Student Participation in Engineering Practices and

Discourse: An Exploratory Case Study

S.Selcen Guzey and Maurina Aranda
Purdue University

Abstract
Background The integration of science and engineering practices in K-12 science education
provides a platform for students to engage in productive classroom discourse supporting
deep student understanding and reasoning in a real-world context. However, the engineer-
ing design discourse in K-12 science classrooms has not yet been fully examined.
Purpose This article aims to explore the decision-making processes and verbal interactions of
eighth grade students as they engage in a 12-day engineering design-based science unit. The
following research questions guided the study: (a) How do student discourse patterns and inter-
actions affect design decisions? (b) How do the instructor’s discursive interactions in design
groups influence student design?
Method In this exploratory case study, discursive patterns and interaction patterns between
four student groups and their instructor were captured through audio and video recordings.
Results The design discourse structure and patterns differed among groups, affecting their
design decisions. There was also a difference in both the number of new ideas generated
and, most notably, the level of student engagement in those groups. In addition, the complex-
ity of design decisions varied, with most groups focusing on financial feasibility rather than
scientific reasoning. Finally, it was observed that the instructor discourse influenced student
engagement in design discourse and the use of scientific reasoning and justifications in small
group discussions.
Conclusions This discourse study offers insight into students’ scientific reasoning in an effort
to help educators more effectively structure instruction discourse and practices in engineer-
ing design in K-12 science education.
Keywords case study; design practice; discourse analysis; engineering curriculum, K-12

Introduction
There has been a growing consensus for the need to integrate engineering into K-12 class-
rooms in the United States (National Academy of Engineering [NAE], 2009). This consen-
sus is further reflected in the most recent science education standards framework (National
Research Council [NRC], 2012) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead
States, 2013), all of which place particular emphasis on both scientific and engineering practi-
ces. As stated in the framework, “throughout grades K-12, students should have the opportu-
nity to carry out scientific investigations and engineering design projects related to the
disciplinary core ideas” (NRC, 2012, p. 9). Practices of engineering are included in this new
vision of science education since it “provide[s] a context in which students can test their own

Journal of Engineering Education VC 2017 ASEE. http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jee

October 2017, Vol. 106, No. 4, pp. 585–606 DOI 10.1002/jee.20176

586 Guzey & Aranda

developing scientific knowledge and apply it to practical problems; doing so enhances their
understanding of science” (NRC, 2012, p.12). As supported by previous research, engineering
provides many benefits to K-12 classrooms. For instance, engaging in engineering practices
can help students enhance their awareness of engineering and the work of engineers (NAE,
2009), resulting in increasing their interest in pursuing engineering as a career (Guzey, Har-
well, Moreno, Peralta, & Moore, 2017; NAE, 2009) as well as building science content
knowledge (Roth, 1996; Wendell & Rogers, 2013).
In grades K-12, engineering design is introduced as the core of engineering practice, with
design in this context referring to a systematic and iterative decision-making process (Brophy,
Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008; Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer, 2005; Guzey, Tank,
Wang, Roehrig, & Moore, 2014; Guzey et al., 2017; Moore, Johnson, Peters-Burton, &
Guzey, 2015; NAE, 2009; NRC, 2012). For example, in a design-based science unit, students
design vehicles following an iterative design process in which they first develop a prototype
(e.g., a modestly working vehicle), experiment with the variables to discover ways to design
an improved prototype (e.g., forces acting on the car), and redesign (e.g., a car that travels far-
ther) (Guzey et al., 2014). In another design-based science unit, students build a functional
model of a human elbow (Penner, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1998). After completing the initial
models, students investigate the biomechanics of the human arm, revising their models. In
the Science Through LEGO Engineering curriculum units designed by Wendell and Rogers
(2013), students use LEGO elements to design artifacts (e.g., a musical instrument), explor-
ing their underlying principles. In these curriculum projects and many others (e.g., Roth,
1996), design is presented as a unique problem-solving process that places students in a cycle
of planning, building, testing, and evaluating.
Engineering design-based activities that are structured to engage students in socially con-
structed practices provide unique opportunities for them to engage in design discourse by
encouraging them to focus on important elements of effective design such as developing,
negotiating, and refining design decisions (Adams, Daly, Mann, & Dall’Alba, 2011; Cris-
mond & Adams, 2012; Dym et al., 2005; Mentzer, Becker, & Sutton, 2015; Roth, 1996).
Discourse refers to a process of using language to structure knowledge and social practice
(Fairclough, 1992). More specifically, classroom discourse is structured in a way that allows
students to work together in both small design communities and as a part of a larger class-
room community, both of which require a dialogic environment (Duschl, 2008). In this dia-
logic engineering-focused learning environment, knowledge and skills are developed in the
community of learners as they investigate multiple design solutions, make evidence-based
decisions, and identify the best solution. However, more importantly, discourse in this type of
environment is not a monological form initiated by the instructor (Lemke, 1990) but instead
focuses on discourse among members of the classroom community. Since this design dis-
course provides support not only for design solutions but also for scientific and engineering
reasoning, it is imperative to help students learn science and engineering concepts and practi-
ces in a meaningful way (Roth, 1996).
Few researchers, however, have examined social interactions in collaborative design teams
(e.g., Jordan & McDaniel, 2014; Roth, 1996), i.e., engineering discourse that occurs during
problem scoping (e.g., Watkins, Spencer, & Hammer, 2014) and problem solving (e.g., Auri-
gemma, Chandrasekharan, Nersessian, & Newstetter, 2013). More specifically, the engineer-
ing design discourse in K-12 science classrooms has not yet been explicitly examined. Our
research contributes to this scholarly domain by investigating the design decision-making
process of K-12 students engaged in a design-based science unit. In this study, we
Engineering Discourse 587

investigated discursive design practices in small design groups in an eighth grade dialogic sci-
ence class to monitor closely the nature of engineering design decisions. Because the instruc-
tor engaged in rich and meaningful dialogue with students in small group discussions, we also
studied the instructor–student interactions on the development of design decisions. The fol-
lowing research questions guided our study:
 How do student discourse patterns and interactions affect design decisions?
 How do the instructor’s discursive interactions in small groups influence student
design?

Theoretical Framework
We applied cognitive and sociocultural theoretical traditions to frame this study since we see
classrooms as learning communities in which students construct new knowledge and skills as
they participate in knowledge-building practices. Our goal was to provide insight into stu-
dents’ decision-making processes and discourse patterns through a complex but realistic learn-
ing task requiring them to make design judgments under uncertainty. These aspects of
learning are foundations of situated learning theory, which views learning as the development
and use of knowledge and practices in an authentic activity involving social interaction and
collaboration among learners (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989; Cobb & Bowers, 1999;
Greeno, 1997). From this perspective, learning is seen as a socially organized activity in which
knowledge and practices are inseparable. This view of learning requires providing opportuni-
ties for students to actively participate in “formulating and evaluating problems, questions,
conjectures, conclusions, arguments and examples” (Greeno, 1997, p. 10).
A situated learning perspective for the reform-based science classroom views students as
active participants in meaningful authentic science and engineering practices, contributing to
the development of science and engineering knowledge through small learning communities
and the larger classroom community. A critical condition for supporting knowledge building
in these social settings is that students must participate in discourse to construct, share, and
refine knowledge as this discourse is integral to the practices and learning of science and engi-
neering. This knowledge building, and more importantly, its transfer, are a result of partici-
pating in cognitive, epistemic, and social practices (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1996; Duschl,
2008; Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2008; Hogan, Nastasi, & Pressley, 1999).
Classroom Discourse
Researchers have examined classroom discourse patterns and the role instructors play in struc-
turing the classroom discourse to allow students to engage in science or engineering discus-
sions (Azevedo, Mrtalock, & Keser, 2015; Hogan et al., 1999; Roychoudhury, 2007; Roth,
1995, 1996; Valtorta & Berland, 2015; Webb, 2009). In the context of science learning, the
majority of studies focus on dialectic discourses about representation, communication, expla-
nation, and evaluation of scientific data. In particular, much emphasis is placed on the prac-
tice of argumentation, since students engage in productive discourse when they use evidence
to justify their ideas, reasoning, or decisions (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000; Duschl,
2008). With respect to engineering design learning, however, discourse studies in this context
are more concerned with students’ verbal or written dialogue about the design of an artifact
or process created to solve a given engineering challenge (e.g., Azevedo et al., 2015; Roth,
588 Guzey & Aranda

1996; Watkins et al., 2014) or the peer interactions that occurred during an engineering
design-based science unit (e.g., Jordan & McDaniel, 2014).
Students, as decision makers, engage in reflection and discussion as they follow a design
process. Constructive design dialogue should be encouraged so that students make and justify
decisions in a productive and effective manner. Azevedo et al. (2015) studied student dis-
course practices in engineering design activities in two school settings, finding that student
discourse patterns focused on describing, explaining, or arguing. Not surprisingly, students
primarily described and explained their design solutions, while argumentation discourse or
discourse of design decisions occurred less frequently. Only in one study setting did students
“argue over competing—but not necessarily opposite and mutually exclusive—representa-
tional design solutions” (p. 305).
Other researchers have studied the development of design discourse as students generated
ideas and shared their design decisions with the class. For instance, the research conducted by
Roth (1996) reported changes in elementary students’ engineering-related discourse through-
out a 13-week unit in which students worked collaboratively to solve engineering challenges
such as tower building and bridge building. The findings from this study showed improve-
ment in their design language over the course of the unit, in particular during small group
and large group discussions in which students provided reasoning and evidence for target sci-
entific and mathematical concepts (e.g., forces, triangles). More recently, Valtorta and Ber-
land (2015) investigated students’ use of scientific and mathematical justification for their
engineering design, finding that students discussed and applied target science and mathemat-
ics concepts to their designs when the concepts were familiar (e.g., measurement). This stu-
dent discourse, however, did not include novel scientific and mathematical content as
justification for their designs. Although the instructor explicitly connected the novel concepts
to the engineering challenge of designing a pinhole-camera, students struggled to use them
to support their design decisions, suggesting that it was difficult for students to discuss disci-
plinary knowledge and apply it to a design artifact.
This difficulty in applying disciplinary content discourse was also evident in Jordan and
McDaniel’s (2014) study in which they argue that the uncertainty related to content and peer
interactions contribute to how students engage in collaborative problem-solving discussions
during an engineering activity. Students may manage the uncertainty inherent in engineering
problems by ignoring disciplinary content discourse, with the uncertainty management strate-
gies used depending to a certain degree on how the instructor structures the activity and the
collaborative design groups. As this analysis suggests, these past studies seem to indicate that
engineering discourse is tied to the content of the engineering activity and the way the class-
room community is supported and guided by instructors.
The Instructor’s Role in Promoting Classroom Discourse
Designing learning environments that support student use and development of decision mak-
ing is a difficult task for many instructors. Students need to be provided with enough support
and guidance to construct, justify, and evaluate ideas (Christodoulou & Osborne, 2014;
Michaels & O’Connor, 2012). As Hogan, Nastasi, and Pressley (1999) suggested, instructors
need to act as a “catalyst in discussions, prompting students to expand and clarify their think-
ing without providing direct information” (p. 379). These researchers studied discourse pat-
terns and collaborative reasoning in peer and instructor-guided small group discussions,
finding that instructor discourse in small groups promoted high levels of reasoning. Accord-
ing to Tabak and Baumgartner (2004), when instructors participate in small student groups
Engineering Discourse 589

as co-inquirers, they better support student construction of knowledge and argumentative dis-
course. Cardella, Bizzanell, Cummings, Tolbert, and Zoltowski (2014) focused on the feed-
back provided on design decisions and students’ responses to it, providing evidence that
constructive feedback that includes both design critiques and reviews helps students develop
design skills and knowledge. As these studies show, instructors play a crucial role in forming
and shaping productive, constructive classroom discourse.
Considering the emphasis of engineering integration in K-12 science classrooms, it is crit-
ical to provide students opportunities to engage in both meaningful engineering design tasks
and constructive decision-making discourse to ensure design activities do not become arts and
crafts activities, where students simply create by trial and error (Guzey et al., 2014; Kolodner
et al., 2003). Thus, one major goal of engineering education in grades K-12 is to help stu-
dents learn and experience both cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary practices as they
develop multiple design solutions, using data and evidence to make effective design decisions
(Brophy et al., 2008; NAE, 2009).
The goal of the research reported here was to explore both student discourse in small engi-
neering design groups and instructional and interactional discourse by the instructor. Using a
case study, this research provides an example of how students solve engineering problems as
they negotiate ideas and how an instructor interacts with students to facilitate the design dis-
cussions. Having an understanding of the discursive complexity in design activities can give
educators better insight in the design and implementation of engineering design-based sci-
ence curriculum materials.
Context of the Study
This research was conducted in an eighth grade science classroom in a small, rural town in a
Midwest state. At the time of the study, the classroom instructor, Mr. Harrison (pseudonym),
who was identified based on convenience sampling, had more than 10 years of teaching expe-
rience and had been working at the same school for 6 years. He had previous experience
teaching engineering in his classes, and he had participated in the researchers’ professional
development (PD) program on engineering integration in science teaching prior to the study.
This PD program, which was funded by the State Department of Education to support
instructors in developing a strong understanding of engineering practices and in integrating
engineering into their science teaching, included a 3-week summer workshop and several
follow-up meetings during the subsequent school year. Seventeen instructors engaged in a
variety of engineering activities designed and taught by engineering and education faculty
members in the PD program. The first two weeks were online, with instructors viewing and
reflecting on practice videos. They used a structured problem scoping interview protocol to
identify the needs of other instructors (e.g., engineering solutions for science lab equipment)
and designed possible solutions following engineering design processes. In addition, they read
research articles and chapters from recent educational reports (e.g., NAE, 2009) and partici-
pated in discussion forums. The third week of the PD program, which was face-to-face, was
held in a university setting. Briefly, the activities focused on engineering practices, the
iterative nature of engineering design, and effective ways of integrating engineering and
science in middle school science classes (see Table 1). During the following school year,
several follow-up meetings were held to support instructors with their implementation of
engineering activities.
As a requirement of the PD program, Mr. Harrison designed and implemented an engi-
neering design-based science unit, in which he introduced students to the engineering design
590 Guzey & Aranda

