Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2005 ( C© 2005)DOI: 10.1007/s10956-005-2736-z

Engaging Inner City Students in Learning ThroughDesigning Remote Operated Vehicles

Michael Barnett1,2

For the past year we have been developing and implementing a program in which studentsdesign and construct remote operated vehicles. In this paper, we report on a pilot study thatoccurred over the course of an academic year in an inner city high school. Specifically, wehave been investigating whether students learn meaningful science content through designactivities. Through our teaching experiment methodological stance and analysis we foundthat (1) student attendance and engagement increased, (2) students learned physics contentand recognized connections to their other coursework (3) teachers adopted an “organizedchaos” posture and shifted their role from one of discipline keeper and content gatekeeperto one of coach and facilitator, (4) design projects need to be modularized if they are to beeffective urban classrooms, and (5) teachers need to balance the tradeoffs between allowingstudents to develop aesthetically pleasing designs versus learning content and creating designsthat are functional and useable.

KEY WORDS: urban education; learning by designing; engineering education; engagement.

INTRODUCTION

Students in urban schools have often beendenied access to high-quality opportunities forlearning science (Tate, 2001). The research on urbanschool science has revealed that high quality urbanscience teaching is often seriously compromised byteachers teaching out of field, insufficient materialsand supplies, and lack of a structure to supportinnovative teaching practices (Barton, 1998). Thisset of affairs, in turn, leads to poor achievement asdocumented by Teel et al. (1998) where they foundthat “one of the most important causes of AfricanAmerican students’ low achievement in school isinappropriate teaching strategies.” Thus, it is notsurprising that there is a growing recognition thatone constituent of the science education reform

1Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Teacher Education,and Special Education, Lynch School of Education, Boston Col-lege, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at 140 Com-monwealth Avenue, Lynch School of Education, Room 123,Boston College, Chestnut Hill 024467, Massachusetts; e-mail:barnetge@bc.edu

process must be a sustained effort toward makingthe study of science more interesting and accessibleto urban students (Jones, 1997). With the explicitgoal of engaging urban students in learning sciencethrough design we have been developing and im-plementing a program in which students design andconstruct remote operated vehicles. In this proposal,we report on a pilot study that occurred over thecourse of an academic year in an inner city highschool. Specifically, we have been investigating(1) do students learn meaningful science contentthrough design activities, (2) the logistical challengesof implementing design-activities in inner city urbanhigh schools, and (3) student and teacher perceptionsof learning through design activities.

BACKGROUND: SCIENTIFIC PRACTICEAS DESIGN

Science instruction has been focused, for themost part, toward the teaching of compartmental-ized skills hidden behind the veil of the scientificmethod (Penner et al., 1998). For example, most

87

1059-0145/05/0300-0087/0 C© 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

88 Barnett

science textbooks provide a set of linear steps (form ahypothesis, conduct an experiment, evaluate results,and draw conclusions) that if followed will lead to thecreation of new knowledge or a scientific understand-ing of a natural phenomenon (Penner et al., 1998).In many secondary science curricula students are as-signed problems in which just enough informationis given to solve the problem. However, these typesof exercises can leave students with the faulty per-ception that scientists work by a textbook approachof simply progressing from known givens (facts anddata) to universally accepted truths (Jungck et al.,1992). In contrast to this view is a growing base of re-search that portrays science and the scientific processas a design process in which understanding of nat-ural phenomenon emerges and co-evolves throughscientific discourse, open-ended problem solving, in-quiry, and the design and construction of share-able artifacts (Pappert, 1991; Peterson et al., 1987;Roth, 1996). These conceptions are consistent withthe notion of science as a design activity in thatscientific investigations typically begin with a set ofgoals and hypotheses concerning what the investiga-tor hopes to eventually understand (Peterson et al.,1987). These goals influence and co-evolve with thedesign/scientific process because they are often ill-defined and uncertain by nature (Jungck et al., 1992;Perkins, 1986).

Viewing science practice from a designing tolearn perspective opens many exciting opportunitiesfor learning. For example, when students are im-mersed in collaborative design activities that requirethem to define the nature of a problem they engage inopen-ended problem solving that eventually leads tothe resolution of that problem with the constructionof a shareable artifact (Pappert, 1991; Roth, 1996).Additionally, practicing the design aspect of sciencein the classroom affords opportunities for students toengage in problem-solving activities that are authen-tic to the discipline, and forces students to grapplewith the task of analyzing the content under studyand develop mechanisms to represent it to someonein such a way as to help them to understand the con-tent (Harel and Papert, 1992). In addition, as stu-dents solve design problems, they come to under-stand how knowledge is structured and interwovenwith purpose, function, and causal relations (Perkins,1986). Design places students squarely in the pro-cess of constructing rather than receiving knowledgeand initiates students into the discourse that typifiescommunities of practice in science and engineering(Roth, 1996).

To date a number of educational researchprojects have focused their attention on engagingstudents in the design process (Davis et al., 1997;Hmelo et al., 2000; Penner et al., 1998; Sadler et al.,2000). These researchers argue that design is impor-tant in almost all fields of human activity and thusimportant for students to learn. Unfortunately, theill-structured nature of design activities has provenproblematic for implementation in under-resourcedurban classrooms and for the most part learningby design activities have been relegated to resourcerich, demonstration sites (Roth, 1996; Roth et al.,2001), elementary settings where time constraints areless demanding than high school settings (Penneret al., 1998; Roth et al., 2001), in out-of-school set-tings (Davis et al., 1997), or as a part of fundeduniversity-sponsored initiatives (Hmelo et al., 2000;Sadler et al., 2000). To date, little research has beenexamining how design-oriented learning activitiesplay out in under-resourced urban high school sci-ence classrooms. It is the goal of this paper to doc-ument and explore the challenges, successes, andimpacts of design-oriented learning activities in anurban setting.

STUDY CONTEXT

This study occurred during an academic yearin an inner city urban High School, Chamberlain.Chamberlain High is classified as a school-within-a-school in that occupies the third floor of a schoolbuilding that formerly housed a single High School.Chamberlain High has roughly 350 students enrolledat any given time and like most other inner city ur-ban high schools many of its students are consid-ered at risk for school drop out, unemployment afterhigh school and adult life poverty due to factors in-cluding low academic achievement, minority status,and being a parenting teen (Odyssey High School,2003). For instance, at Chamberlain, at least 14% ofthe students are single parents with young childrenof their own. Over 85% of the students are fromracial/ethnic minority backgrounds; 13% speak En-glish as a second language; 20% of the students havedisabilities; and all students are from low-incomefamilies and 28% live in Boston’s federally desig-nated empowerment zone neighborhoods, areas con-sidered to be the most impoverished with the highestrate of unemployed adults and the lowest rate of res-idents with high school diplomas (Chamberlain HighSchool, 2003).

Learning Through Design in Urban Settings 89

Three ninth grade teachers (one physics, onemath, one special education) participated in theROV project. Each teacher has been teaching in ur-ban schools for 30, 29, and 31 years respectively. Theprimary reasons that these three teachers decidedto participate was because they felt that the ROVproject could be a way to get the students excitedand interested in school. This sentiment was best ex-pressed by Mr. Wilson the ninth grade math teacher:

Every year it is the same thing. I would love to find aproject that gets the kids really excited you know.I’m reaching retirement and I have tried a lot ofthings. This might finally be the thing to get themexcited, at least it has me excited to try it.

The teachers chose to work on the ROV projectfor one hour per week on Friday afternoons. Theteachers specifically chose Friday afternoon becausestudent attendance was typically significantly loweron Friday so they hoped the ROV project would mo-tivate students to come to class and perhaps pro-vide a reason for some of the students to stay atChamberlain for the whole year. Chamberlain, likeother high schools in the district, has a high mobilityrate. This high mobility rate was evidenced through-out this project because 38 students began the Fallsemester in the three teachers classes with 35 begin-ning the Spring semester, but only 25 students re-mained throughout the entire year.

ROV Curriculum Project

The ROV curriculum was specifically designedfor the urban context in which there is a high mobil-ity rate, higher percentage of absentees, and a higherrate of students who are at risk for failure. Buildingon the work and recommendations of Hmelo et al.(2000) and Sadler et al. (2000) and the expertise ofthe three teachers the ROV project was chosen be-cause (1) was modularized so a student could en-ter the project at any time and immediately work onhis/her teams ROV. For example, a student who mayhave missed the first term would not have partici-pated in the design and construction of the frame ofthe ROV but could immediately work on the wiringof the motors and identifying locations of the frameto optimize the ROV speed and maneuverability, (2)engaged students in a project that connected whatstudents were learning in their physics classes, (3)could be implemented over a longer time scale thatwould provide students plenty of time to learn how

to use the necessary construction tools such as powerdrills and soldering irons, and (4) students wouldbe able to quickly evaluate their ROV designs andevaluate whether their designs were stable and func-tional. Rather than providing the students with allthe materials to begin their project the students wereprovided with a set of materials to begin construc-tion of the frames of their ROV and as the studentsbuilt their ROV the teachers provided the studentswith additional materials such as wiring equipmentand motors when they were needed. The distributionof materials in this incremental manner helped to fo-cus the students’ attention on particular aspects oftheir ROV (ensuring that the frame was stable be-fore attaching motors or other equipment). This ap-proach also helped to prevent the students from feel-ing overwhelmed at the magnitude of their designtask because they could focus on smaller aspects ofthe project rather than thinking about the design oftheir entire ROV.

The teachers also choose not to grade theproject, but rather had the students present theirwork to each other at the end of the school year. Thedecision to not grade the project was in part based onthe teachers’ resignation that grades did not matterto the students as noted by the follow excerpt froman early planning meeting:

I don’t think we should grade this. 90% of the kidsin my class failed 8th grade but they passed them onanyway [showing the grade book to the other teach-ers and to the researcher]. So grades don’t mean a lotto them and it won’t this year either. In fact it neverhas. So lets see what happens if we don’t grade them.

Lastly, the students worked in groups of three tofour with new students joining groups who had lostmembers throughout the year.

METHODS

Data Collection

The guiding framework for this study isgrounded in the emerging methodology of teach-ing experiments (Cobb, 2000; Lesh and Kelly, 2000).Therefore, data were collected through multiplesources, including classroom observations, interviewswith a randomly selected set of students, informaland formal discussions with the participating teach-ers, and researcher generated field notes. Followingevery class at least one teacher was debriefed abouttheir perceptions of the project with a particular

90 Barnett

emphasis on what they felt was successful about theproject and what aspects of the ROV project the stu-dents were struggling with. To measure student con-tent understanding we examined the results of thedistrict final physics exams (in Chamberlain districtall ninth grade students take physics) of participat-ing ROV students and compared the ROV students’scores with the ninth grade set of students (N = 42at the time of the test) who did not participate. Wealso administered a pre–post written test, consistingof four open-ended questions, to the students par-ticipating in the ROV project that asked them toexplain some central physics aspects regarding thephysics of ROVs (i.e. floating, thrust, and density).Due to time and other constraints within the schoolwe were unable to pre–post test any comparisonclasses.

Data Analysis

An interpretive approach was used to ana-lyze the various data sources (Denzin, 2000; To-bin, 2000). The extensive data collected throughoutthe year provided an in-depth picture of how theROV project unfolded over time and the difficul-ties and successes that the students and teachers ex-perienced. In accordance with teaching experimentmethodological guidelines, considerable data analy-sis occurred throughout the data collection process(Cobb, 2000). That is, field notes were taken dur-ing classroom observations and shortly after the classinitial conjectural codes were ascribed to the fieldnotes. These codes became the basis of emerging hy-potheses that were either confirmed or proven incor-rect through additional observations and interviewswith the students and teachers. At the conclusion ofthe data collection process a retrospective analysiswas undertaken (Cobb, 2000). The primary aim ofthis analysis was to place classroom events within abroader context thereby framing them in such a wayas to illuminate the aspects of the ROV project thatwas successful and those aspects that were in need ofimprovement. This retrospective analysis was accom-plished through a re-reading of the field notes andnotes from student and teacher interviews. Lastly,each teacher was asked to read a previous version ofthe manuscript and provide comments. Of the threeteachers only one returned the manuscript but didnot suggest any major changes or additions and gen-erally felt that the study as presented adequately cap-tured the events of the year.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

In this section we present our findings and pro-vide brief commentary on our findings. In short, wefound that by providing urban high school studentsthe opportunity to build and design an ROV (1) stu-dent attendance increased, (2) students engaged inscientifically relevant and rich conversations, (3) stu-dents took ownership over the project, (4) imple-menting the design project required significant timeand effort, and (5) students, initially, often focusedon duplicating and making an aesthetically pleasingROV rather than examining their designs for usabil-ity and functionality.

Attendance and Engagement

One measure of school engagement is to simplylook at student attendance levels (National ResearchCouncil, 2004). Unfortunately at Chamberlain HighSchool attendance typically ranges from 50 to 80%depending on day of the week and the time of day.In fact, as the school day progresses more and morestudents choose to leave school which typically leadsto an attendance rate on average of around 50% inafternoon classes (Chamberlain High School, 2003).However, as the ROV project progressed attendancerates of students in the ROV classes increased dra-matically when compared to students in the otherninth grade classes (see Fig. 1). It is possible that thiseffect was caused by the novelty of the ROV project;however, we believe that this attendance effect wasmore than simply due to the novelty of the ROVproject. Specifically, we believe that if the effect wassimply due to the novelty the attendance rates wouldnot have continued to increase as the year progressedin relation to the comparison class. Further, upon in-terviewing the students we believe this increased at-tendance rate was due more to the ownership and au-thenticity of the project rather than the novel aspectsof project. This later point is illustrated by the follow-ing interview excerpt:

Interviewer: Why did you start to coming to class?Student: Well, to be honest, this is really the only

class I attend. No wait. Let me rephrasethat [laughing]. This is the only classthat I care about coming to.

Interviewer: Why this class?Student: Well, we are not just reading out of

a book. We are doing something. This

Learning Through Design in Urban Settings 91

Fig. 1. Attendance patterns ROV vs. comparison group.

was the first time where I felt I was do-ing something, you know. It was kindafun.

Interviewer: Do you feel like you learned anything?Student: I learned how to use the equipment. I

never had used a drill before or a sol-dered anything, or used those wire cut-ting things [wire strippers] You know,this was like stuff I could use later. Youknow I want to go to ITT [a local vo-cational college] and learn about be-ing an electrician. This helps me a lotmore than anything else I have donethis year.

Interviewer: Anything else?Student: Yea, I guess that physics stuff we were

doing in class [laughing]. We studiedfloating, sinking, density, force and allthat stuff. Mr. Watson helped us a lotabout what it all meant.

Interviewer: Did you like working and building yourROV?

Student: I didn’t at first, as I thought it was justanother thing to keep us busy. Youknow teachers are good at that, but thiswas different.

For the students in this study, as with other ur-ban students, the initial reaction to school or text-book based problems is that they are either irrele-vant or that they will not be able to do it. In designingtheir ROVs students were not grappling with a text-book problem but rather a real problem from theirperspective and as such began to take personal own-ership of the design and construction of their ROV.It was this shift from “teacher-owned” problem (i.e.

textbook driven) to “student-owned” problem thatfostered much of the excitement and enjoyment thestudents had around the project.

Developing and Connecting Content Understanding

Our analysis of the district final physics exam re-vealed no significant differences on the final exambetween the ROV class and the other ninth gradestudents at Chamberlain High. However, students inthe ROV design project did demonstrate a richer un-derstanding of the physics underlying the functionof their ROVs on our pre–post measures. Using arubric scaled from one to four with one represent-ing no conception and a four representing a completeunderstanding we found students ability to explainthe physics behind the functioning of their ROV im-proved significantly from the pre-test to the post-test(see Table I). This result was not surprising consid-ering that the students’ content knowledge prior tothe project was quite low. Yet, these results providedus with confidence that the time spent on the ROVproject was valuable in terms of supporting studentunderstanding of physics. In particular, we found thatthe students were able to make direct connectionsbetween their ROV work and the material they werelearning in their physics class. This is illustrated in thefollowing pre–post student responses for example, onthe pre-test Jacob, a student who attended the entireyear, noted in response to question 4:

They [submarines or ROVs] sink because they areheavy. Heavy things sink and light things float. Theyuse their propellers to go up and down as well orelse they would never be able to surface like in themovies.

92 Barnett

Table I. Student Scores on Pre–Post Test

Questions Pre (average) Post (average) t-value

1. Draw the forces that are acting on your ROV when it 0.7 3.0 5.2∗is underwater

2. What will happen to your ROV’s acceleration when it 1.0 2.8 4.4∗feels continuous push from behind?

3. Explain why your ROV floated or sunk? 0.5 3.5 6.1∗4. Why do you think submarines can stay under water 0.5 3.1 5.8∗

despite being so heavy?

∗p < 0.01.

From this excerpt, Jacob, has a common misconcep-tion that the reason that some objects sink is becausethey are simply heavy. He does draw on some infor-mation that he had seen from watching movies (inhis English class he was reading The Hunt for RedOctober and had recently watched the movie). How-ever, on the post-test his explanation was much moresophisticated:

The object sinks because of the density of the object.Just like on our sub. We put the floats on the top ofthe submarine because they were filled with air. Airis less dense than water so the sub will float. Evenwith the holes in our sub it just filled the sides withwater which made it the same density as the waterso it still didn’t sink. That was why we had to put thepropeller in the middle to force the sub down and tohelp come back up again.

In Jacob’s physics he had conducted the classicexperiment of dropping objects with different den-sity in water and observing which ones floated. Ananalysis of Jacob’s final district physics exam, how-ever, revealed that he had missed the question thatwas related to density. Following up with Jacob, weshowed him the question: Imagine that you had fourobjects that were in the shape of sphere. Each objecthas a different density with Object A at 0.6 g/cm3,Object B at 0.2 g/cm3, Object C at 1.3 g/cm3 andObject D at 0.1 g/cm3. Which object will float whenplaced in water? Jacob re-read the question and thenwe discussed his ideas. He struggled to answer thisquestion and soon became frustrated exerting, “Whoreally cares which sphere float! This is just a bookquestion, doesn’t have anything to do with anything.”It was interesting to compare his response to this typ-ical textbook like question to his explanation on ourpost-exam. In essence, through the construction ofhis ROV, Jacob was able to make his own relevantconnections between the physics that he was sup-posed to be learning in his physics class and to hisROV because he needed to understand the underly-

ing physics to describe to someone else how his ROVworks.

Another major aspect of the ROV project thatsupported student discussion and enabled studentsto make connections between physics principles andtheir ROV project was the angular placement of theROV motors. The primary issue was whether the tworear motors should be placed with their propellersfacing directly away or whether they should be an-gled and point outward from their ROV. Each de-sign has significant implications regarding the speedand the ability of the ROV to maneuver. Two groups(Team 1: Andre, Tina, Sharra and Team 2: Dom,Rick, Kim) had reached the point of placing theirmotors on their ROV at nearly the same time. Whatfollows is an excerpt from the discussion between thetwo groups after they as teams had been arguing overwhere to place their motors:

Andre (1): I think we put them on so they point di-rectly back, because that way they willgive the ROV the most push forward.

Rick (2): [Nodding], How fast do these go? Willgo they really fast? Too fast to makethem turn.

Tina (1): Theirs [pointing the teacher model] areboth ways. See that one has them point-ing away and that one has them at angle.

Sharra (1): Lets just ask them which way workedbest and get on with it. Do you know?[Directly asking the researcher]

Researcher: What do you think?Sharra (1): Come on, you’re not the teacher you

can tell us.Dom (2): I think Andre is right, you put then

pointing out. Right. We want this thingto go fast, right then both of fans willpushing in the same direction. Right. Itis just like your car, your car tires aren’tpointing the side when you go forward.So that must be it.

Learning Through Design in Urban Settings 93

Kim (2): [talking louder than the others] Yea,but you can turn your wheels on yourcar. These are going to be fasteneddown, so they won’t turn, so how arewe going to turn, maybe that is why theyput them at an angle.

Dom (2): No, it won’t go as fast. See. If you putthem this way [picking up the ROV andmoving his hands around demonstrat-ing which way the fan will push if oneputs the motors on at an angle] theywill push out to the side and only a partof their push is going to be pushing itforward.

Tina (1): [Interrupting Dom] That will make it alot easier to turn though, won’t it?

Dom (2): I don’t know, maybe . . .

Andre (1): Ok, I think you are right, but notsure. So how about this. We canput them on at the angle, and youput them on straight and see whathappens.

During the next three class periods the studentteams assembled their motor and propellers. Duringthat time the students did not discuss in any consider-able detail the reasons for their placement until theyreach the point of testing their ROVs. The initial test-ing primarily consisted of the students played aroundfor a while racing one another and attempting to outmaneuver one another. During the course of theirplay the students begin to notice some of the ram-ifications of their design decisions. The following isan excerpt taken from the students debriefing periodwith one of the teachers after they had a chance totest their ROVs:

Teacher: What did you notice about your ROVs?Sharra (1): Ours didn’t work so well. Well, it

worked, but just was running like ajunker. It did make turns well, but madethem in big loops, theirs did much better.

Teacher: Why?Dom (2): See it is like a boat. You know if you

have on oar [See Fig. 2 for Dom’s

Fig. 2. Dom’s drawings of his ideas about how his ROV works.

94 Barnett

drawing in his journal about his ideas].When we stopped this one [pointing tohis right motor] it became like we hadone oar. See all the push from this onemade it go in a circle really fast. Didn’thave anything to counter, so we whenwanted to go straight again turned thisone (the other motor) on again andboom, there we go!

Andre (1): I hate it when Dom is right.

This discussion continues for another 20 minwith the eventual resolution that neither team’s de-sign was wrong [though there was a great deal of ban-tering about which one was faster].

Teachers and Students as Facilitatorsof Content Understanding

In their role as facilitators the teachers wouldcontinuously ask the students probing questions suchas “why are you doing that?,” “Why did you putthat float there?,” “Why did you design the base tothe be that wide?,” and “Does that wiring look rightto you?” to push the students to continuously thinkabout and reflect on their ROV design. This instruc-tional strategy was valuable in encouraging reflectionand over time supported the students in moving awayfrom viewing their task as one of reproduction to oneof construction and design.

To design an ROV that is vertically stable un-derwater it is necessary for water to fill the outsidepiping (see Fig. 3). However, to do this it is necessaryto drill holes in the PVC piping to let the water fillthe piping. This counter-intuitive idea provided “thespark” according to the teachers that prompted the

Fig. 3. Student ROV construction in progress.

students to begin to take ownership over their de-signs. This is illustrated by the following discussionbetween a pair of students and one of the teachers.

