An official website of the United States government
There is a growing body of work to characterize elementary engineering classroom talk and its influence on students’ learning. One form of classroom talk is the whole-class conversation, which can be an important site for growth in students’ ideas and ways of thinking about engineering design problems and solutions. With intentional teacher facilitation, whole-class conversations can help students refine their engineering reasoning, consider new ideas, and make new connections between different ways of defining or solving a problem. Participating in these conversations can also help students expand their engineering thinking to include perspectives of care and socio-ethical deliberations. In a multi-year collaboration of classroom teachers and university researchers, we have been enacting and studying five different genres of whole-class engineering Design Talks in first-grade through sixth-grade classrooms: problem scoping talks, idea generation talks, design-in-progress talks, design synthesis talks, and impact talks. As a teacher-researcher community of practice, we have video recorded these “Design Talks” in teachers’ classrooms. These classroom video clips have helped us explore a range of questions about how to structure Design Talks. This paper reports on a qualitative study focused on teacher perceptions of their experiences with Design Talks in their classrooms. Specifically, we ask: How do elementary teachers perceive the benefits and challenges of intentionally facilitated whole-class conversations during engineering design units? Study participants were the six classroom teachers in our Design Talks community of practice. Data sources include field notes from teacher-researcher meetings over three years and teachers’ written responses to open-ended reflection questions. We applied thematic analysis techniques (Braun & Clarke, 2006), including initial coding followed by thematic mapping. We found four themes that characterize how teachers perceive the benefits and challenges of whole-class engineering design conversations. Teachers find that these conversations help them employ asset-based pedagogies while at the same time helping their students synthesize designs and their underlying concepts, take a perspective of care in engineering design, and learn to listen, empathize, and communicate.
more »
« less
The Role of Whole-Class Conversations in Supporting Early Elementary Students’ Engineering Design Sense-Making
We consider how intentionally planned and facilitated whole-class conversations can “make space” for students’ sense-making about engineering problems and solutions and position them with epistemic authority to contribute to collective thinking. We conducted a case study on a first-grade engineering lesson that included whole-class Idea Generation and Design Synthesis Talks. We found students sense-making as they refined their design proposals and analyses in light of classmates’ contributions to the whole-class conversations.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2010139
- PAR ID:
- 10527949
- Publisher / Repository:
- International Society of the Learning Sciences
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Computersupported collaborative learning
- ISSN:
- 1573-4552
- ISBN:
- 978-1-7373306-7-7
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Location:
- Montreal, Canada
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
While engineering grows as a part of elementary education, important questions arise about the skills and practices we ask of students. Both collaboration and decision making are complex and critical to the engineering design process, but come with social and emotional work that can be difficult for elementary students to navigate. Productive engagement in collaborative teams has been seen to be highly variable; for some teams, interpersonal conflicts move the design process forward, while for others they stall the process. In this work in progress, we are investigating the research question, what is the nature of students’ disciplinary talk during scaffolded decision making? We explore this research question via a case study of one student group in a 4th-grade classroom enrolled in an outreach program run by a private university in a Northeastern city. This program sends pairs of university students into local elementary schools to facilitate engineering in the classroom for one hour per week. This is the only engineering instruction the elementary students receive and the engineering curriculum is planned by the university students. For the implementation examined in this study, the curriculum was designed by two researchers to scaffold collaborative groupwork and decision making. The instruction was provided by an undergraduate and one of the researchers, a graduate student. The scaffolds designed for this semester of outreach include a set of groupwork norms and a decision matrix. The groupwork norms were introduced on the first day of instruction; the instructors read them aloud, proposed groupwork scenarios to facilitate a whole class discussion about whether or not the norms were followed and how the students could act to follow the norms, and provided time for students to practice the norms in their engineering design groups for the first project. For the rest of the semester, an anchor chart of the norms was displayed in the classroom and referenced to encourage consensus. The researchers designed the decision matrix scaffold to encourage design decisions between multiple prototypes based on problem criteria and test results. Instructors modeled the use of this decision matrix on the third day of instruction, and students utilized the matrix in both design projects of the semester. Data sources for this descriptive study include students’ written artifacts, photos of their design constructions, and video records of whole-class and team discourse. We employ qualitative case study and microethnographic analysis techniques to explore the influence of the intentional discourse scaffolds on students’ collaborative and decision-making practices. Our analysis allowed us to characterize the linguistic resources (including the decision matrix) that the students used to complete four social acts during decision making: design evaluation, disagreeing with a teammate, arguing for a novel idea, and sympathizing with a design. This research has implications for the design of instructional scaffolds for engineering curricula at the elementary school level, whether taking place in an outreach program or in regular classroom instruction.more » « less
-
Chinn, C.; Tan, E.; Chan, C.; Kali, Y. (Ed.)This study explores how to support teachers in developing and implementing effective pedagogical strategies to promote students in making sense of phenomena through computational modeling in remote contexts. Qualitative analyses of eight teachers’ interviews were conducted to characterize their pedagogical strategies to achieve three-dimensional learning. Findings indicate that typical teacher strategies include the teacher and students co-constructing a model and using whole class or group discussions to support students’ modeling practices.more » « less
-
We share a decomposition of building on MOSTs—a teaching practice that takes advantage of high-leverage instances of student mathematical contributions made during whole-class interaction. This decomposition resulted from an iterative process of teacher-researchers enacting conceptions of the building teaching practice that were refined based on our study of their enactments. We elaborate the four elements of building: (a) Establish the student mathematics of the MOST as the object to be discussed; (b) Grapple Toss that object in a way that positions the class to make sense of it; (c) Conduct a whole-class discussion that supports the students in making sense of the student mathematics of the MOST; and (d) Make Explicit the important mathematical idea from the discussion. We argue for the value of this practice in improving in-the-moment use of high-leverage student mathematical thinking during instruction.more » « less
-
Abstract Many conversations surrounding improvement of large‐enrollment college science, technology, engineering & mathematics (STEM) courses focus primarily (or solely) on changing instructional practices. By reducing dynamic, complex learning environments to collections of teaching methods, we neglect other meaningful parts of a course ecosystem (e.g., curriculum, assessments). Here, we advocate extending STEM education reform conversations beyond “active versus passive learning.” We argue communities of researchers and instructors would be better served if what we teach and assess was discussed alongside how we teach. To enable nuanced conversations about the characteristics of learning environments that support students in explaining phenomena, we defined a model of college STEM learning environments which attends to the intellectual work emphasized and rewarded on exams (i.e., assessment emphasis), what is taught in whole‐class meetings (i.e., instructional emphasis), and how those meetings are enacted (i.e., instructional practices). We subsequently characterized three distinct chemistry courses and qualitatively examined the characteristics of chemistry learning environments that effectively supported students in explaining why a beaker of water warms as a white solid dissolves. Furthermore, we quantitatively investigated the extent to which measures of incoming preparation explained variance in students’ explanations relative to enrollment in each learning environment. Our findings demonstrate that learning environments that effectively supported learners in explaining dissolution emphasized how and why salts dissolve in‐class and on assessments. Changing teaching methods in an otherwise traditionally structured course (i.e., a course organized by topics that primarily assesses math and recall) did not appear to impact the sophistication of students’ explanations. Additionally, we observed that learning environment enrollment explained substantially more of the variance observed in students’ explanations than measures of precollege math preparation. This finding suggests that emphasizing and rewarding the construction of causal accounts for phenomena in‐class and on assessments may support more equitable achievement.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Proceeding:
- The DOI is not currently available.
