This study reports on students' engineering-related discourses before and after a unit which focused on children's development of tool-related and discursive practices in the domain of structural engineering. Video-and audiotaped small and large-group interviews, student-produced artifacts, and videotaped small and large group activities in a mixed Grade 4/5 class constituted the data sources. Comparison of students' engineering-related images and talk before and after the instructional unit revealed considerable differences. The study has implications for the design of learning environments in which developing language-inuse is fostered rather than parroting teacher-and textbook-framed definitions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
AmannK. & Knorr-CetinaK. D.: 1988, ‘The Fixation of (Visual) Evidence’, Human Studies 11, 133–169.
AshmoreM.: 1989, The Reflexive Thesis: Wrighting Sociology of Scientific Knowledge. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London
Association for the Promotion and Advancement of Science Education (APASE): 1991, Engineering for children: Structures [A manual for teachers]. Vancouver, B.C., Author.
BingleW. H. & GaskellP. J.: 1994, ‘Scientific Literacy for Decision-Making and the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge’, Science Education 78, 185–201.
Bloom, J. W.: 1993, June, Children's Understanding of Machines: Meanings, Conceptual Organization, and Discourse. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Canadian Society for Studies in Education, Ottawa, Ont.
BrownJ. S., CollinsA. & DuguidP.: 1989, ‘Situated Cognition and the Culture of Learning’, Educational Researcher 18(1), 32–42.
BrownJ. S. & DuguidP.: 1992, ‘Enacting Design for the Workplace’ in P. S.Adler & T. A.Winograd (eds.), Usability: Turning Technologies into Tools, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 164–197.
BucciarelliL. L.: 1994, Designing Engineers, MIT, Cambridge, MA.
diSessaA. A.: 1993, ‘Toward an Epistemology of Physics’, Cognition and Instruction 10, 105–225.
EhnP., & KyngM.: 1991. ‘Cardboard Computers: Mocking-It-up or Hands-on the Future’, in J.Greenbaum & M.Kyng (eds.), Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. LEA, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 169–195.
GoodingD.: 1992, ‘Putting Agency Back into Experiment’, in A.Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, pp. 65–112.
HarelI.: 1991, Children Designers: Interdisciplinary Constructions for Learning and Knowing Mathematics in a Computer-Rich School, Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
HendersonK.: 1991, ‘Flexible Sketches and Inflexible Data Bases: Visual Communication, Conscription Devices, and Boundary Objects in Design Engineering’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 16, 448–473.
KafaiY. B.: 1994, Minds in Play: Computer Game Design as a Context for Children's Learning. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erbaum Associates, NJ.
Knorr-CetinaK. D. & AmannK.: 1990, ‘Image Dissection in Natural Scientific Inquiry’, Science, Technology, & Human Values 15, 259–283.
LatourB.: 1992, Aramis ou l'amour des techniques (Aramis or the Love of Technology), Editions la Découverte, Paris.
LaveJ.: 1988, Cognition in Practice: Mind, Mathematics and Culture in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
LaveJ.: 1993, ‘The Practice of Learning’, in S.Chaiklin & J.Lave (eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
LawJ.: 1994, Organizing Modernnity. Blackwell, Oxford.
LaytonD.: 1994, Innovations in Science and Technology Education. UNESCO, Paris.
LemkeJ. L.: 1990, Talking Science: Language, Learning and Values. Ablex Publishing, Norwood, NJ.
LivingstonE.: 1987, Making Sense of Ethnomethodology. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
LynchM.: 1992, ‘Extending Wittgenstein: The Pivotal Move from Epistemology to the Sociology of Science’, in A.Pickering (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL., pp. 215–300.
PollnerM.: 1987, Mundane Reason: Reality in Everyday and Sociological Discourse, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
PooleD.: 1994, ‘Routine Testing Practices and the Linguistic Construction of Knowledge,’, Cognition and Instruction 12, 125–150.
RortyR.: 1989, Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
RoseberryA. S., WarrenB. & ConantF. R.: 1992, ‘Appropriating Science Discourse: Findings from Language Minority Classrooms’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 2, 61–94.
RothW.-M.: 1995a, ‘Affordances of Computers in Teacher-Student Interactions: The Case of Interactive Physics™’, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 329–347.
RothW.-M.: 1995b, ‘Inventors, Copycats, and Everyone Else: The Emergence of Shared (arti)facts and Concepts as Defining Aspects of Classroom Communities’, Science Education 79, 475–502.
RothW.-M.: 1996a, ‘Art and Artifact of Children's Designing: A Situated Cognition Perspective’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 5, 129–166.
RothW.-M.: 1996b, ‘Knowledge Diffusion* in a Grade4/5 Classroom During a Unit on Civil Engineering: An Analysis of a Classroom Community in Terms of its Changing Resources and Practices’, Cognition and Instruction 14, 179–220.
RothW.-M. & BowenG. M.: 1995, ‘Knowing and Interacting: A Study of Culture, Practices, and Resources in a Grade 8 Open-Inquiry Science Classroom Guided by a Cognitive Apprenticeship Metaphor’, Cognition and Instruction 13, 73–128.
RothW.-M., MacFarlaneT. & NicholsonJ.: 1992, ‘Designing Solar Collectors to Learn About Heat and Temperature’, The Crucible 23(4), 20–25.
RothW.-M. & RoychoudhuryA.: 1992, ‘The Social Construction of Scientific Concepts or the Concept Map as Conscription Device and Tool for Social Thinking in High School Science’, Science Education 76, 531–557.
SaxeG. B.: 1991, Culture and Cognitive Development: Studies in Mathematical Understanding. Hillsdale, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, NJ.
ScardamaliaM. & BereiterC.: 1992 ’Text-Based and Knowledge-Based Questioning by Children’, Cognition and Instruction, 9, 177–199.
ScardamaliaM. & BereiterC.: 1994, Computer Support for Knowledge-Building Communities’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 3, 265–283.
SchankR. C.: 1994, Goal-Based Scenarios: A Radical Look at Education’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 429–453.
SchankR. C., FanoA., BellB. & JonaM.: 1994, ‘The Design of Goal-Based Scenarios’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 3, 305–345.
SchaubleL., GlaserR., DuschlR. A., SchulzeS. & JohnJ.: 1995, ‘Students' Understanding of the Objectives and Procedures of Experimentation in the Science Classroom’, The Journal of the Learning Sciences 4, 131–166.
SchönD. A.: 1983, The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books, New York.
SchönD. A.: 1987, Educating the Reflective Practitioner. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
SuchmanL. A.: 1987, Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
SuchmanL. A. & TriggR. H.: 1993, ‘Artificial Intelligence as Craftwork’, in S.Chaiklin & J.Lave (eds.), Understanding Practice: Perspectives on Activity and Context. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 144–178.
UenoN.: 1993, ‘Reconsidering P-Prims Theory from the Viewpoint of Situated Cognition’, Cognition and Instruction, 10, 239–248.
WinogradT. & FloresF.: 1987, Understanding Computers and Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Ablex, Norwood, NJ.
WoolgarS.: 1990, ‘Time and Documents in Researcher Interaction: Some Ways of Making Out What Is Happening in Experimental Science’, in M.Lynch & S.Woolgar (eds.), Representation in Scientific Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 123–152.
This work was made possible by two grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 812-93-0006 and 410-93-1127. My sincere thanks go to Sylvie Boutonné for the significant help during data collection, transcription of the videotapes, and preparation of the manuscript; to Michelle McGinn and Carolyn Woszczyna for their helpful suggestions in making this a better article; to Allan MacKinnon, Bridget Walshe, and Fiona Crofton for their assistance during the interviews; and to both teachers and all the students for their participation in this project.
About this article
Cite this article
Roth, W. Learning to talk engineering design: Results from an interpretive study in a Grade 4/5 classroom. Int J Technol Des Educ 6, 107–135 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00419920
- classroom communities
- discourse practices