Grade-7 Students’ Negotiation during the Engineering Design Processes Regarding the Status of Their Argumentation Training
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Published
May 25, 2024
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate grade-7 students’ negotiation during the engineering design process regarding the students’ status of argumentation training. The participants were 33 students studying at a public urban middle school in Turkey. They worked in small groups on four engineering design tasks about electricity and light. Data were collected through small group audio recordings, student worksheets, and the observation. The data were analyzed by using content analysis. The results indicated that negotiation patterns were similar across all groups. However, differences were found between the group that received argumentation training and the one that did not receive in terms of proposing ideas for material design, using justifications when in agreement with others, counter proposing and acquiring information for better planning and altering the design, and critiquing for design advantages and disadvantages.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Keywords
Argumentation, Negotiation, Science Education, Engineering Design Process
References
Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., & Guzey, S. S. (2020). Productive thinking in middle school science students’ design conversations in a design‐based engineering challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30:67-81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09498-5
Azevedo, F. S., Martalock, P. L., & Keser, T. (2015). The discourse of design-based science classroom activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2):285-315. DOI: https://doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9540-5
Bağ, H., & Çalık, M. (2017). A thematic review of argumentation studies at the K-8 level. Education and Science, 42(190):281-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6845
Brereton, M., Cannon, D., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (1996). Collaborations in design teams. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing Design Activity). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 319-341.
Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue. AERA. pp. 263-274.
Chu, L., Sampson, V., & Hunter, T. L. (2019). Argument-driven engineering in middle school science: An exploratory study of changes in engineering identity over an academic year. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2):6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1249
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage. ISBN: ISBN: 1071817949
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4): 738-797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1):5-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1
Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814744
Guzey, S., & Aranda, M. (2017). Student participation in engineering practices and discourse: An exploratory case study. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4):585-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20176
Hertel, J. D., Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). The roles of engineering notebooks in shaping elementary engineering student discourse and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9):1194-1217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1317864
Jin, Y., & Geslin, M. (2009). Argumentation-based negotiation for collaborative engineering design. International Journal of Collaborative Engineering, 1(1/2):125-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijce.2009.027443
Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 9780130035332
Lutz, B. D., Chiem, A. T., & Bethel, C. (2022). Using discourse analysis to investigate conversations during engineering brainstorming activities. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, 1-10. Minneapolis, MN, August 23.
McDermott, D. (1978). Planning and acting. Cognitive Science, 2:71-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0202_1
McFadden, J., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Engineering design in the elementary science classroom: supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2):231-262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9444-5
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Erlbaum. pp. 233-265.
Menekse, M., Purzer, S., & Heo, D. (2019). An investigation of verbal episodes that relate to individual and team performance in engineering student teams. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(7):1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0160-9
Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4):417-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105
Ministry of National Education. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Science course instruction program (Elementary and middle school, 3,4,5,6,7,8 grades]. Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards. The National Academies Press.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behaviour. Academic Press. eBook ISBN: 9781483266206
Rebello, C. M., Urueña, Y. B. P., Magana, A. J., Deleon, A. M., & Dasgupta, C. (2019). Scaffolding evidence-based reasoning in a technology supported engineering design activity. Paper presented at The 13th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Bologna, Italy. August 26-30.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1):112-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2009). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1):63-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9
Seppanen, M. (2022). The quality of argumentation and metacognitive reflection in engineering co-design. European Journal of Engineering Education. 48(1):75-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2054314
Sheppard, S., Colby, A., Macatangay, K., & Sullivan, W. (2006). What is engineering practice? International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3):429-438.
Siverling, E. A., Suazo-Flores, E., Mathis, C. A., & Moore, T. J. (2019). Students’ use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design-based STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 119(8):457-474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12373
Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage. ISBN: 080395767X.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-82748-5.
Urueña, Y. B. P., Rebello, C. M., Dasgupta, C., Magana, A. J., & Rebello, N. S. (2017). Impact of argumentation scaffolds in contrasting designs tasks on elementary pre-service teachers’ use of science ideas in engineering design. Physics Education Research Conference. Cincinnati, OH. July 26-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.071
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. DOI: https://10.1007/s10956-010-9225-8
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20173
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (6th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık. ISBN: 9789753472487.
Azevedo, F. S., Martalock, P. L., & Keser, T. (2015). The discourse of design-based science classroom activities. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 10(2):285-315. DOI: https://doi:10.1007/s11422-013-9540-5
Bağ, H., & Çalık, M. (2017). A thematic review of argumentation studies at the K-8 level. Education and Science, 42(190):281-303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2017.6845
Brereton, M., Cannon, D., Mabogunje, A., & Leifer, L. (1996). Collaborations in design teams. In N. Cross, H. Christiaans, & K. Dorst (Eds.), Analysing Design Activity). John Wiley & Sons. pp. 319-341.
