{"id":8371,"date":"2019-05-07T20:07:04","date_gmt":"2019-05-07T20:07:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/\/\/"},"modified":"2019-08-30T20:17:59","modified_gmt":"2019-08-30T20:17:59","slug":"reflections-of-rube-goldberg-machines-on-the-prospective-science-teachers-stem-awareness","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citejournal.org\/volume-19\/issue-2-19\/science\/reflections-of-rube-goldberg-machines-on-the-prospective-science-teachers-stem-awareness","title":{"rendered":"Reflections of Rube Goldberg Machines on the Prospective Science Teachers’ STEM Awareness"},"content":{"rendered":"

In recent years, new developments in science education have been witnessed. The concept of engineering is now found in teaching curricula \u2013 just one example of these new developments. Engineering concepts are also in harmony with the nature of science education. In particular, integrating engineering in science education and linking disciplines in science, technology, engineering and mathematic (STEM) education are reform efforts aimed at meeting 21st<\/sup>– century needs in education (National Research Council [NRC], 2009).<\/p>\n

One of the new subjects in the school setting in US K-12 is engineering (NRC, 2005). The NRC (2005) covers the relationship between the foundations of science standards and technological design processes, with students determining the problem, developing a solution or designing a product, applying the design, and finally evaluating the design. Similarly, the concept of engineering was included in middle school science curricula (Grades 5-8) in Turkey.<\/p>\n

In this way, a new skill area has been added to the 2018 middle school science curriculum under the name of \u201cengineering and design skills.\u201d This skill area was aimed at students being able to integrate science, mathematics, technology and engineering subjects and solving problems with a cross-disciplinary approach (The Ministry of Education, 2018).<\/p>\n

In parallel with these developments, Turkish middle school science teachers must incorporate engineering designs for their students in their science courses. Science teachers and prospective science teachers must first have an awareness with regard to engineering design. Thus, in Turkey, it was noted that science teachers\u2019 and prospective science teachers\u2019 experiences regarding STEM education should be improved as part of preservice and in-service training (Akg\u00fcnd\u00fcz et al., 2015).<\/p>\n

STEM Education<\/h2>\n

STEM education is expressed as an interdisciplinary teaching system, consisting of practical approaches aimed at integrating the four disciplines (Bybee, 2010). In recent years, STEM education has been seen as one of the most notable innovations in engineering design. In this sense, it has been pointed out that STEM education and the engineering design process, which is one of the dimensions of STEM, may have important outcomes for students. For example, in the STEM education process, an interdisciplinary perspective becomes dominant, and students are involved in an inquiry-based learning process (Bell, 2010; Eron & Rachlin, 2015; Milaturrahmah, Mardiyana, & Pramudya, 2017).<\/p>\n

Engineering design activities are a powerful strategy for the integration of science, mathematics and technology (Cantrell, Pekcan, Itani, & Velasquez-Bryant, 2006). Moreover, science inquiry and engineering design offer learning opportunities to embody K-12 STEM education (NRC, 2011). Thus, most governments have introduced strong initiatives to promote STEM awareness and motivation, as STEM is one of the competitive areas that will determine a nation’s future status (Bahar & Ad\u0131guzel, 2016).<\/p>\n

In this regard, STEM awareness is seen as a prerequisite for individual interaction, self-efficacy, and self-development (Kovarik et al., 2013). The awareness to be created with regard to STEM will, therefore, both increase the four different disciplines\u2019 importance and increase the number of individuals that the present era needs. Thanks to STEM education, more importance has been given to the design process (the engineering dimension) in terms of science courses (Bequette & Bequette, 2012). Thus, it is emphasized that science, or STEM, must be associated with other subjects such as philosophy, language, history, and the various disciplines at all levels of education (European Commission, 2015).<\/p>\n

Rube Goldberg Machines<\/h2>\n

Rube Goldberg was not only an engineer, he was a popular cartoonist at the beginning of the 20th century. Moreover, although he is known for his drawings, he also designed machines involving a series of complex steps to perform simple tasks (Howard, Williams, & Yao, 2010). In this sense, Rube Goldberg was a man who became synonymous with the use of convoluted, complicated machines to carry out simple tasks (Pierson & Suchora, 2002).<\/p>\n

For example, if the goal is to turn on a light switch, a bowling ball that descends from a ramp hits an arm that triggers the fall of a line of dominoes, creating a series of waves. This wave strikes the button, causing a mechanism to be sprung that causes the light to come on as intended (Quigley, Herro, & Jamil, 2017).<\/p>\n

Rube Goldberg machines involving a chain reaction have been used in science education because they are also science-focussed and particularly suitable for science. Various studies have concentrated on concepts related to physics and mathematics (Brush, 2017; Davis, Chlebowski, & Ellert, 2017; Ganesh & Thieken, 2010; O’Connor, 2003; Selvi & Soto-Caban, 2016; Yanik, Ferguson, Kaul, & Yan, 2017).<\/p>\n