Table 1 Overview of the Schedule of Activities and Their Targeted Standards During the
Face-To-Face Professional Development (PD) Program
Science and engineering
Day Activities standards addressed

Day 1: The nature of engineering Stations: Designing, testing, Practices of engineering

design and STEM disciplines
Day 2: Teaching life science
through engineering design
Day 3: Teaching physical science
through engineering design
Day 4: Teaching physical science
through engineering design
Day 5: Assessment in engineering
and action plans
re-designing a water wheel,
maze for NASA Mars Rover,
heart valve, and alarm
clock prototype
Artificial floating islands unit: Practices of engineering;
Designing floating islands to interdependence among
clean up water pollution in living systems
an ecosystem
Energy efficient house unit: Changes in energy forms;
Designing energy efficient houses properties of insulators;
practices of engineering
Locker unit: Designing lockers Electricity; practices of
using electrical circuits engineering
Analyzing sample student work Assessment
(e.g., engineering reports),
planning for engineering
implementation

process and gave them experience in applying scientific knowledge (i.e., heat transfer and
thermal properties of insulation materials) to an engineering design problem. The implemen-
tation of the unit took twelve 50-min class periods. Briefly, Mr. Harrison had students con-
struct, test, evaluate, and re-design an energy-efficient and cost-effective greenhouse made
from a cardboard box and various insulating materials. Table 2 provides an overview of
the unit.
On Day 1, students were first introduced to the engineering design challenge.
Mr. Harrison provided the following design brief with constraints, criteria, and the rubric
that was subsequently used to evaluate student designs.

Table 2 Overview of the Engineering

Design-based Science Unit
Day Activity

Day 1 Introduction to project, heat transfer demo, and engineering design process
Days 2–3 Experimental setup for material testing
Day 4 Planning/sketching the greenhouse design
Day 5 Planning/sketching and building the greenhouse design
Day 6 Prototype testing
Day 7 Prototype testing and analysis of data
Day 8 Strengths/weaknesses of design
Day 9 Redesign
Day 10 Testing the redesigned greenhouse
Day 11 Analysis of data and critical thinking on redesign strategy
Day 12 Evaluating initial and final designs
Engineering Discourse 591

Your job as a member of Heat Trappers, Inc., is to work with a team of engineers
(your fellow students) to create as warm an environment as possible for some minia-
ture tropical plants that were just acquired for your school’s new botanical garden.
Your team will modify a (shoe) box to make a greenhouse. You can add features such
as a window and insulation. . .. To test your design, you will insert a temperature
probe inside your greenhouse and place it under the heat lamp and record tempera-
tures of it for 10 minutes. . .. The school has a budget that they are trying to meet.
You will receive higher consideration for your design if you stay within budget and
get the largest temperature change.
The budget was constrained by the materials Mr. Harrison provided to his students—
tape, felt, construction paper, bubble wrap, metallic construction paper, aluminum foil, and
recycled materials (plastic, cloth, bubble wrap, and cardboard)—each costing a different
amount. After a discussion of the design requirements, Mr. Harrison introduced an iterative
engineering design process. The groups then watched a short video about the design process
used by the Wright brothers as they invented the airplane. Next, Mr. Harrison demonstrated
the scientific concept of heat transfer using cups made of different materials.
On Days 2 and 3, students ran scientific experiments to test the insulation properties of
the different materials that they planned to use in their designs, and on Days 4 and 5, they
individually sketched three greenhouse designs. The students shared their designs including
the lists and the accompanying cost analysis of their materials with the other group members,
and then the groups identified one optimal design to develop. After students built their pro-
totypes, they tested them on Days 6 and 7 by inserting a probe inside each greenhouse to
measure the temperature as the house was placed under a heat lamp for 10 min and then for
an additional 10 min after the removal of the heat lamp. Similar to an actual greenhouse,
these designs not only needed to trap the heat inside but also needed to prevent it from escap-
ing. On Day 8, students completed their testing and evaluated their designs. They re-
designed on Day 9, testing their new designs on Day 10. Students compared and contrasted
their initial and final designs and evaluated other groups’ designs on Days 11 and 12.
Participants
Mr. Harrison’s class included 27 students, 14 Anglo-males, 11 Anglo-females, one Hispanic
male, and one Hispanic female, with approximately 20% of these students receiving free or
reduced lunches at the time of the study. Students stated that they had not participated in
any engineering activities in school prior to engaging in the engineering design-based science
unit in Mr. Harrison’s class. Mr. Harrison assigned students to their small groups for the
duration of the unit, with the aim of forming heterogeneous groups with respect to gender,
level of achievement, and verbal participation. There were six groups of four students and one
group of three students. Of the seven groups, four of them (15 students; 8 boys, 7 girls)
agreed to participate in the study. Groups 1, 3, and 4 consisted of two girls and two boys, and
Group 2 included two boys and one girl.

Research Design and Methods

This exploratory case study aimed to explore engineering discourse taking place in a science
classroom where the instructor used engineering design as a vehicle to teach science. This
case study approach was chosen because it allows for an in-depth exploration of the classroom
592 Guzey & Aranda

discourse over a specific time period. Second, the study focused on the process (the discursive
knowledge-building practices of the students) rather than the outcomes. Further, the case study
approach particularly suits this study since student discourse is uniquely tied to the classroom
context, supporting that the phenomenon under study cannot be separated from the bounded
context (Yin, 2009) as the researchers’ intent was to explore the discourse practices of a class-
room community. The bounded contexts for this study are the engineering design project
within the classroom, and the discourse within the four teams and between the teams and the
instructor during the design project. To enhance the construct, internal and external validity,
and reliability of the study, five approaches were used: triangulation of the extensive audio data
and video data sets, the application of established coding strategies and theoretical framework,
the use of inter-rater reliability, quantifying the qualitative data set, and member-checking.
Data Collection
Data sources included video recordings of the classroom and audio recordings of the student
conversations in small groups. The video recordings were used to document observations of the
classroom, in particular the verbal interactions of the instructor and the students. The primary
data source, the audio recordings of student discussions, allowed for detailed collection of verbal
data. Audio-recorders were placed in the middle of the students’ tables in an effort to collect all
conversations. There were no missing data for the audio or video recordings in this study.
The 15 students in the four groups who agreed to participate in the study allowed all
group conversations to be recorded over the 12 days of the unit. During the first day, no small
group conversations occurred since interactive large class discussions occurred on this day.
Mr. Harrison followed a routine on Days 2–12 in which he reminded students of the engi-
neering task, presented necessary focal science content and answered questions during the first
5–10 min of the class period. For the remainder of the class period, the students worked in
their small groups. Approximately 25 hr of small group conversations (4 groups and 11 class
periods) were recorded and transcribed verbatim.
Data Analysis
Students participated in the science and engineering activities and engaged in design dis-
course during these activities. There are a number of ways to analyze such verbal interactions.
Discourse analysis, in general, refers to a wide range of approaches for analyzing written or
verbal use of language and its role in social life (Edwards, 1997; Gee, 2005; Wetherell, Tay-
lor, & Yates, 2001). As this study did not specifically focus on the structure of the language
in use (i.e., the ways words were spoken or pronounced) or the sociolinguistic dynamics (i.e.,
identity and social relations), the researchers did not apply such commonly used discourse
analysis approaches as sociolinguistics, discursive psychology, critical discourse analysis, or
Foucauldian analysis (Wetherell et al., 2001). Rather our approach looked for patterns in the
language associated with the engineering design-based science unit, focusing on the interac-
tions in and contributions to the small group conversations. In addition, we did not separate
the content of the discourse from the ongoing process of discourse. Thus, our analysis aligns
more with ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (Wetherell et al., 2001), both of
which can be seen as strands within discourse analysis (Fairclough, 1992).
Ethnomethodology is the study of social interactions and shared understandings of a par-
ticular sociocultural group. The ethnomethodological perspective sees conversation as a
skilled social action or an accomplishment of people (Fairclough, 1992). In other words, indi-
viduals produce or construct understanding through their involvement in social action.
Engineering Discourse 593

Studies using this approach include detailed descriptions of study settings “as those settings
and their local understandings and perspectives serve to mediate the meaning of what is said
in the course of social interaction” (Holstein & Gubrium, 2011, p. 343). For example, Lynch
(1985) conducted ethnomethodological studies of scientific laboratory investigations in his
examination of the inquiry work and discourse of students involved in laboratory practices.
Conversation analysis, which builds on ethnomethodology, is an analysis of task, activity,
or work-based institutional discourse, which refers to conversations tied to institution-
relevant identities (e.g., instructor and student, doctor and patient) (Fairclough, 1992;
Wetherell et al., 2001). More specifically, the conversational analysis approach is used to
study discourse interaction or patterns of interaction, turn-taking structure, and sequential
arrangement in conversations. The emphasis of this type of analysis is at the utterance-by-
utterance level, meaning conversation analysts focus on discovering the structures in texts
(Fairclough, 1992). They see discourse as a vehicle of human action, which is thoroughly
structured and organized, and as a site where participant intentions are created and main-
tained (Perakyla & Ruusuvuori, 2011). Conversation analysis research has focused on such
aspects of conversation or discourse as the rules and patterns in conversational openings and
endings, the ways topics are developed and changed, storytelling, and ways of formulating
conversations (Fairclough, 1992). Examples of conversation analysis in education research can
be found in event-oriented inquiry goals in science classrooms (Roth & Tobin, 2010) and
formal and informal speech-exchange systems in classroom discourse (McHoul, 1978).
There are no strict guidelines for analyzing conversation data, with researchers advocating
using methods guided by the research questions. This study applied Miles and Huberman’s
(1994) data analysis framework for coding the data set using these steps: data reduction, data
display, and conclusion drawing and verification. Using this analytical process allowed the
researchers to organize and manage the large data set, identify patterns, and find meanings
emerging from the data. To answer the research questions of this study, coding was con-
ducted on (a) student discourse patterns and interaction sequences and (b) the instructor’s dis-
cursive interactions.
Student discourse patterns and interaction sequences Group conversations were coded
for discourse patterns and interaction sequences using codes drawn and adapted from the
work of Hogan et al. (1999) and Hmelo-Silver and Barrows (2008). The former study
focused on the interactions of a group of 12th grade students in peer and instructor-guided
discussions as they built, explained, and defended a mental model of the nature of matter,
while the latter study analyzed knowledge-building discussions that occurred as second-year
medical students engaged in a problem-based learning model. Both studies used several levels
of coding to analyze idea generation structures and the complexity of the scientific ideas.
In the study reported here, the researchers first coded student statements based on whether
they were new ideas (solutions to the engineering task), modifications of new ideas, agree-
ments, disagreements, or metacognitive statements as shown in Table 3. Each statement was
also coded for its level of complexity to study the complexity of student reasoning or decision
making. Statements were coded as simple if they did not provide any specific justification for
the design decision. Elaborated statements included judgments without scientific reasoning;
the majority of these statements focused on balancing costs and material reliability. Causal
elaborated statements showed sophistication of reasoning since they included justifications
with scientific reasoning in addition to financial feasibility and reliability of the materials.
Sophistication of reasoning complexity is closely related to the interactions among group
members since the number and the type of ideas influence reasoning complexity. Thus, the
594 Guzey & Aranda

Table 3 Categories of Discourse Patterns

Code Definition Coded example(s)

1. New idea Mentioned new idea not previously
introduced
2. Modification Changing an idea previously
mentioned—may include elaboration,
clarification, and revision
3. Agreement Indication of shared opinion or
understanding
4. Disagreement Indication of difference of opinion
or understanding
5. Meta Indication of monitoring individual
or group understanding, progress,
self-directed learning
6. Other/Question Statements that do not fit into
categories 1–5 or were unintelligible
Complexity for Categories 1–4
Simple Claims or assertions without any
elaboration or justification
Elaborated Statements that include definitions,
examples, comparisons, judgments,
and predictions without scientific
reasoning
Causal elaborated Explanation of how an event or process
occurs, how current state arose, or
consequence of a process or event
including justifications with targeted
science concepts
Let’s use black foam.
We can put black foam all around the
box so it traps more heat.
Oh, you are right.
But we do not have more money to
spend, we cannot use more tape.
We all decided to put this tape here to
keep hot air inside the box.
Look at the other group, let’s see what
they are doing.
Oh, just use black foam.
We cannot buy black foam. We do not
have enough money to buy it.
OK, we found that black felt kept the
heat long time and it only costs us
$500, we should use it.

researchers needed to analyze the nature of these interaction sequences in more detail. To do
so, the researchers focused on the flow of the knowledge-building dialogue, noting that inter-
action sequences occurred as students discussed new ideas. These statements were then coded
as one of the three types of interactional sequences: consensual interaction sequence, responsive
interaction sequence, or elaborative interaction sequence. In a consensual interaction sequence,
only one student carried the conversation, while one or two others were minimally involved.
The following excerpt is a representative example of a consensual interaction sequence.
Student 1: Also, I have an idea, but I’m not sure if this will work or not. I can put the
Styrofoam on the outside, line the walls in tinfoil and keep the heat pushing towards
the middle of the house.
Student 2: OK.
In a responsive conversation, at least two students contributed to the discourse.
Student 1: Okay, guys, my idea. I have that recycled Styrofoam up there. I say we line
the walls with Styrofoam because Styrofoam will keep the heat in.
Engineering Discourse 595

Student 2: Buying insulation?

Student 1: Yes, it’s like. . .
Student 2: Trading. It’s going to cost $100 per 30 centimeters.
In the third type of interaction sequence, elaborative patterns, all group members equally con-
tributed to the discussion. The following excerpt illustrates an example of this type of sequence.
Student 1: We definitely need to foil it or put something else in there.
Student 2: It might be a little more money, but I thought it would be good, the complete
opposite. If the light shot through here, the heat would bring it in. The black paper
would bring it in. The aluminum foil would reflect off of the sides and trap the energy.
Student 3: I see what you’re saying. You want to do that?
Student 2: Yes, I guess we could. When you do this, and the light comes in there, the
light is just coming right back out.
Student 3: Okay. I see what you’re saying. Put black construction paper down here
and aluminum foil down the sides to keep it in. All right, we can do that.
Student 1: Okay, what are we doing?
Student 2: Everywhere it is black is going to be aluminum foil and everywhere it’s alu-
minum foil, it’s going to be black.
Student 1: On the bottom, is it going to be black?
Student 2: Yes.
Student 3: Are we going to make that bigger, the cut [window]? Or smaller?
Student 2: Should we keep the same size?

Instructor’s discursive interaction We analyzed Mr. Harrison’s discursive interactions

since he closely monitored students as they made engineering design decisions and partici-
pated in small group discussions. Codes used for the instructor discourse, which were adapted
from Hogan et al. (1999), are shown in Table 4 with their respective coded examples.
Both researchers contributed equally to the data analysis of the student and instructor dis-
course. As suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994), they first tested the coding frameworks
by independently coding a small data set. Next, they compared their codes, identifying the
ones needing to be clarified. To ensure consistency in the subsequent analysis steps, the
researchers then individually coded another set of transcripts, with their agreement calculated
as 87%. Next, they independently coded each group’s engineering design discourse using
NVivo 10 (QSR International, 2014). They met regularly to compare their codes, discuss the
discrepancies, and assign consensus codes to all transcripts. This process allowed the research-
ers to reach 100% agreement on codes for both student and instructor discourse.

Results
Student Discourse Patterns and Interaction Sequence
To more fully understand the discourse patterns and interaction sequences among the groups,
we used the following codes: New Idea, Modification, Meta, Agreement and Disagreement,
596 Guzey & Aranda

Table 4 Codes for Teacher Discourse

Code Definition Example

Present information
Request information
Repeats and elaborates
Reacts
Communicate task
expectations
Instructor presents new information,
reminds students of previously
discussed content
Instructor checks status, probes to
next level, probes into new territory,
prompts reflection, requests clarity
Instructor restates, summarizes,
elaborates
Instructor accepts or confirms
students’ statements, makes
neutral statements
Instructor communicates task
expectations, reminds of
deadlines etc.
There are three types of ways of energy
transfer: conduction, convection,
radiation.
Have you chosen your materials?
So you chose black foam since it
traps heat?
Yeah, black foam is not cheap.
Do not forget that you need to include
this information in your report.

with these being further coded by their level of complexity (Simple, Elaborated, and Causal
Elaborated). Our results, shown in Table 5, found differences among the groups in both the
number and proportions of the four codes assigned.
Group 1 produced more new ideas compared to the other three groups as an outcome of
the discursive process. They also modified their design decisions as they continued to discuss
their ideas. Further, the differences in the percentage of agreements and disagreements within
the codes indicate the number of turns in the group discourse. All groups had more
agreements with one another’s ideas than disagreements although for Group 1 they were
almost equal. Additional analysis also reveals a difference in the complexity among the
groups’ discursive patterns. As shown in Table 6, Group 1 had more Simple and Elaborated
codes (New Idea, Modification, and Disagreement) compared to the other three groups.
Excerpts from Groups 1 and 3 will be used to illustrate the differences in the students’ dis-
courses as they represent contrasting results. For example, while many new ideas were offered
in Group 1, these were expressed most often as simple statements. In other words, students
made design suggestions without providing any reasoning or justification. The number of
modifications, agreements, and disagreements indicates that the students were involved in
conversations negotiating previously introduced ideas. Clearly, the students were exchanging

Table 5 Number and Percentage of Discourse Patterns

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
No. % No. % No. % No. %

New idea 18 17 10 19 12 15 8 13
Modification 17 16 8 15 6 8 3 5
Meta 1 1 4 8 4 5 0 0
Agreement 33 31 24 45 44 57 40 67
Disagreement 31 29 6 11 11 14 9 15
Other 7 6 1 2 1 1 0 0
Engineering Discourse 597

Table 6 Complexity of Discourse Patterns

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
S E CE S E CE S E CE S E CE

New idea 11 3 4 7 2 1 5 1 6 4 1 3
Modification 11 5 1 4 1 3 4 0 2 0 1 2
Agreement 32 0 1 24 0 0 44 0 0 40 0 0
Disagreement 26 5 0 6 0 0 10 1 0 9 0 0

Note. S 5 Simple, E 5 Elaborated, CE 5 Causal elaborated.