Student 1: Ok, I see that this one has holes in it.Teacher: Yes it does. Why do you think it has

holes?Student 1: I was trying to figure that out. It doesn’t

make any sense to me.Student 2: We thought it was a mistake and that

this model is wrong. You know, it doesn’tmake any sense to put holes in sub.

Teacher: Yet, there they are anyway.Student 1: This one doesn’t work does it? Can’t work

with the holes in it!Teacher: Think about why there might be holes?

This discussion continues for a number of min-utes until the teacher takes the model ROV andplaces it in water and asks the students to observewhat happens. The following is an excerpt from thediscussion that ensued:

Student 2: When the water fills the pipes it makes itstay upright.

Student 1: Why put the holes in the first placethough, I don’t get it.

Teacher: What would happen if the holes were notthere? Would it sink, float, stay upright,turn sideways?

Student 2: Same thing. I don’t know!Teacher: Then try it.

The students try putting their current ROV inthe water. Much to their dismay their ROV wouldnot stay upright or sink into the water like the teach-ers’ had done [despite there best efforts to hold it un-der the water in an attempt to force it to stay down].The teacher left them alone to ponder the reasonsfor the holes in the model ROV for the remainder ofthe class. The next class the students returned withan idea concerning the reason for the holes in themodel ROV. They had determined that it was to in-crease the density of the ROV so that it would sinkand that the increased mass lowered the center ofgravity of the ROV to make the ROV more stable.The following is an excerpt from the discussion thetwo students had with one of the teachers:

Student 1: Ok, I think we have it, but not sure. Theholes are for increased stability and den-sity. Are we right?

Teacher: Maybe, why do you think that?

Learning Through Design in Urban Settings 95

Student 1: Well see, when you put in water withoutthe holes it falls over, but with holes itsinks down but it stays upright.

Teacher: Hmm, but why are the holes there?Student 1: Well, we were thinking. [Another student

yells out, yea more like guessing thanthinking!] From class you said that thereason race cars don’t flip over is becausethey are close to the ground. [The studentgrabs his physics book and points to thepage in the book about center of gravity]See so as the water fills the pipes it getsheavier so more dense so the center ofgravity is lower so it is more stable. So itdoesn’t flip when filled with water.

Student 2: We also think we can put the holes any-where in the pipe to. It doesn’t matterthat they are on the corners like yours.Just need that water to get in.

This set of data lends support to the argumentput forth by Roth et al. (2001) in which they sug-gest that the act of designing focuses student atten-tion on doing something rather than knowing some-thing, which changes the school learning context toa more natural condition that resembles learningsituations outside schools, learning on a “need-to-know” basis (p. 27). In particular, we found that theROV design project fostered what Crawford (2000)called “critical incidents”. Critical incidents (such asthe realization that their ROV has holes in it) aremoments within a class that are instrumental to au-thentic inquiry-based learning as it is during thosemoments that students and teachers are questioningand working together to solve a problem. In short,the ROV design activity provided students with op-portunities to naturally weave together skills, pro-cesses, and knowledge that are typically taught sepa-rately in the discrete subjects of traditional curricula,such as the relationship between the design of theROV and the concepts of density and center ofgravity.

Aesthetically Pleasing and DuplicationVersus Functionality

A critical tension when implementing design-oriented challenges in classrooms is ensuring that stu-dents are learning content rather than simply focus-ing on the aesthetics and structural components oftheir design (Hmelo et al., 2000). The initial reac-

tion of the students in this study was not dissimilarthan those reactions of students in other studies inwhich learning through design was the prime focus.The students in this study spent considerable timeearly in project to make their ROVs look aestheti-cally pleasing rather than taking into considerationthe functional aspects of their decisions. For exam-ple, within the supply cabinet a group of students dis-covered that there was painting supplies that couldbe used to improve the appearance of their ROV.On the theory, that painting their ROV would en-gage those students in an activity that might foster astronger sense of ownership over the design and con-struction of their ROV the teachers agreed that thepainting of the ROV was probably a good idea. Astime progressed many students became much morefocused on having their ROV appearing polished andwell painted rather than being functional. In fact,the students focus on aesthetics reduced their ef-fort on designing their ROV because (1) they knewhow to paint their ROV and (2) felt that they weremaking progress on their ROV. These sentimentswere expressed explicitly by in impromptu classinterview:

Researcher: Why are you spending so much timepainting your ROV?

Student 1: Make it look cool and we have nothingelse to do.

Researcher: What do you mean you have nothingelse to do?

Student 2: Well, you know, this started out cooland building it was cool, but, man wecan’t do that wiring part or that otherpart [student pointing to the solderingstations] don’t know how to do that.Plus, we can just wait here and wait forthe hour to go and get the out of this [ex-pletive] place.

The teachers had, in fact, walked the studentsthrough how to soldering and how to use wire strip-pers and the other equipment needed for them towire up their box. Yet, from many students’ point ofview it was easier and less work to paint their ROVthan proceeding with additional construction and de-sign of their ROV.

Similarly, other student groups focused their ini-tial efforts on copying the model that was providedto them by the teachers and as a result attemptedto replicate the teachers’ design rather than design-ing and creating their own model. In fact, for thefirst 4 weeks of the ROV project most of the student

96 Barnett

groups were simply following a step by step pro-cess in which they examined a model, returned totheir work area, and constructed their ROV in amanner consistent with the model. The incident thattransformed the student groups’ activity from simplyexamining their ROV from an aesthetic point of viewto a functional point of view came when one studentgroup had attached a motor to their ROV and hadsuccessfully made it work. This event quickly becamethe focus of many student groups and it was commonto hear the phrases “They are so far ahead of us!,”“Did you see what they have done?,” and “How didthey get so far ahead of us?.” From this point mostof the student groups worked hard to catch up to thelead groups.