Ganesh and Thieken (2010), for example, gave various tools to seventh-grade students for creating a simple circuit (a battery pack, power cables, buzzers, a light-emitting diode LED, switches, milk\/juice cartons, coat hangers, aluminum foil, and cardboard). Then the students explored different combinations with regard to building electrical circuits and formed various circuits with chain reactions.<\/p>\n

Brush (2017) showed how Rube Goldberg machines can be used for Grade 6-8 students in teaching force and motion. Similarly, O’Connor (2003) stated that Rube Goldberg machines could be used for teaching metric measurement (mathematics) and simple machines (physics) to fifth-grade students.<\/p>\n

Kim and Park (2012) pointed out that Rube Goldberg machines have also helped to develop  positive attitudes on the part of students toward science. Thus, teaching science concepts and creating awareness about engineering to students may be possible using Rube Goldberg machines.<\/p>\n

Additionally, Rube Goldberg machines can be used to create a STEM experience in the form of an interdisciplinary activity integrating science, technology, and engineering as part of an authentic problem-solving project (Ambrose & Sternberg, 2016). Similarly, it was pointed out that Rube Goldberg machines not only integrate STEM concepts, but also require individuals to craft the design of the machine creatively (O’Byrne et al., 2018).<\/p>\n

Thus, it can be said that Rube Goldberg machines could be important in terms of creating engineering awareness. In this sense, Marklin (2018) stated that Rube Goldberg machines are not only drawings, but also innovative engineering designs, while Acharya and Sirinterlikci (2010) noted that Rube Goldberg machines have been used for engineering design. In this way, students who are exposed to design-oriented processes such as a Rube Goldberg machines may become aware of what is involved and understand what STEM education means.<\/p>\n

In this current study, a design cycle was needed to create Rube Goldberg machines, and it was decided that the steps of the engineering design process comprised the most appropriate design cycle. In the process of creating STEM designs, students can be inspired by Rube Goldberg machines (Marklin, 2018). Consequently, the engineering design process cycle shown in Figure 1 was taken into consideration when designing Rube Goldberg machines.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Figure<\/a>
Figure 1.<\/strong> Steps of the engineering design process (adapted from Department of Education, 2006)<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

Steps followed by this engineering design process are as follows:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Students determine a purpose or problem (for example, the need to blow out a candle).<\/li>\n
  2. Students research the problem by using the internet, the library, or experts in order to decide which science concepts to use.<\/li>\n
  3. Students decide which simple machines are most suitable, and they develop many simple machine ideas to be used (for example, a wheel and axle, a lever, a wedge, a pulley, compound machines, an inclined plane, and a screw).<\/li>\n
  4. Students choose the most suitable simple machine or science concepts to solve the problem (for example, using the lever for the relevant stage).<\/li>\n
  5. Students draw the draft they first imagined on paper. They then make prototypes with tools that they use in daily life and which do not cost money (for example, a bottle, cardboard, or wood).<\/li>\n
  6. Students test the Rube Goldberg machines which consisting of two, three, five or more stages, (depending on the number of steps per week), and as part of this process, they test whether the machine has deteriorated or does not work.<\/li>\n
  7. Students present the Rube Goldberg machines in the classroom environment, by explaining the tools and the science concept they use. Other groups express their opinions about the Rube Goldberg machines during the presentation, and so the Rube Goldberg machines can be improved (at this stage, one group builds their Rube Goldberg machine in the classroom environment, and other groups introduce their machines with pictures and video).<\/li>\n
  8. Students prepare for the following week by redesigning their machines, taking into consideration the suggestions and opinions expressed by their peers in the previous step. This cycle should be repeated for 10 weeks, and a machine consisting of at least 10 stages should be prepared by the end of the application.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Literature Review<\/h2>\n

    Studies of Rube Goldberg machines are generally found to be in two categories. The first category includes studies related to engineering students at the university level. The second category includes studies related to middle school and high school students.<\/p>\n

    In the first of these categories, engineering students designed Rube Goldberg machines in a 6-14 week process. The research results showed that Rube Goldberg machines make engineering students feel happy because they are working toward a goal. They also find the design process to be fun, it develops their imagination, their teamworking skills, and their time management abilities, it encourages cooperation, extraordinary thinking, and social networking, and it develops communication skills, engineering skills, and leadership skills (Berg, 2015; Davis et al., 2017; DeMontigny, Smithson, & Wright, 2011; Mahinroosta & Lindsay, 2016; Selvi & Soto-Caban, 2016; Yanik et al., 2017).<\/p>\n

    Berg (2015) carried out a study with students on an engineering dynamics course who developed Rube Goldberg machines. Berg found that the engineering students were satisfied with the fact that the machines worked in the end. Davis et al. (2017) carried out a study with freshman engineering design course students and found that this process contributed to teamwork, communication and engineering skills. Similarly, Selvi and Soto-Caban (2016) carried out a study with junior level engineering students on a design course and found that they were excited when it came to display their Rube Goldberg machines, resultimg in enthusiastic teamwork.<\/p>\n

