Advertisement

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

  • Justin McFaddenEmail author
  • Gillian Roehrig
Article

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.

Keywords

Engineering design Elementary engineering Discourse analysis 

Notes

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.

Supplementary material

10798_2018_9444_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (65 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 64 kb)

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. 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).Google Scholar
  5. 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.
  6. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.Google Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. 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.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.Google Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. 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.Google Scholar
  13. Dey, I. (1996). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Duschl, R. A., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse in science education. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39–72.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. Erickson, F. (1992). Ethnographic microanalysis of interaction. In The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 201–225).Google Scholar
  19. 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.Google Scholar
  20. Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the next generation science standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.Google Scholar
  21. Gee, J. P. (2001). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Gee, J. P. (2010). How to do discourse analysis: A toolkit. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. 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.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2000). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (1st ed.). Reston, VA: ITEA.Google Scholar
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Jordan, B., & Henderson, A. (1995). Interaction analysis: Foundations and practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4(1), 39–103.Google Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.Google Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Kumpulainen, K., & Rajala, A. (2017). Dialogic teaching and students’ discursive identity negotiation in the learning of science. Learning and Instruction, 48, 23–31.Google Scholar
  35. Lammi, M., & Becker, K. (2013). Engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Education.  https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v24i2.a.5.Google Scholar
  36. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  37. Lemke, J. L. (2012). Analyzing verbal data: Principles, methods, and problems. Second international handbook of science education (pp. 1471–1484). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. 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
  40. Majors, Y. (2007). Narrations of cross cultural encounters as interpretative frames for reading word and world. Discourse and Society, 18, 479–506.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. 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.Google Scholar
  43. Martin-Jones, M. (2000). Bilingual classroom interaction: A review of recent research. Language Teaching, 33(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. McCormick, M. E., & Hammer, D. (2016). Stable beginnings in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(1), 4.Google Scholar
  46. 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
  47. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Revised and expanded from “Case study research in education”. Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  48. Metz, K. (2008). Narrowing the gulf between the practices of science and the elementary school classroom. Elementary School Journal, 109, 138–161.Google Scholar
  49. 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.Google Scholar
  50. 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.Google Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. National Academy of Engineering. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  53. 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
  54. National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  55. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  56. 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.Google Scholar
  57. Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  58. Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  59. Reinsvold, L. A., & Cochran, K. F. (2011). Power dynamics and questioning in elementary science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 745–768.Google Scholar
  60. 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.Google Scholar
  61. Rogoff, B. (1994). Developing understanding of the idea of communities of learners. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 1(4), 209–229.Google Scholar
  62. Rowell, P. M. (2004). Developing technological stance: Children’s learning in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14(1), 45–59.Google Scholar
  63. Samuel, A. E. (1986). Student centered teaching in engineering design. Instructional Science, 15(1), 213–238.Google Scholar
  64. Schieffelin, B. B., & Ochs, E. (1986). Language socialization. Annual Review of Anthropology, 15(1), 163–191.Google Scholar
  65. 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.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. 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
  68. Stevens, R., Johri, A., & O’Connor, K. (2014). Professional engineering work. In Cambridge handbook of engineering education research (pp. 119–137).Google Scholar
  69. Suchman, L. (2000). Embodied practices of engineering work. Mind, Culture and Activity, 7(1–2), 4–18.Google Scholar
  70. 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
  71. 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.Google Scholar
  72. 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.Google Scholar
  73. 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.Google Scholar
  74. 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.Google Scholar
  75. 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.Google Scholar
  76. Williams, P. J. (2011). Research in technology education: Looking back to move forward. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 1–9.Google Scholar
  77. Wortham, S. E. F. (2001). Narratives in action: A strategy for research and analysis. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education and Human DevelopmentUniversity of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA
  2. 2.STEM Education CenterUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations