Argument-Driven Engineering in Middle School Science: An Exploratory Study of Changes in Engineering Identity Over an Academic Year

Abstract

The goal of this study was to examine how the use of a new instructional model is related to changes in middle school students' engineering identity. The intent of this instructional model, which is called argument-driven engineering (ADE), is to give students opportunities to design and critique solutions to meaningful problems using the core ideas and practices of science and engineering. The model also reflects current recommendations found in the literature for supporting the development or maintenance of engineering identity. This study took place in the context of an eighth-grade science classroom in order to explore how middle school students' engineering identities change over time as they become more familiar with engineering core ideas and practices. One hundred students participated in this study. These students completed three design tasks during the school year that were created using the ADE instructional model. These students also completed a survey that was designed to measure two important aspects of an engineering identity (recognition and interest) at three different time points. The results of a hierarchical linear modeling analysis suggest that students' ideas about how they view themselves and others view them in terms of engineering did not change over time and their reported interest decreased from one survey to the next. The difficulty of the design tasks and the ways teachers enacted the instructional model are proposed as potential explanations for this counterintuitive finding.

Grade-7 Students’ Negotiation during the Engineering Design Processes Regarding the Status of Their Argumentation Training

“…A model that allows these design tasks to be completed in a few weeks is suggested. The EDP comprises eight stages: introducing the problem, concept generation, concept selection, design argumentation, design testing, evaluation argumentation, report development, and reflection and discussion (Chu et al, 2019).…”

Children's engineering identities‐in‐practice: An exploration of child–adult interactions in an out‐of‐school context

“…Researchers have documented the various barriers within school environments that are likely to limit children's identity as an engineer. These barriers include lack of preparation and knowledge of prospective and practicing teachers (Banilower et al, 2018; Chu et al, 2019), lack of time for planning and implementing engineering lessons (Hammack & Ivy, 2019), lack of administrative support (Hammack & Ivy, 2019), difficulty in including student‐centered lessons that incorporate an engineering design cycle (Nadelson et al, 2016), the pressure around high‐stakes testing in reading and mathematics (Chu et al, 2019), and an overall misconception and stereotypical view of engineers (Hammack & Ivey, 2017). Alternatively, others advocate for out‐of‐school learning environments as places that support children's identity in STEM (e.g., Bell et al, 2017; Calabrese Barton et al, 2021; S. A. Pattison et al, 2018; Simpson & Knox, 2022).…”

Incorporating an engineering context into science learning: The effects of task context and response structuring on science understanding and investigation behaviors in a simulation

“…He concluded that scaffolded questions need to be embedded in design‐oriented tasks if science learning is a goal. Chu et al (2019) implemented an instructional model that enabled students to engage in engineering design challenges in an eighth‐grade science classroom over an academic year and reported no changes in students' engineering identity and a decrease in their interest in engineering. They argued that the findings could be partially attributed to the difficulty and complexity of the design tasks.…”

“…While some studies show that incorporating engineering design can facilitate the learning of STEM concepts (Hmelo et al, 2000; Kolodner et al, 2003; Mehalik et al, 2008; Sneider & Ravel, 2021), increase STEM interest and motivation (Sneider & Ravel, 2021), and reduce achievement gaps for underrepresented populations (Cantrell et al, 2006; Mehalik et al, 2008), other studies emphasize the challenges with integrating engineering into science learning. Examples of these challenges include the complexity and difficulty of design tasks (Chu et al, 2019), students' difficulties in making connections between the design activities and the underlying science concepts (Kanter, 2010; Silk et al, 2009; Vattam & Kolodner, 2008), and a lack of experience and exposure to engineering among science teachers (Bamberger & Cahill, 2013).…”