    DeMontigny and Smithson (2010) examined shortcomings and student feedback with regard to the Rube Goldberg machines applied in previous pieces of research. They found that students felt that Rube Goldberg machines were a good method for teaching engineering design in the first year of their studies. Similarly, DeMontigny et al. (2011) performed a study with engineering students in an Engineering Communications and Design course. They found that these students found the process to be fun. They also observed that the imagination of these students developed. As shown in the relevant literature, engineering students generally have a positive view of the design process involving Rube Goldberg machines. Moreover, it is possible to identify research results that emphasize that Rube Goldberg machines make teaching effective (DeMontigny, Smithson, & Wright, 2011; Mahinroosta & Lindsay, 2016; Selvi & Soto-Caban, 2016). These results indicated that Rube Goldberg machines could give effective results with regard to university level students.<\/p>\n

    In the second category, when studies related to middle school and high school students were examined, it was seen that Rube Goldberg machines attracted students’ attention, positively affected academic achievement related to science concepts, gave students the pleasure of achieving their goals, allowed students to take positive risks, and developed students\u2019 creativity, critical thinking, and personal responsibility (Ganesh & Thieken, 2010; Jordan & Pereira, 2009; Matty, 2017; O\u2019Connor, 2003; Sheriff, Sadan, Keats, & Zuckerman, 2017).<\/p>\n

    O\u2019Connor (2003) found that the Rube Goldberg machines maintained the attention of fifth-grade students, introduced the students to new methods of instruction, and offered an opportunity for them to communicate with experts. Ganesh and Thieken (2010) proved that the Rube Goldberg machines had a positive effect on seventh-grade students\u2019 knowledge of electrical circuits. Jordan and Pereira (2009) reported that the Rube Goldberg machines encouraged sufficient maturity on the part of fifth- and sixth-grade students to allow them to manage their own schedule toward an abstract goal.<\/p>\n

    Sheriff et al. (2017) found that Rube Goldberg machines promoted positive risk-taking on the part of students (aged 8-12), and the authors drew attention to the fact that most children expressed a preference toward using Rube Goldberg machines. Additionally, Matty (2017) proved that Rube Goldberg machines positively reflected core competencies such as communication, creativity, critical thinking, and personal responsibility of 11th- and 12th-grade students. According to Lei et al. (2012), Rube Goldberg machines can be used to trigger the motivation of students with regard to the engineering design process.  As shown in the relevant literature, although positive results were achieved at middle school level about Rube Goldberg machines, any research on prospective science teachers who are due to educate middle school student has not been undertaken.<\/p>\n

    When the STEM studies conducted with regard to prospective science teachers are examined, it is possible to see some pieces of research regarding STEM education applications in terms of prospective science teachers. In this sense, the research results showed that design-oriented STEM training processes had a significant positive impact on prospective science teachers (Altan, Yamak, & K\u0131r\u0131kkaya, 2016; Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m & Altun, 2015). For example, Altan et al. (2016) implemented \u201cdesign based science education\u201d in STEM education for prospective science teachers. The results of this research showed that prospective science teachers stated that this process enabled learning by doing, and also stated that the design task was motivating. Moreover, Y\u0131ld\u0131r\u0131m and Altun (2015) enabled prospective science teachers to create STEM designs by considering the 5E (Engage, Explore, Explain, Elaborate, Evaluate) learning model, in order increase their interest in engineering, and the authors found that STEM designs have a positive effect on prospective teachers\u2019 academic achievements.<\/p>\n

    Although positive results regarding STEM education have been achieved, there are also negative results. For instance, in a survey conducted extensively in Turkey, \u00c7olako\u011flu and G\u00f6kben (2017) have found faculty members serving in faculties of education to have an awareness and interest in STEM. However, it has been determined that there are inufficient concrete applications in the faculties of education that they considered (\u00c7olako\u011flu & G\u00f6kben, 2017). Therefore, it can be said that some prospective teachers want to see concrete implementation examples regarding STEM. For example, Aslan-Tutak, Akayg\u00fcn, and Tezsezen (2017) in their study, determined that prospective mathematics and chemistry teachers want to see sample projects among the priority subjects about STEM education.<\/p>\n

    Furthermore, since prospective teachers do not encounter too many practices related to STEM education, they face some difficulties when they attempt to introduce these practices for the first time. For example, Tark\u0131n-\u00c7elikk\u0131ran and Ayd\u0131n-G\u00fcnbatar (2017) stated that prospective chemistry teachers were challenged when it came to deciding on materials to be used in the STEM design process, deciding how to design the product, and investigating the necessary information. In fact, the process of designing Rube Goldberg machines can reduce the difficulties experienced by prospective teachers and can contribute to STEM awareness.<\/p>\n

    If so, the following question arises: How does the design process of the Rube Goldberg machines reflect on prospective science teachers\u2019 STEM awareness? Consequently, it is believed that this research has an important role to play in helping answer this question and contributing to the literature. In this context, the purpose of this study is to examine the reflections of the design process of the Rube Goldberg machines on the STEM awareness of the prospective science teachers. For this purpose, the subproblems of the research are as follows:<\/p>\n