Search for: All records

During design, different forms of reasoning shape the designers’ decision-making. As a result, the ability to fluently transition across various forms of reasoning is essential. The purpose of this study is two-fold: first is to introduce and explain the concept of Semantic Fluency in Design Reasoning, as the ability to transition across multiple forms of reasoning fluently. To identify these transitions, this study used the Design Reasoning Quadrants framework, which represents four quadrants: experiential observations (reasoning based on observations and experiences), trade-offs (reasoning recognizing multiple competing design requirements), first-principles (reasoning requiring disciplinary understandings), and complex abstractions (reasoning in envisioning new situations). The second purpose of this study is to illustrate semantic fluency in a design review conversation. We selected and presented three different forms of transitions identified through our analysis of conversations between students and design reviewers. Our analysis revealed evidence of semantic fluency in young designers. Mike, one of the students, demonstrated fluency across three quadrants (experiential observations, trade-offs, and first-principles). Lisa and David demonstrated two-quadrant transitions. Lisa had fluency from experiential observations to trade-offs, and David transitioned from experiential observations to first-principles. We recommend the intentional use of design reviews to elicit student reasoning in design and adopt questioning strategies to promote fluency across different forms of design reasoning. 

Abstract This position paper is motivated by recent educational reform efforts that urge the integration of engineering in science education. We argue that it is plausible and beneficial to integrate engineering into formal K-12 science education. We illustrate how current literature, though often implicitly, discusses this integration from a pedagogical, epistemological, or methodological argumentative stance. From a pedagogical perspective, a historically dominant argument emphasizes how engineering helps make abstract science concepts more concrete. The epistemological argument is centered on how engineering is inherently interdisciplinary and hence its integrative role in support of scientific literacy and more broadly STEM literacy is natural. From a methodological perspective, arguments focus on the engineering design process, which is compatible with scientific inquiry and adaptable to answering different types of engineering questions. We call for the necessity of spelling out these arguments and call for common language as science and engineering educators form a research-base on the integration of science and engineering. We specifically provide and discuss specific terminology associated with four different models, each effectively used to integrate engineering into school science. We caution educators against a possible direction towards a convergence approach for a specific type of integrating engineering and science. Diversity in teaching models, more accurately represents the nature of engineering but also allows adaptations based on available school resources. Future synthesis can then examine student learning outcomes associated with different teaching models.