The role of discourse in group knowledge construction: A case study of engineering students

Abstract

This qualitative study examined the role of discourse (verbal elements of language) and Discourse (nonverbal elements related to the use of language, such as ways of thinking, valuing, and using tools and technologies) in the process of group knowledge construction of mechanical engineering students. Data included interviews, participant observations, and transcripts from lab sessions of a group of students working on their senior design project. These data were analyzed using discourse analysis focusing on instances of concept negotiation, interaction in which multiple people contribute to the evolving conceptual conversation. In this context, despite instructors' attempts to enhance the collaboration of group members, concept negotiation was rare. In an effort to understand this rarity, we identified themes related to an engineering Discourse, which included participants' assumptions about the purpose of group work, the views about effective groups, and their epistemologies and ontologies. We explore how the themes associated with the engineering Discourse played a role in how and when the group engaged in concept negotiation. We found that underlying ideologies and assumptions related to the engineering Discourse played both facilitating and inhibitory roles related to the group's conceptually based interactions. © 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Res Sci Teach 41: 267–293, 2004

Changing the Learning Environment in the College of Engineering and Applied Science Using Challenge Based Learning

“…Studies have shown keeping students not only engaged in engineering course content, but also in their educational community, can help strengthen a student's perception of where they fit and can contribute in the engineering world, which results in higher retention rates [13] [20] [31].…”

A disciplinary discourse perspective on university science learning: Achieving fluency in a critical constellation of modes

“…Indeed, in contrast to our own view of disciplinary discourse as representing a particular way of knowing, Moje, Collazo, Carrillo & Marx (2001) in the following quote appear to suggest that Discourse is a particular way of knowing: "Any stretch of language (discourse) is always embedded in a particular way of knowing (Discourse)…" (p. 470). For a good illustration of the Discourse approach the reader is referred to Kittleson & Southerland (2004) who use the concept to analyze engineering students' group knowledge construction. Thus Gee's Discourse can be characterized, in relation to social identity, as including such things as students' epistemology, group dynamics, gender, social status, etc.…”

Different stories of group work: Exploring problem solving in engineering education

“…The purpose of shared scientific language is that it makes it possible for the students to communicate easily with each other and to reduce the problem quickly and routinely. The Engineering Physics group's behaviour shares many similarities with Kittleson and Southerland's (2004) case study on engineering discourse; rather than discussing concepts of science the engineering students only exchanged numbers or graphs with each other. Kittleson and Southerland explain this with that the students viewed themselves as being homogeneous with respect to academic ability, which had implications for how they communicated with each other, the students believed that they shared an understanding for engineering, and therefore could let data speak for itself, like the Engineering Physics students in our case study let the physics equations dominate the communication.…”