Logistical and Organizational Challenges

As noted by other researchers (e.g. Hmelo et al.,2000) implementing design-oriented learning expe-riences in classrooms can be particularly challeng-ing in terms of time commitments, classroom man-agement, and resources. However, in addition tothese obstacles these three urban high school sci-ence teachers had to continually work to ensure thatall groups were functioning properly due to atten-dance issues early in the project. The teachers alsohad to spend as much time providing moral and en-couragement as they did on question asking. Forexample, many of their students’ initial reaction tochallenging or difficult problems is, “I can’t do it”or “I will never be able to finish that,” or “whybother.” At the beginning of this ROV project sim-ilar sentiments were expressed by a number of thestudents as noted by the following student–teacherinteraction:

Student: We are going to build that [referringto the ROV the teacher has in theirhand].

Teacher: Yes, we are going to help you.Student: Cool!, but we will never get it done.

In fact, during the first 3 weeks only two groupshad made any significant progress on their ROV asmost groups would wait for the teachers to tell themwhat to do and how they should think about de-signing their ROV. Early in the project the studentswould tend not to react well to the teachers attemptsat Socratic encouragement as is evident in the follow-ing statement by a student after a teacher had justasked them to think about some possible ideas for

their ROV:

He knows [talking to the researcher]. Why doesn’the just tell us the answer?! You know there is one. Itwould work better and we would get this done if hejust told us!

The student group conversation then disinte-grates into discussions about what they plan on doingduring the weekend, who is dating whom, and onlyoccasionally returns to focus on the ROV. Then as ateacher makes it back to the table he asks them whatthey have accomplished on the ROV for the day. Thestudents, unabashedly state nothing and that theywill never get their ROV done because they do notknow what they are doing.

Similarly, the teachers were also becoming frus-trated at the slow pace of the project and the stu-dents’ lackadaisical attitude toward what they feltwas an exciting project:

Well, so far we have done nothing more than wehave wholly implemented organized chaos in ourrooms [laughing]. I guess we are making progress,but who knows. Maybe we need to provide muchmore direction for them. I don’t know. Maybe wedidn’t do a good job setting it up for them.

The next class period after the previous quote,one of the teachers (Mr. Wilson) walks the studentsthrough the different parts of his ROV and describesthe decisions he made when he was building hisROV. This explanation and mini-lecture is importantfor a number of pedagogical reasons, the critical as-pect of his presentation to the students was when hestated that:

You know when I started I had no idea how to dothis. I even put the motor in backwards the first time![Laughing from the students]. I wired the controlbox wrong, so when I pushed forward in went back-ward [more laughing]. Despite all that I got it done,and so can you. I learned a lot in building my ROVand a lot from my mistakes. So don’t worry about ifyou think you are going to make mistake. What isthe worst thing that can happen?

This presentation and corresponding questionand answer session continued for a considerablelength of time. Following the mini-lecture the stu-dents approached their work with a renewed sense ofvigor and confidence that they could do it. What theteacher had done was to make it explicit that mak-ing mistakes and errors is a natural part of the designprocess and that one should think of mistakes anderrors as learning experiences rather than simply afailure.

Learning Through Design in Urban Settings 97

In addition to overcoming the students’ initialbeliefs that they cannot learn about complex ideasor be able to complete a project, the teachers hadto be continuously concerned about the constitutionand make-up of the groups as attendance changedradically from class to class. Early in the semesterstudents were still determining which school theywere going to attend. For example, the student pop-ulation at Chamberlain does not fully stabilize untilthe fourth week of the year (early October). There-fore, the teachers did not start the project until earlyNovember to reduce the instability in student at-tendance. However, even at that point student at-tendance was still a major issue, particularly for thelast class of the day on Friday (see Fig. 1). As aresult, the teachers struggled to form groups thatcould work together in a meaningful fashion fromweek-to-week.

The nature of the design tasked proved to beideal for this particular environment. The ROV de-sign project had many different components thatcould be constructed and built independently of therest. As a result of this modularization the teacherscould focus the students who did attend class on aregular basis (it is important to note that low studentattendance was due for a variety of reasons such assome students could not find a babysitter or afforddaycare, or needed to help a family member) on aparticular aspect of their team’s ROV design such asbalancing their ROV or designing parts of the controlbox. This allowed the teachers to help all students de-velop a sense of ownership over some small part ofthe ROV even if they did not attend everyday.

As the project progressed attendance rates in-creased significantly. The teachers were surprised atthe dramatic rate of increase in students coming totheir class. In conducting, impromptu interviews withthe students it became clear that many of the studentswere curious as to how their “part” was going to fitwith their team’s ROV:

Researcher: Been a couple of weeks since I saw.How is your motor building going?

Student: I finished it.Researcher: Can I see?Student: Sure, not sure how to put in on or where

it is going on. That is what I want to dotoday.

Researcher: So you came today because your motoris going on your team’s ROV.

Student: Yea, I worked hard on this. I want to putit on myself.

Again, the fact that students could “own” a small partof their team’s ROV design allowed them an oppor-tunity to take ownership over a small aspect of theproject. It was this sense of ownership that continu-ously encouraged the students to attend the class.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

In this study we examined the implementationof learning through design curricular project withinthe context of urban classrooms. In this section wesummarize what we have learned regarding the im-plementation of design-oriented learning projects inurban classrooms.

Allowing Time for Aesthetic Activity

A central tension that we observed through ourobservations was students constructing their ROVfor purely aesthetic purposes versus students design-ing their ROV for functional purposes. We foundthat both of these activities (building for aestheticsand building for function) were important in sup-porting student engagement and learning. For exam-ple, the aesthetic activity provided time for the stu-dents to get comfortable with the project, the toolsthey needed to learn to build their ROV, and to de-velop a sense of ownership over their ROV. Withthat said, however, the teachers in this study felt acontinuous pressure to quickly move the students be-yond their aesthetic activity and into one of criticallythinking about and reflecting on the functionality oftheir ROV. In the end the teachers chose to let thestudents spend a significant amount of time simplypainting their ROV while slowly ramping up the stu-dents into thinking about the functionality of theirROV designs. This decision, though time consumingin terms of instructional time, proved to be effec-tive in increasing participation of all students in theproject, which in turn, facilitated rich content and de-sign conversations.