ideas; however, again most were simple assertions. For example, one student said, “Hhmm, I
think we should use construction paper,” and another member responded, “Yeah.” Contrast
this simple new idea generation discussion with an Elaborated New Idea, defined as one that
incorporates cost into the discourse but without any scientific reasoning. The following
excerpt is an example of an Elaborated New Idea from Group 1.
Student 1: How much is felt?
Student 2: We figured that out.
Student 3: We’re going for number three, on the price [referring to the scoring rubric].
Student 2: No, we’re not. We are going for one.
Student 1: Less than $2,000?
Student 2: Yes!
Student 1: How do you expect me to perform? I can’t perform with $2,000 in
material.
Student 2: Because. . .
Student 1: Considering one of the things I want is $1500.
Student 2: Well, that stinks.
Student 1: I bet I could do it with construction paper. Construction paper is $200 a sheet!
This conversation from Group 1 contrasts to Group 3, who were involved in more Causal
Elaborated discussions, where the focus was more on the scientific principles behind the engi-
neering design than the cost constraints. In the following excerpt, the discussion among the
students in Group 3 displayed their knowledge about insulators and heat transfer.
Student 1: Foam would be a good idea. It would hold the most heat.
Student 2: Where would we put it?
Student 1: I do not know.
Student 3: Where would it be located?
Student 1: In the center. Let’s change our design. Here is the probe [showing where
the probe will be inserted to measure temperature change]. We have our transparency
598 Guzey & Aranda

here [referring to the window on top of the house] and the shiny stuff [referring to
metallic reflective construction paper] here [under the transparency].
While students were discussing their design, Mr. Harrison joined the group, asking them
about their design decisions.
Mr. Harrison: What are you thinking about?
Student 1: It is kind of hard to draw. Here is the probe, and we have aluminum foil
or something shiny so the sunlight will reflect off of this and we will put some black
foam here so it will keep the heat.
This excerpt shows that students used black foam, which was large enough to insulate the sides
when placed in the center of the greenhouse, since they wanted to trap air to minimize convection
loss. The students also decided to use a reflector made of shiny material to bounce extra light into
the interior of the greenhouse, saying “reflecting light directly to the probe” would result in a
higher temperature. After Group 3 tested their initial design, they decided to use foam in their
redesign as well, elaborating on their reasons for doing so in one of their discussions.
Student 1: This [referring to their thick foam] is like insulation they put in homes.
Student 2: Somewhat.
Student 1: Yeah, the insulation in walls are more like fluffy feel.
Student 3: Yes, that is true. You want it less dense or more dense?
Student 1: Yeah, thick. Thicker.
The group worked together to improve their knowledge as most of the members contrib-
uted to a conversation about foam as an insulation material. No new ideas were added nor
elaborations offered after the above conversation, and the group decided to reuse the thick
foam for their redesign. This time, however, they taped the corners and the sides of the card-
board around the window “so there is no heat escaping.” Previously, in their initial design,
students had not made explicit connections between the heat loss inside their house and the
importance of sealing or taping to prevent air flow.
In addition to coding the different levels of complexity in our second level codes, we ana-
lyzed the interaction patterns that occurred upon the generation of New Ideas. Our results
indicate that Group 1 had more Consensual and Responsive (as seen in Table 7) Interaction
Patterns in their New Ideas than the other three groups. Discussions in this group were dom-
inated by one or two members compared to the other groups, which incorporated everyone’s
thoughts and ideas as a whole. In addition, we observed that Group 3 had more Causal Elab-
orated New Ideas and more Elaborative Interaction Patterns in their discourse compared to
Group 1. In the above excerpts from Group 3, three students actively engaged in the group
discourse, highlighting the effect of co-constructive discussions on generating ideas that
incorporate higher scientific and engineering reasoning.
Discursive Patterns of the Instructor
In an effort to understand the role of instructor guidance in student discourse, the researchers
analyzed the instructor’s discourse in the small group conversations throughout the engineer-
ing design task. The summary of these codes is shown in Table 8.
Engineering Discourse 599

Table 7 Percentage of Interaction Patterns

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Consensual 35 20 17 13
Responsive 65 40 50 62
Elaborative 0 40 33 17

The analysis showed that when working with groups, Mr. Harrison’s primary purpose was
not to present information to the students as only 3–5% of his statements involved presenting
new information to the groups. Rather, he was a questioner and a facilitator. He engaged in
group discourse, asking students about the status of their designs and the reasons behind their
design decisions (request information) and to check whether the students followed the proce-
dures for each task (communicate task expectations).
Mr. Harrison engaged in more conversations with students in Group 3 than with the
other three groups, typically requesting information from them. Sometimes he challenged
these students to explain to him why they chose the materials they did for their design, often
asking them to refer to their data from their experiments to support their claims. He used
questions such as “Why do you think foam was so good at absorbing? What is in it?” or
“What was the biggest factor do you think as far as why you were not able to keep heat in?
Big window? Why does that matter?”
A transcribed example of this instructor-guided discourse from Group 3 is seen below.
The excerpt begins after students completed their experiments investigating the insulation
properties of materials. As the students were trying to decide what materials they should use
in their design, Mr. Harrison joined the discussion.
Mr. Harrison: Okay. Okay, and you’re just putting foil?
Student 1: Metallic construction paper.
Mr. Harrison: Got you. Anything else? Okay, why are you just using the metallic con-
struction paper?
Student 1: Metallic and foil are similar.
Mr. Harrison: Why do you have the angle?
Student 1: We think it is going to reflect and then the black will absorb it.
Mr. Harrison: Where are you putting the black [foam] at?

Table 8 Number of Instructor Statements

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4

Presents information 21 8 13 17
Requests information 104 147 198 145
Repeats and elaborates 8 13 36 22
Reacts 27 28 51 20
Communicates task expectations 100 104 71 125
Total 260 300 369 329
600 Guzey & Aranda

Student 1: This is black foam, which is basically those on the end of the box.
Mr. Harrison: A thick foam?
Student 2: Yes. Then, we are going to have thin construction paper on the walls to
help absorb.
Mr. Harrison: What is your cost looking like?
Student 3: $2400. Two pieces of foam, one metallic construction paper and two pieces
of construction paper.
Mr. Harrison also encouraged students to evaluate their initial designs and improve them
for re-design.
Mr. Harrison: What did you say your main weaknesses that you’re going to focus on?
Student 1: It didn’t have enough insulation.
Mr. Harrison: What kind of insulation do you need?
Student 1: More foam.
Mr. Harrison: More foam? What was your cost?
Student 2: Oh, $2400.
Mr. Harrison: All right. Okay.
It is important to note that Mr. Harrison engaged in knowledge-building dialogue with
Groups 1, 2, and 4 as well, requesting information from those students. He asked students to
explain their designs and judge whether they were successful. However, he often also engaged
these groups in conversations to remind students of the task expectation. In contrast, Mr.
Harrison’s conversations with Group 3 were less focused on task requirements and expecta-
tions than the other three groups, indicating he questioned this group more on how to assess
and advance their design solutions and content knowledge.

Discussion
This study explored engineering discourse in an eighth grade science classroom where the
instructor aimed to provide opportunities for heterogeneous groups of students to engage in
dialogic design discourse for over 12 class periods. The findings demonstrated that students
in the groups were actively speaking, listening, and responding to one another’s comments as
they made design decisions. However, there was variation among the groups in design dis-
course structure and patterns, both of which influenced design decisions. Similarly, differ-
ences were also found in the instructor’s discursive interactions in the small groups, discourse
that played an important role in supporting and promoting constructive evaluation and fur-
ther development of design ideas and decisions.
While all the groups completed identical tasks and spent the same amount of classroom
time on each task, the number of new ideas generated to solve the design challenge differed
among the groups. Note that the groups were preassigned by the instructor based on mixing
gender and achievement levels. One possible reason for the differences in the number of new
ideas formed by each group is that the level of student engagement in design discussion dif-
fered among the groups. The results also demonstrated that the majority of the conversations
Engineering Discourse 601

in each group were led by either one student (Consensual pattern) or two (Responsive pat-
tern). However, past research has found that it is important for all students to make substan-
tive contributions to design discussions to understand the principles surrounding the
engineering design (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2008; Hogan et al., 1999; Roth, 1996).
Second, there was also variation in the complexity of the design decisions across the four
groups. It seems that most group reasoning was limited to financial feasibility. Even though
students were tasked with creating designs constrained by cost, temperature, and other design
features, students appeared to struggle as they tried to balance the scientific evidence and the
cost. Further, the decision-making process was unexpectedly complex for students in all four
groups. Students were involved in an evidence-gathering phase for the design challenge early
in the unit when they designed experiments investigating the insulation properties of several
materials. They were asked to interpret and evaluate their data and then use this information
to justify their design decisions. Even though students had engaged in scientific practices to
increase their understanding of the target science concepts needed, it was challenging for
them to analyze, synthesize the new information, and integrate it into the design context.
Students had a tendency to quickly come to a design decision after simply comparing and
contrasting materials based on their cost rather than considering it in conjunction with their
thermal capacities. This difficulty with reasoning or the application of science and mathemat-
ical knowledge to their design supports previous studies (Azevedo et al., 2015; Roth, 1996;
Valtorta & Berland, 2015).
The findings of this study also provided insight into the role of the instructor in orches-
trating effective engineering discussions. Mr. Harrison acted as a facilitator, encouraging stu-
dents to take ownership of their learning. He closely monitored groups as they engaged in
design discussions and participated in group discussions as well, primarily requesting informa-
tion from students about their design decisions. He usually began a conversation with a group
by asking what they had done thus far, then asking them to explain the reasons behind their
decisions. This dialogue prompted students to think deeply and justify their design decisions.
However, findings showed that the amount of discourse Mr. Harrison contributed to the
group dialogues varied among the four groups. He participated in Group 3’s discussions more
and requested more information from this group compared to the others. Because he asked
students in Group 3 to explain and defend their design decisions, these discussions encour-
aged and led them to construct justifications and explanations. As a result, according to the
class and instructor consensus, Group 3 developed the best engineering design for their
greenhouse based on its ability to trap and retain heat in a cost-effective manner. This finding
suggests that evaluation-focused design discussions are more likely to occur when the instruc-
tor engages in discourse in collaborative student groups and when he incorporates prompts
that explicitly address what students should focus on.
This explicit instruction, which is also a characteristic of situated learning (Brown et al.,
1989; Cobb & Bowers, 1999), has been shown to be effective in enhancing scientific reason-
ing in science instruction as well (e.g., Michaels & O’Connor, 2012; Osborne, Erduran, &
Simon, 2004; Rocychoudhury, 2007) and should, therefore, be an instrumental component of
the instruction provided for design-based challenges. Because not all students have been
exposed to the kind of explaining and reasoning that is required or expected in design-based
science instruction, instructors play a critical role in encouraging and supporting students to
explain and justify their ideas and reason with evidence (Michaels & O’Connor, 2012). Hav-
ing students view evidence-based decision making as a central feature of engineering design
in science could have considerable positive effects on their understanding of both science and
602 Guzey & Aranda

engineering practices as this design discourse makes students’ engineering thinking visible
(Azevedo et al., 2015; Roth, 1996).
This study, which focused on the integration of engineering and physical sciences in the
classroom, could be extended to explore engineering discourse in other science domains, such
as life science or earth science, for example. Given the differences in the nature of each scien-
tific discipline and the engineering problems related to each discipline, discourse structures
and patterns might be different in collaborative small design groups. Additionally, a compari-
son study of an engineering design-based science unit with and without cost as a constraint
could demonstrate how cost influences student discourse. Cost analysis or budget constraint
as a part of engineering challenges in K-12 education has been, in general, used for two pri-
mary purposes. Cost analysis makes engineering challenges more realistic by preventing stu-
dents from indiscriminate spending on design materials, while budget constraints might help
them move from trial and error to systematic design. However, more research is needed to
determine how K-12 students solve engineering challenges if cost constraint does not drive
the design process.

Limitations and Implications for Practice and Research

Even though the data sets of video and audio recordings were collected from one classroom
in a small, rural school, the size of the data set, detailed context, thick descriptions, and exam-
ples of raw data support the transferability of the findings and suggest implications for prac-
tice and research.
Conversation analysis is open to the criticism that it investigates human social interactions
predominantly by coding and counting patterns, structures, or rules of conversations, and this
use of numbers to generate meaning from qualitative data has been questioned by many quali-
tative researchers (Sandelowski, 2001). However, the transformation of qualitative data sets
to quantitative ones to numerically represent the codes or themes has the potential to help
qualitative researchers extract more meaning from large qualitative data sets (Tashakkori &
Teddlie, 1998). Furthermore, displaying information numerically allows patterns to emerge
clearly, thus, clarifying meaning (Sandelowski, 2001).
The primary implication of this study for engineering education is that learning about
engineering design and practices in science classrooms requires more than simply engaging in
engineering tasks. Students should engage in productive engineering discourse in small
groups as they make design decisions, but in conjunction with instructor-guided knowledge
construction discussions as these are critical for effective engineering instruction. As support-
ing design decisions with scientific principles can be challenging for many students, our study
suggests that instructors need to provide more scaffolding in their instruction to focus their
students’ decisions on scientific reasoning. It is hoped that this application of science in engi-
neering design will improve engineering design-based instruction and enable students to
experience learning in integrated ways (NAE, 2009). In addition, research should take into
consideration the social and the contextual factors that play critical roles in engineering teach-
ing and learning.

Conclusions
The analysis and findings of this article provide valuable information about integrating engi-
neering in K-12 science classrooms. Negotiating, reasoning, and collaborating with others are
critical for learning in science and engineering. Through discourse, students in this study
Engineering Discourse 603

explored new ideas, subsequently supporting them with evidence-based explanations. How-
ever, student participation, idea generation, and reasoning varied among the small design
groups. Initially, students placed more emphasis on cost analysis than scientific reasoning in
justifying their decisions until the instructor guided small group discussions. This interaction
facilitated both the students’ development of new ideas and their ability to provide evidence
to support their claims, suggesting that instructors can influence student discourse to focus on
the scientific reasoning driving their designs.

References
Adams, R. S., Daly, S. R., Mann, L. M., & Dall’Alba, G. (2011). Being a professional: Three
lenses into design thinking, acting, and being. Design Studies, 32(6), 588–607. doi:
10.1016/j.destud.2011.07.004
Aurigemma, J., Chandrasekharan, S., Nersessian, N. J., & Newstetter, W. (2013). Turning
experiments into objects: The cognitive processes involved in the design of a lab-on-a-
chip device. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 117–140. doi:10.1002/jee.20003
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:10.1007/
s11422-013-9540-5
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1996). Rethinking learning. In D. R. Olson & N. Torrance
(Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp. 485–513). Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008, July). Advancing engineering edu-
cation in K-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 369–387. 10.1002/j.2168-
9830.2008.tb00985.x
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learn-
ing. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. doi:10.3102/0013189X018001032
Cardella, M., Bizzanell, P., Cummings, A., Tolbert, D., & Zoltowski, C. (2014). A tale of
two design contexts: Quantitative and qualitative explorations of student–instructor interactions
amidst ambiguity. Paper presented at the Design Thinking Research Symposium, West
Lafayette, IN, US. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article51038&context5dtrs
Christodoulou, A., & Osborne, J. (2014). The science classroom as a site of epistemic talk: A
case study of a teacher’s attempts to teach science based on argument. Journal of Research
in Science Teaching, 51(10), 1275–1300. doi:10.1002/tea.21166
Cobb, P. & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspective in theory and
practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15. doi:10.3102/0013189X028002004
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix.
Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.
tb01127.x
Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumen-
tation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-
237X(200005)84:3 < 287::AID-SCE1 > 3.3.CO;2-1
Duschl, R. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, episte-
mic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291. doi:
10.3102/0091732X07309371
604 Guzey & Aranda

Dym, C. L., Agogino, A., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005, January). Engineering
design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 103–120. doi:
10.1109/EMR.2006.1679078
Edwards, D. (1997). Discourse and cognition. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York:
Routledge.
Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong questions. Education Researcher,
26(1), 5–17. doi:10.3102/0013189X026001005
Guzey, S., Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Peralta, Y., & Moore, T. (2017). The impact of
design-based STEM integration curricula on student achievement in engineering, science,
and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 207–222. doi:
10.1007/s10956-016-9673-x.
Guzey, S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A high-quality profes-
sional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into class-
rooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139–149. doi:10.1111/ssm.12061
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building.
Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 48–94. doi:10.1080/07370000701798495
Hogan, K., Nastasi, B., & Pressley, M. (1999). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific
reasoning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17(4), 379–
432. doi: 10.1207/S1532690XCI1704_2
Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. (2011). The constructionist analytics of interpretive practice. In
N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 341–
358). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem
solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activ-
ity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536. doi:10.1080/10508406.2014.896254
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., &
Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle school
science classroom: Putting learning by designTM into practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences,
12(4), 495–547. doi:10.1207/S15327809JLS1204_2
Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Lynch, M. (1985). Art and artifact in laboratory science: A study of shop work and shop talk in a
research laboratory. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
McHoul, A. W. (1978). The organization of turns at formal talk in the classroom. Language
in Society, 7, 183–213. doi:10.1017/S0047404500005522
Mentzer, N., Becker, K., & Sutton, M. (2015). Engineering design thinking: High school
students’ performance and knowledge. Journal of Engineering Education, 104, 5–12. doi:
10.1002/jee.20105
Michaels, S., & O’Connor, C. (2012). Talk science primer. Cambridge, MA: TERC.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Moore, T., Johnson, C., Peters-Burton, E., & Guzey, S. S. (2015). The need for a STEM
road map. In C. Johnson, E. Peters-Burton, & T. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map: A
framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 3–12). New York, NY: Routledge.
Engineering Discourse 605

National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Under-

standing the status and improving the prospects. Engineering Education. Retrieved from
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id512635&page5R1
National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education.
Retrieved from www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id513165
NGSS Lead States (2013) Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington,
DC: The National Academic Press.
Osborne, J., Erduran, S., & Simon, S. (2004). Enhancing the quality of argumentation in
school science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 994–1020. doi:10.1002/
tea.20035
Penner, D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1998). From physical models to biomechanics: A
design-based modeling approach. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3&4), 429–449. doi:
10.1207/s15327809jls0703&4_6
Perakyla, A., & Ruusuvuori, J. (2011). Analyzing talk and text. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 529–544). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
QSR International. (2014). N-Vivo (Version 10.2.2). Melbourne, Australia: QSR
International.
Roth, W. (1995). Inventors, copycats, and everyone else: The emergence of shared resources and
practices as defining aspects of classroom communities. Science Education, 79(5), 475–502.
doi:10.1002/sce.3730790502
Roth, W. (1996). Art and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective art
and artifact of children’s designing: A situated cognition perspective. Journal of the Learn-
ing Sciences, 5(2), 129–166. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0502
Roth, W. & Tobin, K. (2010). Solidarity and conflict: Aligned and misaligned prosody as
a transactional resource in intra- and intercultural communication involving power
difference. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(4), 807–847. doi:10.1007/s11422-010-
9272-8.
Roychoudhury, A. (2007). Elementary students’ reasoning: Crests and troughs of learning.
Journal of Elementary Science Education, 19(2), 25–43. doi:10.1007/BF03173661
Sandelowski, M. (2001). Real qualitative researchers do not count: The use of numbers in
qualitative research. Research in Nursing and Health, 24(3), 230–240. doi:10.1002/
nur.1025
Tabak, I., & Baumgartner, E. (2004). The teacher as partner: Exploring participant
structures, symmetry, and identity work in scaffolding. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4),
393–429. doi:10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_2
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and quanti-
tative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Valtorta, C. G., & Berland, L. K. (2015). Math, science, and engineering integration in a
high school engineering course: A qualitative study. Journal of Pre-College Engineering
Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), Article 3. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1087.
Watkins, J., Spencer, K., & Hammer, D. (2014). Examining young students’ problem scoping
in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 43–53.
doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1082
Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28. doi:10.1348/000709908X380772
606 Guzey & Aranda

Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content perfor-
mance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education,
102(4), 513–540. doi:10.1002/jee.20026
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (2001). Discourse as data: A guide for analysis.
London: Sage.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Authors
S. Selcen Guzey is an Assistant Professor of Science Education in the Department of
Curriculum and Instruction and Department of Biological Sciences at Purdue University,
100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; sguzey@purdue.edu.
Maurina Aranda is a PhD candidate in Biology Education in the Department of Biologi-
cal Sciences at Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN, 47907; mar-
anda@purdue.edu.