleton, J., Gorard, S., Taylor, C., & Bannan-Ritland, B. (2008). The “compleat” design experiment: From soup to nuts. In Kelly, A. E., Lesh, R. A., & Baek, J. Y. (Eds.), Handbook of design research methods in education: Innovations in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics learning and teaching (pp. 21–46). New York, NY: Routledge.
  53. Milbourne, J., & Wiebe, E. (2018). The role of content knowledge in ill-structured problem solving for high school physics students. Research in Science Education, 48(5), 165–179. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9564-4
  54. NAE & NRC. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. National Academies Press.
  55. National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
  56. Nickerson, R. S. (1994). The teaching of thinking and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving (pp. 409–449). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-057299-4.50019-0
  57. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2018). The future of education and skills education 2030. https://www.oecd.org/education/20/E2030%20Position%20Paper%20(05.04.2018).pdf
  58. Osborne, J., Rafanelli, S., & Kind, P. (2018). Toward a more coherent model for science education than the crosscutting concepts of the next generation science standards: The affordances of styles of reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 962–981. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21460