Chi, M. T. H., & Menekse, M. (2015). Dialogue patterns that promote learning. In L. B. Resnick, C. Asterhan, & S. N. Clarke (Eds.), Socializing intelligence through talk and dialogue. AERA. pp. 263-274.
Chu, L., Sampson, V., & Hunter, T. L. (2019). Argument-driven engineering in middle school science: An exploratory study of changes in engineering identity over an academic year. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2):6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1249
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (4th ed.). Sage. ISBN: ISBN: 1071817949
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4): 738-797. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Dillenbourg, P., & Hong, F. (2008). The mechanics of CSCL macro scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3(1):5-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-007-9033-1
Engeström, Y. (2014). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139814744
Guzey, S., & Aranda, M. (2017). Student participation in engineering practices and discourse: An exploratory case study. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4):585-606. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20176
Hertel, J. D., Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). The roles of engineering notebooks in shaping elementary engineering student discourse and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9):1194-1217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1317864
Jin, Y., & Geslin, M. (2009). Argumentation-based negotiation for collaborative engineering design. International Journal of Collaborative Engineering, 1(1/2):125-151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1504/ijce.2009.027443
Leont’ev, A. (1978). Activity, Consciousness and Personality. Prentice-Hall. ISBN: 9780130035332
Lutz, B. D., Chiem, A. T., & Bethel, C. (2022). Using discourse analysis to investigate conversations during engineering brainstorming activities. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education, 1-10. Minneapolis, MN, August 23.
McDermott, D. (1978). Planning and acting. Cognitive Science, 2:71-109. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog0202_1
McFadden, J., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Engineering design in the elementary science classroom: supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2):231-262.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9444-5
McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. (2007). Middle school students’ use of appropriate and inappropriate evidence in writing scientific explanations. In M. C. Lovett & P. Shah (Eds.), Thinking with data: The Proceedings of the 33rd Carnegie Symposium on Cognition. Erlbaum. pp. 233-265.
Menekse, M., Purzer, S., & Heo, D. (2019). An investigation of verbal episodes that relate to individual and team performance in engineering student teams. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(7):1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0160-9
Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104(4):417-432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20105
Ministry of National Education. (2018). Fen bilimleri dersi öğretim programı (İlkokul ve Ortaokul 3,4,5,6,7 ve 8. sınıflar) [Science course instruction program (Elementary and middle school, 3,4,5,6,7,8 grades]. Talim Terbiye Kurulu Başkanlığı.
National Research Council. (2012). A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas. Committee on Conceptual Framework for the New K-12 Science Education Standards. The National Academies Press.
Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation Behaviour. Academic Press. eBook ISBN: 9781483266206
Rebello, C. M., Urueña, Y. B. P., Magana, A. J., Deleon, A. M., & Dasgupta, C. (2019). Scaffolding evidence-based reasoning in a technology supported engineering design activity. Paper presented at The 13th Conference of the European Science Education Research Association (ESERA), Bologna, Italy. August 26-30.
Sadler, T. D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2005). Patterns of informal reasoning in the context of socioscientific decision making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(1):112-138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20042
Sampson, V., & Clark, D. B. (2009). A comparison of the collaborative scientific argumentation practices of two high and two low performing groups. Research in Science Education, 41(1):63-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-009-9146-9
Seppanen, M. (2022). The quality of argumentation and metacognitive reflection in engineering co-design. European Journal of Engineering Education. 48(1):75-90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2022.2054314
Sheppard, S., Colby, A., Macatangay, K., & Sullivan, W. (2006). What is engineering practice? International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3):429-438.
Siverling, E. A., Suazo-Flores, E., Mathis, C. A., & Moore, T. J. (2019). Students’ use of STEM content in design justifications during engineering design-based STEM integration. School Science and Mathematics, 119(8):457-474. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12373
Stake, R. (1995). The Art of Case Study Research. Sage. ISBN: 080395767X.
Toulmin, S. (2003). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press. ISBN: 0-521-82748-5.
Urueña, Y. B. P., Rebello, C. M., Dasgupta, C., Magana, A. J., & Rebello, N. S. (2017). Impact of argumentation scaffolds in contrasting designs tasks on elementary pre-service teachers’ use of science ideas in engineering design. Physics Education Research Conference. Cincinnati, OH. July 26-27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1119/perc.2017.pr.071
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. DOI: https://10.1007/s10956-010-9225-8
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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20173
Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2006). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in social sciences] (6th ed.). Seçkin Yayıncılık. ISBN: 9789753472487.
How to Cite
Tuğ, S., & Namdar, B. (2024). Grade-7 Students’ Negotiation during the Engineering Design Processes Regarding the Status of Their Argumentation Training. Science Insights Education Frontiers, 22(1), 3513–3528. https://doi.org/10.15354/sief.24.or578
Issue
Section
Original Article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.