Using Errors as a Springboard into Inquiry

Studies of learning show that learners needthe opportunity to apply what they know and getfeedback which allows learners to recognize wheretheir conceptions might be incomplete (e.g., Chinnand Brewer, 1993; Kolodner, 1993). We found that

98 Barnett

designing and construction afford rich opportunitiesfor fostering discussion after something had gonewrong with their design. As noted by Hmelo and col-leagues, (Hmelo et al., 2000) one designs based onone’s conceptions. After building a working designand trying it out, one is confronted with the needto explain unexpected results to determine if theyare problems of construction or problems of the un-derlying conceptual ideas behind the design. Thus,what one does often while designing is to engage in afailure analysis (see Petroski, 1992) in an attempt topredict whether one’s design decisions will lead to afunctional and useable structure or model or whetherone’s designs will eventually lead to failed structure.Failure analysis is critical across all engineering disci-plines because only through a failure analysis is possi-ble to develop a structure that has a likelihood of suc-cess. In our observations we observed that studentswould often engage in discussions that were similarto those that engineers engage in while attemptingto solve a problem (Petroski, 1992). That is, the stu-dents would discuss the problems that might arise ifthey placed their motors at a particular angle and theproblems of building either a too tall or too shortROV in regards to its stability. Yet, like many prob-lems it is often unclear as to what the best solution isuntil the solution is tested. It is in this way that onelearns from one mistakes and learns how to improveon a design.

We also found that design-oriented learning ac-tivities provide a natural way for students and teach-ers to accept and value mistakes. Coming to acceptmistakes in science class goes against many commonnotions of how science (and other subjects like math)is supposed to be taught. In fact, in typical classroomsthe teacher attempts to discard and prevent errorsand anomalies because they feel that such elementsinduce confusion and inhibit learning (Borasi, 1996).For example, Lampert (1990) in discussing the com-mon conceptions that the general populace (i.e. par-ents of the children that she was teaching) have re-garding mathematics she stated that mathematics is:

. . . associated with certainty, knowing it, with beingable to get a right answer . . . and that truth is deter-mined when the answer is ratified by the teacher.

Even though, Lampert was speaking aboutmathematics the same can be said about how scienceis viewed (Roth, 1995). From this perspective, mis-takes and errors should be discarded as impedimentsto obtaining correct answers during science class.Hence, the use of mistakes as being central inquiry is

difficult for many teachers to accept (Lampert, 1990).In this design work we found that when students areprovided the opportunity to not only design, but toevaluate their design through testing, and then usetheir findings to re-design their work they naturallybegin engage in rich scientifically sophisticated con-versations about their design errors.

Modularizing a Long-Term Design Process

We found that for our design project to be suc-cessful we needed to (1) modularize the ROV de-sign, and (2) implement the project over a long timeperiod. The modularization of the ROV project wasimportant because many students often would onlyattend sporadically. Through modularization the stu-dents could build a small portion of the ROV andthen work with their peers to determine how it bestfit into their ROV as a whole. However, it is impor-tant to note that even with the modularization of theproject there were still numerous instances in whichstudents grew frustrated at the magnitude of theirtask and would either not participate in the construc-tion of their ROV or choose not to attend class.

It was also important that the project was a year-long project. As documented by the attendance fig-ures it took several weeks for the students to cometo take ownership over their work. Further, the year-long time frame allowed the students time to come tobelieve that they could actually construct somethingas complex as an ROV. This later point is best illus-trated by a student who proudly showed off his ROVto a guest one day: “You know I didn’t think we coulddo it at first. We made a lot of mistakes, and it took along time. We almost gave up, but we did it!.”

Design in the real world generally means com-ing up with solutions to constrained, often ill-defined,and usually open-ended complex problems. Urbanstudents, all too often, have been told that they areincapable of solving real-world complex problems bythe media, schools, and the general population. How-ever, this study shows that when students are pro-vided enough time, with supportive teachers they canbuild rather complex structures and learn scientificcontent along the way.

EDUCATIONAL IMPLICATIONS

When students are practicing the design aspectof science in the classroom they are afforded the

Learning Through Design in Urban Settings 99

opportunity to actively engage in problem-solving ac-tivities that are authentic to the discipline, and grap-ple with the task of analyzing the subject matter anddevelop mechanisms to represent it to someone insuch a way as to help them to understand the content(Barab et al., 2000; Harel and Papert, 1992). Learningthrough designing can also support additional oppor-tunities in which the student can develop a sense ofauthorship over their work (Barab and Hay, 2001;Lehrer, 1993). This increased feeling of authorshipcan lead to increased intrinsic motivation and per-haps a stronger interest in the subject matter understudy (Jackson et al., 1994; Lepper, 1988). Further,learning through designing can increase student in-terest by allowing the freedom to control and deter-mine the course of their activities. However, learningby designing should not simply be viewed as a mo-tivational device, but as an important way to facili-tate classroom discourse and as a framework in whichstudents can construct individual understandings (i.e.why does my ROV have holes in it?) and negotiateshared understandings (i.e. where to put the motorson an ROV). Hence, science educators should focuson the design of learning environments that allowstudents to create their own context in which theyhave the freedom to ask questions, and investigatetheir own understandings, yet be provided enoughstructure so as not to get frustrated. This latter pointis particularly crucial for educators working in ur-ban settings and many urban students, like the one inthis study tend to give up and stop trying if they per-ceive they are going to fail yet again at another schooltask.

Echoing the sentiments of Hmelo and col-leagues (Hmelo et al., 2000) we found that imple-menting learning from design activities is a complexundertaking that needs to be carefully orchestratedwith energetic teachers. Despite the difficulties as-sociated with learning through design activities (i.e.students focusing on aesthetic outcomes rather thanfunction, etc.) we found that a modularized and long-term design project can be a powerful way to engagestudents who are normally disengaged from school inscientific discourse, problem solving, and get studentsexcited enough about their work that they want to at-tend school.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank ThomasHigginbotham and Meredith Houle for their insight-

ful comments and suggestions on a previous versionof this manuscript. This work was supported in partby a Boston College Research Incentive grant.

REFERENCES

Barab, S. A., and Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbowsof scientists: Issues related to the scientist apprentice camp.Journal of Research in Science Teaching 38: 70–102.

Barab, S. A., Hay, K. E., Barnett, M., and Squire, K. (2000).Virtual solar system project: Building understanding throughmodel building. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 37:719–756.

Barton, A. (1998). Science education and the politics of poverty.Educational Policy 12: 525–541.

Borasi, R. (1996). Reconceiving Mathematics Instruction: A Focuson Errors, Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.

Chamberlain High School. (2003). Odyssey High School WholeSchool Improvement Plan, Odyssey High School, Boston.

Chinn, C., and Brewer, W. (1993). The role of anomalous data inknowledge acquisition. Review of Educational Research 63: 1–49.

Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collab-oration with teachers. In Kelly, A. E., and Lesh, R. A.(Eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics andScience Education, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,New Jersey, pp. 307–333.

Crawford, B. A. (2000). Embracing the essence of inquiry: Newroles for science teachers. Journal of Research in ScienceTeaching 37: 916–937.

Davis, M., Hawley, P., McMullan, B., and Spilka, G. (1997). Designas a Catalyst for Learning, Association for Supervision andCurriculum and Development, Alexandria, VA.

Denzin, N. K. (2000). The practices and politics of interpretation.In Denzin, N. K., and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), Handbook ofQualitative Research (2nd ed.), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Harel, I., and Papert, S. (1992). Software design as a learning en-vironment. In Balestri, D., Ehrmann, S., and Ferguson, D.(Eds.), Learning to Design, Designing to Learn: Using Tech-nology to Transform the Curriculum, Taylor and Francis,Washington, DC, pp. 35–70.

Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., and Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designingto learn about complex systems. The Journal of the LearningSciences 9: 247–298.

Jackson, S. L., Stratford, S. J., Krajcik, J., and Soloway, E.(1994). Making dynamic modeling accessible to pre-collegescience students. Interactive Learning Environments 4: 233–257.

Jones, L. S. (1997). Opening doors with informal science: Expo-sure and access for our underserved students. Science Educa-tion 81: 663–677.

Jungck, J., Peterson, N., and Calley, J. (1992). Science throughdesign practica, where students actively investigate and per-suade. In Balestri, D., Ehrmann, S., and Ferguson, D. (Eds.),Learning to Design, Designing to Learn: Using Technology toTransform the Curriculum, Taylor and Francis, Washington,DC, pp. 141–157.

Kolodner, J. L. (1993). Case-Based Reasoning, Kaufmann, SanMateo, CA.

Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question andthe solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing andteaching. American Educational Research Journal 27: 29–63.

Lehrer, R. (1993). Authors of knowledge: Patterns of hyperme-dia design. In Lajoie, S. P., and Derry, S. J. (Eds.), Comput-ers as Cognitive Tools, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.,Hillsdale, New Jersey.

100 Barnett

Lepper, M. R. (1988). Motivational considerations in the study ofinstruction. Cognition and Instruction 5: 289–310.

Lesh, R., and Kelly, A. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments.In Kelly, A. E., and Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Handbook of ResearchDesign in Mathematics and Science Education, Lawrence Erl-baum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 197–230.

National Research Council. (2004). Engaging Schools: Foster-ing High School Students’ Motivation to Learn, NationalAcademies Press, Washington, DC.

Odyssey High School. (2003). Odyssey High School Whole SchoolImprovement Plan, Odyssey High School, Boston.

Pappert, S. (1991). Situating constructionism. In Harel, I., and Pap-pert, S. (Eds.), Constructionism: Research Reports and Essays,Ablex, Norwood, NJ, pp. 1–11.

Penner, D. E., Lehrer, R., and Schauble, L. (1998). From physicalmodels to biomechanics: A design-based modeling appraoch.The Journal of the Learning Sciences 7: 429–449.

Perkins, D. N. (1986). Knowledge as Design, Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Inc., Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Peterson, N., Jungck, J., Sharpe, D., and Finzer, W. (1987). A de-sign approach to science simulated laboratories. Machine Me-diated Learning 2: 111–127.

Petroski, H. (1992). To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure inSuccessful Design, Vintage Books, New York.

Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic School Science, Kluwer Publishers,Netherlands.

Roth, W.-M. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A sit-uated cognition perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sci-ences 5: 129–166.

Roth, W.-M., Tobin, K., and Ritchie, S. (2001). Re/ConstructingElementary Science, Peter Lang, New York.

Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., and Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineeringcompetitions in the middle school classroom: Key elementsin developing effective design challenges. The Journal of theLearning Sciences 9: 299–327.

Tate, W. (2001). Science Education as a civil right: Urban schoolsand opportunity-to-learn considerations. Journal of Researchin Science Teaching 38: 1015–1028.

Teel, K. M., Debruin-Parecki, A., and Covington, M. V.(1998). Teaching strategies that honor and motivate inner-city african-american studnets: A school/university col-laboration. Teaching and Teacher Education 14: 479–495.

Tobin, K. (2000). Interpretive research in science educa-tion. In Kelly, A. E., and Lesh, R. A. (Eds.), Hand-book of Research Design in Mathematics and ScienceEducation, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah,New Jersey.