Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Engineering design in the elementary science classroom: supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This exploratory case study examines how various instructional strategies can influence elementary-aged student discourse patterns during an engineering design challenge. With engineering design increasingly entering the elementary science classroom both within the United States and internationally, students must now engage in discipline-specific practices intended to mirror the work of professional engineers. The current study analyzed classroom discourse over the length of an instructional unit using an analytical lens informed by Heath’s (in: Masten (ed) The Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Psychology Press, New York, pp. 59–75, 1999) concept of joint work, which revealed how three parallel and complimentary discourse practices emerged primarily and more readily once students were given access to the materials needed for their mining extraction tool. The study’s findings illustrate the importance of designing and implementing pedagogical supports capable of ensuring students understand how their drawn designs can be used (Henderson in Sci Technol Hum Values 16(4):448–473, 1991) to manage the uncertainty that naturally arises during an engineering design challenge. Furthermore, the results point to the need for further research at the classroom level that investigates how students can be better supported to overcome the challenges associated with design-based problem solving, possibly via the inclusion of written, rather than verbal support.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. All names are pseudonyms.

  2. Transcription conventions are in the supplementary materials and are modeled off of Majors (2007).

References

  • ABET Criteria for Accrediting Engineering Programs, 2016–2017 (ABET, Baltimore, MD). http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/. Accessed 14 Sept 2017.

  • Allie, S., Armien, M. N., Burgoyne, N., Case, J. M., Collier-Reed, B. I., Craig, T. S., et al. (2009). Learning as acquiring a discursive identity through participation in a community: Improving student learning in engineering education. European Journal of Engineering Education, 34(4), 359–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, K. J. B., Courter, S. S., McGlamery, T., Nathans-Kelly, T. M., & Nicometo, C. G. (2010). Understanding engineering work and identity: A cross-case analysis of engineers within six firms. Engineering Studies, 2(3), 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). The problem of speech genres (trans: V. McGee). In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Eds.), Speech genres and other late essays (pp. 60–102). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press (Original work published 1953).

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., et al. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizon Research, Chapel Hill, NC. Retrieved from http://www.nnstoy.org/download/stem/2012%20NSSME%20Full%20Report.pdf. Accessed 14 Sept 2017.

  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. C. (2017). A metasynthesis of the complementarity of culturally responsive and inquiry-based science education in K-12 settings: Implications for advancing equitable science teaching and learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54, 1143–1173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., Yu, J. H., & French, B. F. (2014). Effects of engineering design-based science on elementary school science students’ engineering identity development across gender and grade. Research in Science Education, 45(2), 275–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering education annual conference and exposition, Honolulu, HI.

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101, 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. A., Rynearson, A., Yoon, S. Y., & Diefes-Dux, H. (2016). Two elementary schools’ developing potential for sustainability of engineering education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D., & King, D. T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: Fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225).

  • Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2001). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gee, J. P. (2010). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gutierrez, K. D., Baquedano-Lopez, P., Alvarez, H., & Chiu, M. M. (1999). Building a culture of collaboration through hybrid language practices. Theory into Practice, 38, 87–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath, S. (1999). Dimensions of language development: Lessons from older children. In A. Masten (Ed.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 59–75). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henderson, K. (1991). Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(4), 448–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (1st ed.). Reston, VA: ITEA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kangas, K., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Hakkarainen, K. (2013). Design expert’s participation in elementary students’ collaborative design process. International Journal of Technology Design Education, 23(1), 161–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., Capobianco, B. M., & Kaluf, K. J. (2015). Concurrent think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 521–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korte, R., Sheppard, S., & Jordan W. (2008). A qualitative study of the early work experiences of recent graduates in engineering. Paper presented at the 116th Annual American Society for Engineering education conference and exposition, Pittsburg, PA, 2008.

  • Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. (2017). Dialogic teaching and students’ discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 48, 23–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lammi, M., & Becker, K. (2013). Engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i2.a.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemke, J. L. (2012). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods, and problems. Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1471–1484). Netherlands: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2015). Design fixation and cooperative learning in elementary engineering design project: A case study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1), 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Majors, Y. (2007). Narrations of cross cultural encounters as interpretative frames for reading word and world. Discourse and Society, 18, 479–506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marco-Bujosa, L. M., & Levy, A. J. (2016). Caught in the balance: An organizational analysis of science teaching in schools with elementary science specialists. Science Education, 100(6), 983–1008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Bilingual classroom interaction: A review of recent research. Language Teaching, 33(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marulcu, I. (2014). Teaching habitat and animal classification to fourth graders using an engineering-design model. Research in Science and Technological Education, 32(2), 135–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M. E., & Hammer, D. (2016). Stable beginnings in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R., Gospodinoff, K., & Aron, J. (1978). Criteria for an ethnographically adequate description of concerted actions and their contexts. Semiotica, 24(3/4), 244–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from “Case study research in education”. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

  • Metz, K. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109, 138–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moje, E. B., Collazo, T., Carrillo, R., & Marx, R. W. (2001). “Maestro, what is ‘quality’?”: Language, literacy, and discourse in project-based science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 469–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., Pfiester, J., Callahan, J., & Pyke, P. (2015). Who is doing the engineering, the student or the teacher? The development and use of a rubric to categorize level of design for the elementary classroom. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (US). Committee on Highly Successful Schools or Programs for K-12 STEM Education. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in STEM. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

  • Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinsvold, L. A., & Cochran, K. F. (2011). Power dynamics and questioning in elementary science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 745–768.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritz, J. M., & Fan, S. C. (2015). STEM and technology education: International state-of-the-art. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 429–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowell, P. M. (2004). Developing technological stance: Children’s learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 45–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, A. E. (1986). Student centered teaching in engineering design. Instructional Science, 15(1), 213–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(1), 163–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schnittka, C., & Bell, R. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education, 33(13), 1861–1887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. M., Bunch, G. C., & Geaney, E. R. (2010). Analyzing language demands facing English learners on science performance assessments: The SALD framework. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 909–928.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. M. (1995). Fixation, incubation, and insight in memory and creative thinking. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 135–156). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, R., Johri, A., & O’Connor, K. (2014). Professional engineering work. In Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 119–137).

  • Suchman, L. (2000). Embodied practices of engineering work. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(1–2), 4–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J., Spencer, K., & Hammer, D. (2014). Examining young students’ problem scoping in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10, 125–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., & Lee, H. S. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruction based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 580–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Watkins, J., & Johnson, A. W. (2016). Noticing, assessing, and responding to students’ engineering: Exploring a responsive teaching approach to engineering design. In Proceedings of the 123rd American Society for Engineering education annual conference and exposition. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Wendell, K. B., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. (2017). Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, P. J. (2011). Research in technology education: Looking back to move forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wortham, S. E. F. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was made possible by a Grant form the National Science Foundation (1238140). The findings, conclusions, and opinions herein represent the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the view of personnel affiliated with the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Education and Human Development, University of Louisville, 1905 South 1st Street, Louisville, KY, 40292, USA

    Justin McFadden

  2. STEM Education Center, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN, 55108, USA

    Gillian Roehrig

Authors
  1. Justin McFadden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gillian Roehrig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin McFadden.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 64 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McFadden, J., Roehrig, G. Engineering design in the elementary science classroom: supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge. Int J Technol Des Educ 29, 231–262 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9444-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9444-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation