Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER) Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER)

Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 6

2017

Teachers’ Incorporation of Argumentation to Support Engineering Teachers’ Incorporation of Argumentation to Support Engineering

Learning in STEM Integration Curricula Learning in STEM Integration Curricula

Corey A. Mathis California State University, Bakersfield, cmathis@csub.edu

Emilie A. Siverling Purdue University, esiverli@purdue.edu

Aran W. Glancy Purdue University, aglancy@purdue.edu

See next page for additional authors

Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer

Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Engineering Education Commons, and the Science

and Mathematics Education Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Mathis, C. A., Siverling, E. A., Glancy, A. W., & Moore, T. J. (2017). Teachers’ Incorporation of Argumentation to Support Engineering Learning in STEM Integration Curricula. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7(1), Article 6. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact epubs@purdue.edu for additional information.

This is an Open Access journal. This means that it uses a funding model that does not charge readers or their institutions for access. Readers may freely read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles. This journal is covered under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Teachers’ Incorporation of Argumentation to Support Engineering Learning in Teachers’ Incorporation of Argumentation to Support Engineering Learning in STEM Integration Curricula STEM Integration Curricula

Abstract Abstract One of the fundamental practices identified in Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is argumentation, which has been researched in P-12 science education for the previous two decades but has yet to be studied within the context of P-12 engineering education. This research explores how elementary and middle school science teachers incorporated argumentation into engineering design-based STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) integration curricular units they developed during a professional development program. To gain a better understanding of how teachers included argumentation in their curricula, a multiple case study approach was conducted using four STEM integration units. While evidence of argumentation was found in each curriculum, the degree to which it appeared in each case varied. The strongest potential for argumentation occurred when students were required to explain and justify their final engineering design solutions to the client; certain guiding questions and discussions also promoted argumentation, depending on their structure. Additionally, argumentation was found to support engineering concepts such as the process of design, engineering thinking, communication in engineering contexts, and the application of science, mathematics, and engineering content. These findings support the idea that argumentation can be integrated into P-12 engineering education contexts in order to support students’ STEM learning.

Keywords Keywords STEM integration, argumentation, case study, curriculum

Document Type Document Type Invited Contributions: Best Papers from ASEE Pre-College Engineering Education

Cover Page Footnote Cover Page Footnote This paper is part of a set of papers recognized by the American Society for Engineering Education’s Pre-College Engineering Education Division as one of the division’s best papers from the 2015 and 2016 conferences. This is the first set of ASEE Pre-College Engineering Education Division best papers J-PEER has republished, with permission from the American Society of Engineering Education.

Authors Authors Corey A. Mathis, Emilie A. Siverling, Aran W. Glancy, and Tamara J. Moore

This invited contributions: best papers from asee pre-college engineering education is available in Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER): https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer/vol7/iss1/6

Available online at http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/jpeer

Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 7:1 (2017) 76–89

Teachers’ Incorporation of Argumentation to Support Engineering Learningin STEM Integration Curricula

Corey A. Mathis,1 Emilie A. Siverling,2 Aran W. Glancy,2 and Tamara J. Moore2

1California State University, Bakersfield2Purdue University

Abstract

One of the fundamental practices identified in Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) is argumentation, which has been researchedin P-12 science education for the previous two decades but has yet to be studied within the context of P-12 engineering education. Thisresearch explores how elementary and middle school science teachers incorporated argumentation into engineering design-based STEM(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) integration curricular units they developed during a professional developmentprogram. To gain a better understanding of how teachers included argumentation in their curricula, a multiple case study approach wasconducted using four STEM integration units. While evidence of argumentation was found in each curriculum, the degree to which itappeared in each case varied. The strongest potential for argumentation occurred when students were required to explain and justify theirfinal engineering design solutions to the client; certain guiding questions and discussions also promoted argumentation, depending ontheir structure. Additionally, argumentation was found to support engineering concepts such as the process of design, engineering think-ing, communication in engineering contexts, and the application of science, mathematics, and engineering content. These findings supportthe idea that argumentation can be integrated into P-12 engineering education contexts in order to support students’ STEM learning.

Keywords: STEM integration, argumentation, case study, curriculum

Introduction

Over the past several years, there has been a growing concern that the United States is not producing enough studentswho are prepared for careers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), which is needed if the U.S. isto continue to be internationally competitive (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering [NAE], &Institute of Medicine, 2007; President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology [PCAST], 2010). Efforts placedon improving STEM education have the potential to not only meet these demands but also to improve STEM literacy of allcitizens (National Research Council [NRC], 2011).

Recent national reports have focused their attention on STEM for primary and secondary education (NAE & NRC, 2009, 2010,2014; NRC, 2011, 2012). Prior to the release of the most recent national science standards, 36 states’ science standards includedevidence of engineering and/or technological design either explicitly or implicitly (Moore, Tank, Glancy, & Kersten, 2015).

This paper was previously published in the Proceedings of the 2015 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Thework presented in this paper was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers NSF EEC/CAREER-1055382 and DUE-1238140.The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations conveyed in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of theNational Science Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Tamara J. Moore at tamara@purdue.edu.

1http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

In 2013, the national Next Generation Science Standards(NGSS) were released; these standards include engineeringpractices and core ideas (NGSS Lead States, 2013).

While policy and standards that focus on STEM mayhelp increase the number of students interested in STEMcareers, they do not ensure that the students will have theskills that employers in industry desire. Employers wantpeople who can solve problems, think critically, commu-nicate, work in teams, collaborate effectively, and havetechnical skills (Trilling & Fadel, 2009). This means thatfuture employees will need both technical and professionalskills, regardless of which STEM career is chosen. There-fore, teachers need to not only teach standards that supportSTEM content knowledge, they must also help studentsbuild professional skills.

One of these professional skills that has been gainingmore attention in P-12 education is argumentation (Schwarz,2009). Learning the process of argumentation helps thedevelopment of reasoning, critical thinking, communication,social behaviors, and information gathering skills. These skillsare necessary for daily life, professional activities, and allfacets of education, which makes argumentation an importantcompetency for students to engage in. Incorporating argu-mentation skills into curricula encourages students to becomeindependent thinkers and problem solvers while also gain-ing content knowledge (Kuhn, 1993; Llewellyn, 2014).

For students to engage in argumentation, teachers mustprovide a curriculum that incorporates such skills usinghands-on, student-centered pedagogies that allow studentsto experience and construct an understanding of argumen-tation (Newton, Driver, & Osborne, 1999). People learnthrough experiences and social interactions (Dewey, 1938).Therefore, providing students with opportunities to observeand practice argumentation may help students develop skillsthat are needed to become capable STEM professionals.

The goal of this paper is to gain insight into how argu-mentation can be used to support STEM content. This paperexplores how teachers incorporate argumentation into theirlessons when they are asked to develop STEM integrationcurricula. This includes how argumentation manifests in theengineering-focused lessons, as well as the science- andmathematics-focused lessons used to support engineering.The following research questions guided this study:

& How do teachers incorporate argumentation intoteacher-developed STEM integration curricula?

& How does argumentation used in the curricula supportthe learning of engineering concepts?

Conceptual Framework

The research in this study was situated within alarger project that is guided by a STEM integration frame-work (Moore et al., 2014b). This STEM integration frame-work outlines several specific features of high-quality,

engineering-based STEM integration curricula. These fea-tures include engineering design as a means of incorporat-ing all STEM subjects, meaningful contexts that engageand motivate students in their own learning, student-centeredpedagogies to teach standards-based science and mathe-matics, opportunities to learn from failure and to redesignbased on that learning, and professional skills such as team-work and communication. In sum, problem-based engineeringdesign challenges that require the use and development ofscience and mathematics content can serve as models forSTEM integration activities. This STEM integration frame-work aligns well with other definitions of STEM integra-tion, including the definition that it is an interdisciplinaryapproach that allows for the marriage of the four STEMdisciplines (Wang, Moore, Roehrig, & Park, 2011) or thatit meaningfully combines the STEM disciplines to createcohesive units to deepen students’ understanding of eachdiscipline (Breiner, Harkness, Johnson, & Koehler, 2012).

Argumentation in Education

Arguments are an integral part of being human and arefound within our daily lives (Besnard & Hunter, 2008).While children do have basic argumentation skills, they canbe improved with age and practice (Kuhn, 1993). As such,it becomes the responsibility of teachers to offer activitiesthat allow students to engage in argumentation (Schwarz,2009). Schwarz (2009) also noted that educational systemsemphasize the development of critical thinking, which dependson the use of argumentation.

Arguments come in an array of forms and can lead tonew understandings. Though argumentation may occur as asolitary activity, it is more often done in social situations(Kuhn, 1993) through verbal or written communications. Ineducation, this may occur during discussions, sharingopinions, or writing persuasive text. Educators can thengauge students’ progress by assessing these argumentationinteractions.

Though argumentation can be used in all academic domains,it is a critical component of the scientific process and is anessential part of scientific discourse. As a general defini-tion, argumentation provides a framework that allows studentsto make claims based on evidence and convince others thatthe argument is sound (Driver, Newton, & Osborne, 2000;Sampson, Enderle, & Grooms, 2013). In addition, usingargumentation emulates the process professional scientistsgo through. Scientists, along with professionals in manyother disciplines, often find themselves practicing argu-mentation, whether it be deep discussions interpreting theresults of an experiment or writing research papers to con-vince the scientific community to consider publishing theirwork (Kuhn, 1993; Latour & Woolgar, 1986).

There is far less research about argumentation in engi-neering education. However, engineers are required to makeevidence-based decisions (ABET, 2016; Van Epps, 2013).

C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 77

2http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

The Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices,Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas has identified theneed for students to engage in arguments based on evidencefor both science and engineering (NRC, 2012). However,not much has been said about the differences in argumentsbetween the two domains. One of the differences that hasbeen explored is the purpose of argumentation in each ofthese fields; whereas scientists use arguments for evaluat-ing and explaining natural phenomena, engineers use argu-ments for finding the best solution for a problem with agiven set of constraints. One of the few examples of researchin engineering education was a study of college studentswho engaged in realistic ethical problems in engineering;the researchers found that these students were able to gene-rate better arguments than those who did not participate inthe intervention (Jonassen et al., 2009). Others have sug-gested that engineering students who participate in problem-based learning (PBL) improve their problem-solving abilities,critical evaluation, and argumentation skills, which are usedby practicing engineers (Fink, 2001). While these researchstudies and reports have identified that argumentation isimportant, little is known about how it is used in P-12engineering education.

Though argumentation has been studied in individual dis-ciplines, there is little insight into how teachers developcurricula that use argumentation during STEM integrationlessons or how it is used to support engineering conceptsin P-12 education. With new pressures for teachers to inte-grate STEM subjects in their classrooms, we hope to gainan understanding of how teachers are attempting to includeargumentation within STEM integration units as well ashow argumentation can support engineering learning.

Methodology

An exploratory multiple-case study design was selectedto investigate how elementary and middle school teachersuse argumentation within STEM integration curricular units.Case studies are an in-depth investigation used to under-stand the complexities of a system (Stake, 1995). This method-ology also allows for a holistic view of a real situation (Yin,2009). In this case, the real situation was the use of argu-mentation in teacher-generated STEM curricula. By usingcase studies, we gained a unique and in-depth under-standing (Flyvbjerg, 2011) of how teachers used argumen-tation in the construction of curricula. Each of the caseswas embedded within a bound system (Creswell, 2003) thatincluded teachers who participated in a STEM integrationprofessional development workshop during the summer of2013.

The holistic approach was established because this studyinvolved four bounded cases, was exploratory, and attemptedto understand the use of argumentation as a phenomenon.This case study included four STEM integration curricularunits, or cases, that were developed by teachers during a

summer professional development institute. This approachallowed for within case analysis as well as cross-caseanalysis.

Teacher Professional Development Institute

The units included in this study were developed as partof a teacher professional development institute about ele-mentary and middle school STEM integration in scienceclassrooms. The goal of the institute was to support 4th–8thgrade teachers in the development and implementation ofa STEM integration unit centered around an engineeringdesign challenge situated in a rich, realistic context. Theprofessional development institute occurred during the sum-mer over a three-week period. The focus of the three weeksincluded (a) understanding engineering design, data analysis,and measurement as well as associated pedagogies; (b) gain-ing a deeper understanding of science content; and (c) develop-ing curricular units.

Teachers developed STEM integration units using aniterative process. Following the professional developmentinstitute, teacher participants piloted selected lessons fromtheir curriculum with students attending a voluntary sum-mer camp. Teacher participants and coaches revised thecurricula based on their experiences during the pilot prior toclassroom implementation. Teachers and coaches madeadditional revisions to their curricula after classroom imple-mentation. During this first year of the larger project, a totalof 22 curricula were developed. The four curricula that hadcompleted their final iteration were selected for this analysis.

Nine teachers worked either individually or in teams oftwo or four to develop the four units which made up thecases for this study. All of these teachers were elementaryor middle school science or STEM teachers, and the con-tent areas for the units were either earth science or physicalscience. The teachers in this study represented eight dif-ferent schools within two urban districts with high diversityin the Midwestern region of the U.S. Teacher grade levelsranged from 4th grade to 7th grade.

Data Sources & Analysis

The data used for this study consisted of written curric-ular documents generated by the teachers for the four units.These documents included lesson plans, worksheets, rubrics,and other supplemental artifacts such as PowerPoint slidesand readings.

Content analysis methods were used to examine thedocuments. This analytical method was selected because itis a systematic way of analyzing a body of text, which mayinclude written texts, pictures, symbols, or other forms ofcommunication (Krippendorff, 2013). Using content ana-lysis allowed us to look at the four curricular units carefullyfor the purpose of understanding how teachers used argu-mentation to support the learning of content knowledge.

78 C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

3http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

Two analytical frameworks were used to analyze thecases. The first was Toulmin’s Argument Pattern (TAP;Toulmin, 1958). This model identifies six key elementsof an argument: claims, data, warrants, backing, modal quali-fiers, and rebuttals. According to Toulmin (1958), a claimis a statement or conclusion of a point that is trying to beestablished. Data refers to facts that support the claim,and warrants explain how data are connected to the claim.Toulmin stated that claims, data, and warrants provide ageneral skeleton of argumentation. More complex argumentsmay also include backing, modal qualifiers, and rebuttals. Forthis analysis, we only looked for the three elements found inthe general argument because they are the minimum require-ments needed for an argument. When we identified the pre-sence of an argument or part of an argument, we recorded thecontext for which it was used.

While the ideas from TAP were used as the argumenta-tion analysis framework, the language of the teacher-writtencurricula was not usually a clear match with claims, data,and warrants. We resolved this by using an altered coding

scheme. We used claims in the same way that the term isused in TAP. However, we matched phrases in thecurricula referring to data or evidence with TAP’s data,and warrants included any reasoning beyond data (e.g.,explanation, justification, rationale). The results section ofthis paper reflects both of these types of argumentationlanguage, the terms of TAP and those used by the teachers.

Additionally, this research study employed the Frame-work for Quality K-12 Engineering Education (Mooreet al., 2014a). This framework identifies nine key indi-cators that define the characteristics of K-12 engineering.Figure 1 provides a list of the key indicators and a shortdescription of each. When an element of argumentationwas identified to be in an engineering context (as opposedto a scientific context), we used this framework to deter-mine how this particular use of argumentation supportedstudents in learning engineering concepts. These werethen used to identify patterns of how argumentation wasbeing used to support engineering throughout the fourunits.

Figure 1. Truncated version of the Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education (Moore et al., 2014a; reprinted from Moore et al., 2015).

C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 79

4http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

Case Descriptions

The research findings for the four curricular units,or cases, are presented here individually. The cases arepresented in order by grade level, starting with the 4thgrade Thermal Energy: Engineering a Better Insulatorcurriculum, then the two 5th grade units—Rocking GoodTimes and the Human Impact on the Mississippi RiverRecreational Area Design, and ending with the 6th/7thgrade Ecuadorian Fishermen case. This order also roughlyreflects how much argumentation was found in each curric-ular unit. In the first three units, we coded between 10 and20 phrases as exhibiting evidence of claims, partial argumenta-tion, or full argumentation. However, the Ecuadorian Fishermenunit, Case 4, contained approximately 75 coded phrases.This curriculum differed from the others in that it waswritten in such a way that it could be broken up into twounits; thus, it was significantly longer than the first threecurricula.

Each case description includes a summary of the unit,followed by a description and interpretation of how argu-mentation was incorporated into the STEM curriculum.All of the units have a similar structure, which follows thestructure encouraged by the professional developmentinstitute in which the teachers participated. Each unit iscentered on an engineering design challenge situated in arealistic context. In order to develop background knowl-edge and to test and evaluate their designs, studentsengaged in activities that developed science and mathe-matics content knowledge. Armed with their knowledgeof science, mathematics, and engineering, the studentsdesigned a solution to the initial problem as the culminatingactivity for the unit. In three out of the four units analyzedhere, the students were also asked to create either a letter orpresentation (or both) to accompany their design in theirfinal communication to a client.

After each unit summary, we give descriptions of argu-mentation found in the plans. In each case, these descrip-tions are organized from the clearest examples of elementsof the argumentation process to the least clear. We acknowl-edge that by only using written curricular plans as data, theamount of possible argumentation found was limited; plansoften do not reflect implementation exactly. However, thewritten plans were deemed suitable for this initial analysis.Following the descriptions of each of the units, argumenta-tion within the units is compared and contrasted in cross-case analysis.

Case 1: Thermal Energy: Engineering a Better Insulator

This unit was designed for a 4th grade physical scienceclass. Students are introduced to the concept of heat trans-fer through several investigations and then complete anengineering design challenge in which they design a coolerto keep a soda can cold in the summer. Students first model

how temperature affects the movement of molecules, dis-cover that heat transfers from warm areas to cold areas, andtest a variety of materials to identify which are good insu-lators and which are good conductors. After these investi-gations, students are introduced to a client who would likethem to design a can cooler that will keep cans of soda coldduring hot summer camping trips. Students can use whatthey learned about the materials to inform their designdecisions.

The Thermal Energy unit contained few elements ofargumentation. In each of the units examined in this study,an opportunity to engage in argumentation exists whenstudents are asked to argue the merits of their final designs,but in this unit, that opportunity is implicit and not as fullydeveloped as in some of the others. Students evaluate theirdesigns in this unit using a scoring sheet that assigns pointsto measure the success of the cooler, and at the conclusionof the unit students do a gallery walk to view their class-mates’ designs and score sheets. According to the lessonplans, during this gallery walk, ‘‘groups can discuss whythey believe an insulator was successful or not.’’ If studentsdo engage in this discussion, asking why encourages studentsto support their claim about the success of the insulatorwith evidence, but students are not required individually oreven in groups to document or formalize this. Unlike theother units examined in this study, the Thermal Energy unitdid not require students to create a presentation or write aletter to the client; thus, they were not explicitly asked toargue the merits of their design. Although the potential forargumentation is present in this lesson, it was difficult todetermine how it would be implemented from the curricularplans alone.

Elements of argumentation were also identified in theuse of questions throughout the unit. The unit frequentlyuses questions as prompts for class or group discussions,and these questions often require that students make aclaim. Typically, however, these prompts do not require orencourage students to provide evidence or justification forthose claims. In several of the lessons in the unit, these ques-tions are used to introduce the day’s lesson. For example, atthe beginning of an activity investigating how quickly anice cube melts when contacting different surfaces, thelesson plan provides the prompt, ‘‘Ask the students howthey think heat moves,’’ as the launch for a class discus-sion. This question asks students to make a claim, but thisis before they engage in the activity so they are not asked togive evidence. Similarly, during the activities or investiga-tions, the students are often asked to make claims aboutwhat they are seeing, but there is no indication that theyshould provide evidence or justification. For example, inorder to investigate the insulating properties of differentmaterials, students wrap their hands in the material and thenplace them in a bucket of ice water. The lesson plan indi-cates that as they do this, ‘‘Groups will discuss how that materialis performing to insulate their hand from the ice water.

80 C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

5http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

One group member should record the group’s observations.’’Asking the students to assess how well the materials aredoing is prompting them to make a claim; however, it doesnot appear to go any further than that. In another instance ofthis, after collecting data on the temperature changes overtime of a set of liquids in different insulators, students areasked to ‘‘discuss and describe any patterns they see whilerecording the temperatures,’’ but the curriculum makesno mention of supporting their claim with evidence orjustification.

Additional places in the curriculum were identifiedas having the potential to provide students with the chanceto develop arguments, but it was difficult to determinewith confidence in these instances the intent of the cur-riculum writers. Specifically, this unit frequently describesdiscussions wrapping up investigations in the Closuresection of the lesson plan. An example of this takenfrom the lesson on insulators and conductors is ‘‘Closure:Review insulators and conductors. Discuss which materi-als make up good insulators.’’ It is not clear from thisinstruction whether the students are meant to engage inthis discussion or if this is in fact meant to be a teacher-ledreview of the findings from the day’s investigation. How ateacher chooses to implement this part of the lesson wouldgreatly impact the nature of the argumentation present inthe discussion.

Case 2: Rocking Good Times

This unit was designed for 5th grade earth science.Students are presented with a client interested in build-ing an amusement park near a city prone to earthquakes.Students must select the rides to include in the design, thetype of soil that offers stability during an earthquake,and provide a mechanism for anchoring the rides securelyduring a simulated earthquake. Students use the iPad seis-mometer app to see how seismic waves are measured andgraphed. Pictures of existing anchoring systems and web-sites posting earthquake activity as it happens reinforce thereal-world context of the problem. Students need to choosea site based on the stability of the underlying earth materials,while also considering other areas of concern (e.g., distanceof location from existing roads, housing). Once the site ischosen, students are asked to test, evaluate, and presenttheir anchor designs.

The Rocking Good Times unit uses persuasive argumen-tation to communicate between the client and student engi-neering teams, which is developed throughout the unit. Theinitial letter from the client situates the project, empha-sizes the ‘‘competitive bidding process,’’ and identifies thecriteria for winning that bid. The competitive nature maysupport students’ development of an argument as theyare expected to create a persuasive argument which willbe assessed by the client. Additional clarification of thecommunication expectations is given in the presentation to

the clients. The curriculum states that students should begiven

…a checklist or rubric showing expected elements fortheir presentation. These may include… graphs from thesurveys taken, telling which earth material was chosenand why, showing sketch of the design, telling totalscore for design, amount of budget spent, and a uniquefeature which sets them apart from the other teams.

The rubric provided in the curricular documents indi-cates that the qualities of the arguments presented are judgedon four criteria: ‘‘clear, creative, persuasive, and backed upwith data.’’ This implies that students must not only makeclaims about their engineering design, they must alsoexplain their reasoning and provide evidence to back theirclaims. While the students progress through the lessons,they must consider how the information they are learninghelps them to develop the best design within the givencriteria.

Another area of the curriculum that provides some indi-cation that arguments may be developed was the use ofquestions, which are present in all but one lesson. Ques-tions were found in two sections of the lessons: the intro-duction and the closing. The questions found at the beginningof lessons include questions such as: ‘‘What type of earthmaterial is the most stable during an earthquake?’’ and‘‘What kind of anchor system will keep an amusement parkride stable during an earthquake?’’ These two examplescould be satisfied by the use of only a claim and are repre-sentative of the majority of questions found at the begin-ning of the lessons. A few questions do require the use ofclaims as well as additional explanation. In one instance,the question prompts students to answer, ‘‘What site, anchor-ing system and additional rides will we recommend to theclient and why?’’, though the question does not state thatstudents need to develop an argument. This question doesimply expectations that three claims should be generatedthat are accompanied by further information to justify theirstatements. However, these questions do not explicitlyidentify the need to include data.

Questions provided in the closing of the lessons had thehighest expectation of developing complete arguments. Forexample, a series of question prompts are provided askingstudents to consider the information they had learned inthe lesson and make choices related to their engineeringdesign. This series includes: ‘‘What did we find out? Howdo the graphs show this? Write down in your journal whichfour rides you would recommend to be included in the newamusement park and why.’’ When taken together, thesequestions provide the expectation that students will makeclaims, use data to support their claims, and provide expla-nations to justify their claims. However, questions thatexpect all three components of argumentation were onlyidentified in two of the five lessons.

C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 81

6http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

Another possible use for argumentation within the cur-riculum may be found within student conversations, thoughthe curriculum does not state this directly. This occurs in acouple of places in the curriculum. In the first case, studentsare asked to ‘‘brainstorm ideas and focus on or steer discus-sion toward surveying kids at school.’’ When studentsare asked to brainstorm, one might expect elements ofargumentation beyond claims to be used; however, thisreasoning would not be required. The second case occurswhen student teams are planning their anchor systemdesigns. The lesson plan states that ‘‘groups discuss andsketch ideas for anchor system.’’ Like the brainstormingexample, students are generating ideas. They may alsoinclude reasoning supporting these ideas, but it is notexplicitly present.

Case 3: Human Impact on Mississippi River RecreationalArea Design

This is a 5th grade earth science unit. Students areintroduced to an engineering project where Ms. Harriet, thelocal president of the Mississippi River Fossil Founda-tion, requests help from the local community to design arecreational area. Students are provided criteria, which arethat the outdoor recreational area needs to support a varietyof activities while also preserving the natural attractionwith a budget of $600,000. Students are asked to create aland-use proposal to convince Ms. Harriet, her committeeboard, and other potential investors to use their preservationdesign as the Mississippi River’s newest park high-lights. In the following lessons, students collect informa-tion to help them meet the challenge. They test the propertiesof soil, examine rainfall data, explore the impact of run-off, and research current issues related to human impacton a local and global scale. The students complete theunit by presenting their recommended designs to theirclient.

Argumentation occurs implicitly throughout this unit.The most significant use of argumentation in this unit is inthe proposal to the client. Once students have completedtheir designs, they are required to draft a letter and create apresentation that explains how their design meets thedesign requirements and why they made the choices theydid, in essence creating an argument for why their designshould be chosen by the client. The curriculum givesa sample prompt that outlines the expectations for thestudents’ final write up, saying ‘‘in your written document,you’ll need to inform the Ford Restoration Project abouteach item that you’ve put into your park design and how ithelps make sure humans are having a helpful impact inyour design.’’ Additionally, Figure 2 displays the text ofthe letter students receive from the client after they havesubmitted their initial proposals, which outlines the require-ments for their final projects. Although the letter from theclient does not explicitly use the words argument, claims,

or evidence, the phrase ‘‘explain the final choices in yourdesign’’ indicates that the teacher is asking the studentsto provide justification. Additionally, repeated mentionof making sure that the ‘‘design fulfills our requirements’’in the client letter implies (but does not directly state) thatdata and evidence should be provided indicating that thestudents’ designs do, in fact, fulfill the requirements. Theimportance of these aspects of argumentation is furtherreinforced in the rubric for evaluating the students’ finaldesigns. One of the four categories evaluated in the rubricis ‘‘Ability to Persuade Client,’’ and this category is scoredbased on the amount of evidence provided to justify designdecisions.

Elements of argumentation are also present in otheraspects of the unit. Although the lesson plans and supple-mental materials do not explicitly state that students willdevelop arguments, terminology suggestive of argumenta-tion, words such as conclusion, evidence, reasoning, why,how, explain, and persuade, appear frequently within thisunit. For example, in the second lesson of the unit studentsexamine the flow of water over different materials. Thelesson plan states that the teacher should ‘‘Ask studentswhy they think the water went faster in one cup and not theother.’’ Later in that lesson, after examining the propertiesof the materials, the lesson includes the prompts, ‘‘How bigare the pieces found in each? How close do the pieces sittogether? Does that affect how fast the water flows?’’ Thequestions asked throughout the activity follow the structureof an argument while attempting to encourage critical think-ing. The arguments are generally developed throughout thelessons but are put together into a meaningful statement atthe end of the lesson, which is then used as an assessmenttool. In this lesson, for example, students are asked tocreate a poster that includes ‘‘the soil mixture, what theyobserved, and what conclusions they can create from theirobservations.’’ Students also fill out a worksheet whichincludes questions such as ‘‘What can you conclude aboutyour observations? (Remember to support your reasoningwith evidence).’’ Additionally, the lesson ends with an exitslip where the students respond to the prompt, ‘‘How doesthe soil type affect how the water flows through?’’

In the example above, argumentation is used to structurethe lesson that guides students to learn a specific mathe-matics or science concept needed to solve their problem.The initial questions are predictive or inferential in nature.For example, the students are to generate the justifica-tion and evidence after performing their investigation. Theworksheets that accompany the activity clearly define theargument that students will be forming by asking a set ofquestions that tell the students what they need to do and theexpectations which are all elements of an argument. Thestructure of the lessons themselves mirror certain aspectsof an argument by making predictions, collecting data, anddrawing conclusions by providing reasons and data to sup-port their claim.

82 C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

7http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

Case 4: Ecuadorian Fishermen

This unit was designed for 6th and/or 7th grade physicalscience. Students are asked to help a small business inEcuador that has discovered that some of the Ecuadorianfishermen need help keeping their fish fresh duringtransport on small boats and also need a means to cookthe fish so they can be sold. Students explore density, heattransfer, and insulators to design a freezer for the fisher-men. Students investigate conduction, physical and chemi-cal changes, and specific heat to help them design, build,and test a cooker. This curriculum may be done as onelarge unit or may take place over two years, with the freezerproblem the first year and cooker problem the second.

This unit uses argumentation throughout both parts ofthe curriculum. The lesson plans and supporting materialsprovide detailed descriptions that strongly indicate thatstudents are expected to participate in the argumentationprocess. The curriculum clearly identifies frequent instances

where students not only need to make claims, but also pro-vide evidence and/or justification to back up those claims.This expectation for argumentation is seen in the students’final letter to their client and through whole class and smallgroup discussions that are usually led by questions from theteacher or worksheets. We describe each of these instanceswith the aid of examples.

The clearest instance of argumentation in the curriculumis when the student groups write to their client to com-municate their final engineering design solution. In both thefreezer design problem and cooker design problem, the unitbegins by having students read a letter from their client thatoutlines the problem. These letters help direct what thestudents need to learn in order to solve the problems posedand provide an explanation of the type of information thatthe clients require. These requirements, which the studentsmust address in their final letter to the client, are shown inFigure 3.

Figure 2. Letter from the client given to the students outlining the requirements for the final communication to the client, as written in the Human Impact onMississippi River Recreational Area Design curriculum.

C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 83

8http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

The requirements in each of the letters, along with otherdescriptions in the lesson plans, strongly support that studentsare engaging in the process of argumentation. In the require-ments in both of the letters, students first must make claimsregarding their recommendations for the final design, includ-ing what type of materials to use. They must back theseclaims up by evidence, since the clients explicitly request‘‘data’’ and a ‘‘description of the process’’ the students wentthrough. This is also shown in the lesson plan of the freezerdesign problem, where the instructions to the teacher statethat while students are writing their letters, ‘‘Have them usetheir data and graph from the…lab in lesson 1…to giveevidence for why they chose to recommend the type ofmaterial they did.’’ Explaining their reasoning is also arequirement from both letters, since students must explainwhy they chose their materials. This is more clearly tied toexplaining their reasoning using their science knowledge inthe teacher instructions. For example, in the freezerproblem, the instructions state, ‘‘Have [the students] usetheir…knowledge of density, diffusion, and dissolving tohelp explain how they came to their conclusion about theice.’’ Additionally, students ‘‘must also explain using theirknowledge of insulators, heat transfer, and how heat travelsto help justify the best recommendation for a freezerdesign.’’ The rubric used to evaluate the students’ writtencommunication to the client also emphasizes that thestudents refer to their science knowledge about density and

heat transfer to provide reasoning for their design recom-mendations. These materials most clearly show that studentsare engaging in all three aspects of argumentation: makingclaims, supporting them with data/evidence, and justifyingthem with science content knowledge.

Argumentation is also used and developed through ques-tions that teachers pose to students through whole classdiscussions and worksheets. However, questions alone donot necessarily prompt argumentation; the type of questionsalso determines whether and how much of the argumenta-tion process could be present. Both Ecuadorian Fisher-men units have many questions that elicit claims withoutreference to evidence or reasoning with scientific contentknowledge, which does not represent even partial argu-mentation. For example, in the freezer engineering problemunit, students are asked in both a worksheet and later awhole class discussion, ‘‘What do you think will happen tothe mass of the water if you add salt?’’ before they performa dissolving experiment. This question only elicits apredictive claim, but it does not ask students to explaintheir reasoning behind the prediction. Another example ofthis is from the cooker engineering problem unit. Aftercompleting a lab, the teacher asks the whole class, ‘‘Howdid you melt the ice and how did you reverse it?’’ At leastin this example, students will be making claims based onthe evidence from their experiment, but they do not have toprovide further reasoning for their answer.

Figure 3. Excerpts from the letters from the client for each of the design problems of the Ecuadorian Fishermen curriculum.

84 C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

9http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

However, both units have several examples of questionsthat prompt partial or complete argumentation. These typi-cally come in sets of questions, a ‘‘what’’ or ‘‘how’’ ques-tion followed by a ‘‘why.’’ One example of partialargumentation occurs during the testing of students’ initialdesign solutions while the teacher moves through the roomand checks in with student groups. Suggested questions forthe teacher to ask groups are, ‘‘How did that work?’’ and‘‘Why do you think that it did or did not work?’’ Studentgroups must make a claim (i.e., how their design worked)and back it up with some other information. We coded thispartial argumentation because it was not clear whetherstudents would answer the ‘‘why’’ question with data fromtheir design testing, reasoning from their science contentknowledge, or both. If student groups do use both, thiswould be an example of full argumentation, but they arenot explicitly prompted to do so. Several examples of fullargumentation occur in the freezer design problem unitwhen the lesson plans provide question-by-question examplesof the conversations that are expected to happen when theteacher leads a whole class discussion, including exemplarstudent responses. One of these examples happens in awhole class discussion, with similar questions being askedon the student worksheet, after the students have completeda dissolving lab and watched a simulation of dissolving onthe molecular scale. The unit plan provides a script of howthe discussion might go. A sample of this is quoted inFigure 4 where the teacher’s questions are followed byexpected student responses in italics.

This line of questioning is organized so the studentsbegin by making a claim that is based on evidence from alab they just completed, and then they must provide reason-ing related to their content knowledge about dissolving.The teacher and worksheet guide the students through theprocess of argumentation by asking a set of scaffolded ques-tions that elicit each piece of an argument. Both of theseexamples from the lesson plans and worksheets show evi-dence of students participating in partial or full argumenta-tion due to the types of questions asked.

Another place that argumentation had the potential to bepresent but was more difficult to see was in some studentgroup and whole class discussions. In the freezer engineer-ing problem, instructions sometimes begin with ‘‘Discuss…’’without any specific follow-up questions. While these

discussions could elicit argumentation, it is not explicitlyevident from the information provided in the lesson plans.A similar example occurs in the engineering portion of thecooker problem unit. After reading the introductory letterfrom the client, the lesson plans state, ‘‘Break the studentsinto their lab groups and allow them to brainstorm ideas forthe fish cookers.’’ Based on only this information, this isnot argumentation; however, the process of brainstormingdesign solutions in a small group could elicit at least partialargumentation. The cooker design problem unit does pro-vide some instructions for partial argumentation duringdiscussions, using the following phrase for several instancesof whole class discussion:

When trying to have a class discussion, insist that studentstake turns raising hands and listen to each other’s expla-nations. When students answer questions, ask them whyto help them further their thinking and to explain theirreasoning…If others agree or disagree have them explainwhy and allow others to comment on their reasoning.

This suggests that students are expected to make claimsand provide reasons for those claims. If students do notelaborate or volunteer an argument, then the teacher is toprompt the students by asking them questions that help themdevelop their arguments. In addition, students are encouragedand permitted to either add to the arguments presented bytheir peers or to offer a counterargument. Here the studentsare socially engaging in the argument process. However, thisclarity of the argumentation process was not present for manyof the discussions as they were written in the lesson plans.

Cross-Case Analysis

In this section of the paper, each of the cases is comparedand discussed using a cross-case analysis. First, we describesome of the ways in which argumentation is used within theSTEM integration curricula. Next, we examine how argu-mentation is used to support K-12 engineering.

Incorporating Argumentation

In these four cases, three themes regarding patterns ofargumentation emerged. These patterns related to the final

Figure 4. Teacher questions followed by expected student responses in italics, as written in the Ecuadorian Fishermen curricular documents.

C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 85

10http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

communication to the client about student teams’ designsolutions, teacher-posed questions, and discussions. Thesepatterns have already been described in each case, but theyare summarized as a set below.

In three of the four curricula (i.e., all but ThermalEnergy), the task of student teams communicating theirfinal designs to their client was the strongest example ofthe process of argumentation in the unit. Whether studentswrite a letter or create a presentation, they are requiredto first give a claim stating their final design solution.They must also provide evidence of their solution’s successthrough testing results and an explanation of their design’sfeatures in terms of their science content knowledge. Theseaspects were not just suggestions by the teacher but ratherwere either requirements explicitly given by the client,a rubric used to grade the communication item, or both.Based on the four curricula examined here, situating a unitaround a client driven problem and then asking students tocommunicate and justify their ideas to the client appearsto offer great potential for including argumentation in aSTEM integration unit.

The second pattern to emerge from the cases wasthe importance of questioning in terms of both frequencyand type of questions. A major reason that the EcuadorianFishermen curriculum contained 75 instances of parts ofargumentation is that the curricular plans have an abun-dance of questions asked by the teacher either in wholeclass discussions or worksheets. In other words, the more thatthe teacher asks the students questions, the more potentialthere is for argumentation to occur. The other three unitseach only had 14–18 instances, due in large part to a muchsmaller number of questions explicitly written in the cur-ricular documents. However, this lack of written-out ques-tions in the plans may not be representative of what isexecuted in the class, so it is difficult to draw definitiveconclusions from these data about the frequency ofquestions contained within a curriculum.

Argumentation depends not just on the quantity ofquestions but also the type of questions. Each of the fourunits used questions, typically beginning with ‘‘what’’ or‘‘how’’ that only prompted claims; claims alone were noteven considered partial argumentation. Those questionsthat included ‘‘why’’ raised the likelihood of studentsreferring to evidence they gather through labs or develop-ing explanations and justifications to support their claims.This would elicit a partial argument at minimum andpossibly a more complete argument, depending on howthe students approach answering this type of question.Examples of these kinds of questions were given the in theRocking Good Times, Mississippi River Recreational AreaDesign, and Ecuadorian Fishermen case descriptions.It is clear from the examination of the questions in theseunits that although STEM integration units are ripe withopportunities to engage in argumentation, explicit effortsmust be made to encourage students to support claims with

evidence and justification, not just to make claims fromdata.

The final major theme that emerged from these datawas the uncertainty of argumentation in group and certainwhole class discussions. In some of the curricula, parti-cularly in the Ecuadorian Fishermen unit, directions weregiven to the teacher to ‘‘discuss…’’ an idea, but the rest ofthe directions were not developed enough to determinewhether or not argumentation was present or whether thiswas meant to be a student or teacher driven discussion. Thisoccurred in both science and engineering contexts. Sincesimply encouraging discussion leaves ambiguity in how thediscussions are implemented, this indicates that curriculashould consider carefully explaining how argumentationcan be incorporated into classroom discussions.

STEM Argumentation Used to Support Engineering

To examine the way that argumentation can supportengineering in STEM integration units, we categorizedthe instances of argumentation identified above by theirrelationship to aspects of engineering education describedin the Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education(Moore et al., 2014a). Instances of partial and full argu-mentation found in these units aligned with four of the nineindicators from the framework: Process of Design (POD);Application of Science, Engineering, and MathematicsKnowledge (SEM); Engineering Thinking (EThink); andCommunication in Engineering (Comm-Engr). Explana-tions of how argumentation fits into these indicators isdescribed in the next section.

Process of Design (POD)

Argumentation had a varying presence within POD. Ofthe three parts within POD, Problem and Background(POD-PB), Plan and Implement (POD-PI), and Test andEvaluate (POD-TE), argumentation was most prominent inPOD-PB. In each of the four units, students are asked toidentify the problem. This is done through a story or letterreceived from a client. In the Rocking Good Times, MississippiRiver Recreational Area Design, and Ecuadorian Fishermenunits, this sets the stage for formulating an argument bygiving students requirements of what would need to be intheir final communication to the client. These requirementsinclude not only the student teams’ designs (i.e., claims),but also some sort of additional information (i.e., evidence,reasoning with science, or both). These letters or storiesfrom the client also provide motivation for collecting back-ground information through science and mathematics inorder to be able to justify the designs, which will bediscussed further in the SEM section.

Within POD-PI, it was more difficult to see examples ofargumentation. While there are several instances wherethere was great potential for argumentation, it was not

86 C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

11http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

explicitly written that students would be using the argu-mentation process. Examples of these are the activitiesrelated to brainstorming and generating ideas in the RockingGood Times and Ecuadorian Fishermen units. One clearexample of at least partial argumentation during the planningand implementing phase occurs in the Ecuadorian Fishermenunit during the freezer engineering design. As students submittheir plans and gather materials needed to build their design,they are required to answer questions such as, ‘‘What will youuse this material for?’’ and ‘‘Why are you using this shape?’’These questions prompt answers that are a mix of claims andsome other information backing up the claims, which could beevidence from previous labs or reasoning with science contentknowledge.

For POD-TE, most of the curricula showed at least partialargumentation. For the Thermal Energy and EcuadorianFishermen curricula, students are required to discuss theirdesigns after testing. These discussions include whether ornot the design was successful and why the student teamthought that was the case, which demonstrates a partialargument structure of claims backed up by either evidencefrom the test or reasoning based on science content knowl-edge. The Rocking Good Times curriculum took this a stepfurther by asking questions in the evaluation stage thatexplicitly required students to provide a claim about thesuccess of their design, evidence from the testing, and ajustification of their design. These examples show that inorder to evaluate the success of their designs, students haveto engage in at least partial argumentation.

Apply Science, Engineering, and MathematicsKnowledge (SEM)

The science and mathematics lessons of the units areimportant for argumentation in two distinct ways. First,they provide students with the background informationnecessary to be able to later justify their engineering designsolutions with science content knowledge. This aspect hasalready been discussed in other contexts within this paper.Second, in the Mississippi River Recreational Area Designand Ecuadorian Fishermen curricula, students participatein building scientific argumentation for the purpose ofunderstanding the science. These curricula are organized tohave students make claims, statements, or predictions at thebeginning of an investigation, collect data through experi-ments or observations, interpret the data, and finallydraw conclusions supported by justifications and evidence.Although the students do not always participate in the fullscientific argumentation process, there are several instanceswhere they complete at least partial argumentation. Examplesof this have already been given in the case descriptions ofthese units, and other instances were found throughout theunits but not included in this paper.

It is important to note that this process of buildingscientific argumentation does not occur consistently in all

units. All of the questions used in the Thermal Energyunit’s science lessons prompt only claims, with no require-ment for evidence or reasoning. There are no examples ofpartial argumentation found in the one science-only lessonin Rocking Good Times, but there are examples ofengineering science argumentation. The example given inthe case description where students are asked ‘‘What typeof earth material is the most stable during an earthquake?’’and are expected to answer with a claim and justifica-tion displays this. Finally, while the other two units haveexamples of partial and full argumentation in a sciencelesson context, they also both have plenty of instances ofquestions that elicit claims only.

Engineering Thinking (EThink)

Critical thinking skills are one component of EThink thatare supported by argumentation. This was most evident bythe use of questions. The scaffolded questions used directlyin the lesson plan, as well as those used in worksheets,provide prompts to guide students through the developmentof an argument, or at least part of one. The descriptions andtypes of questions vary from unit to unit. The units thatrequire a higher level of content understanding, such as inthe Ecuadorian Fishermen unit, also expect more thorougharguments. Based on the documents provided, it is notclear, in any of the units, if the formation of argumentsis supportive of independent thinking or of collectivethinking. In addition, students must use reflective thinkingin order to make an argument. Reflective thinking occurswhen students are asked to analyze and make judgmentsabout what has happened. An example of this occurs in theRocking Good Times unit when students have finishedtesting the different soil types for stability during anearthquake. The students have to use reflective thinking toanalyze their data and make a judgment about which soilchoice is the best; this type of thinking is required in orderfor them to form a partial or complete argument.

Communication Related to Engineering (Comm-Engr)

As stated previously, communication between the clientand the students was the strongest use of argumentation tosupport engineering within the curricula. Each of the fourSTEM integration units asks students to design somethingfor a client, evaluate their design and redesign, and presentthe information. Three of the curricula indicate that eitherwritten or oral arguments would be presented to the client,while the Thermal Energy unit’s final presentation doesnot necessarily include the client. Regardless, all the unitsinclude prompts for students to develop some level of anargument. Writing letters or preparing presentations for thepurpose of convincing a client that a proposal, design, orrecommendation should be considered above others is animportant aspect of the engineering profession. Thus, having

C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 87

12http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

students communicate their design solutions to a client notonly engages them fully in the process of argumentation,but it also requires them to practice an engineering skill.

Summary of Results

This multiple-case study has provided cursory insightinto the use of argumentation within the development ofSTEM integration curricula. All of the curricula containelements of argumentation, though the number and com-pleteness of opportunities available for students to practicethe process of argumentation varied. The curricular plansall use questions and discussion prompts that produceclaims, but the follow-through with evidence from studentactivities and justification with science reasoning is incon-sistent. The findings of this research also provide an initialunderstanding of how argumentation supports engineeringin these four units. Examples of argumentation were foundin four indicators in the K-12 engineering education frame-work, all of which are critical elements of engineering:POD, SEM, EThink, and Comm-Engr. Argumentation mayhave been present in other elements of engineering, but thecurricula do not capture them.

Implications and Future Research

This study has potential implications for STEM integra-tion curricular development. Most notably, the resultssuggest that there are elements that encourage students toengage in argumentation. Requiring students to commu-nicate to the client by describing their final design andjustifying it with evidence and explanations may increasethe likelihood students will use argumentation. Addition-ally, curricula need to include questions that will elicit notonly claims (i.e., what, how), but also evidence and justifi-cations to support those claims (i.e., why). These questionscould be embedded in several places within the curriculardocuments, including worksheets and discussion promptsgiven by the teacher, and can guide students through theprocess of argumentation.

Argumentation can also occur naturally during wholeclass and small group discussions. Embedding more discus-sions in curricula could therefore increase the number ofopportunities students have to create arguments. However,this ultimately depends on the enactment of the discussions,which could not be seen by an evaluation of the curricularplans and supporting materials. Further studies examininghow teachers enact curriculum and how students participatewould provide a deeper understanding of how argumenta-tion is used by the teachers and the students.

In order to identify argumentation in the enacted cur-ricula, we need a clearer distinction between argumentationin science contexts and argumentation in engineering con-texts. Our analyses show that science and mathematicswere used differently in the two contexts within the STEM

integration curricular units. During science-focused lessons,curricular plans sometimes included scaffolding to guidestudents through scientific argumentation, a process inwhich the claims, evidence, and justifications are all relatedto science and mathematics. In engineering-focused lessons,claims could be related to design ideas and solutions, whilescience and mathematics could only be used to supportthese claims. In sum, the purposes of the claims are dif-ferent; scientific claims are about natural phenomena andengineering claims relate to the proposed design solution.Because of this fundamental difference between scientificarguments and engineering arguments, we propose the useof two different terms to distinguish between them. In scienceeducation research and practice, the practice of argumenta-tion has typically been called scientific argumentation.Therefore, we propose the use of the term evidence-basedreasoning (EBR) to describe engineering arguments thatfocus on supporting claims about design decisions.

Limitation

A limitation to this study is that it does not represent howthe curricula were carried out by each of the teachers intheir classrooms. It only captures what the curricular teamchose to include in the written documentation. Addition-ally, engineering indicators such as teamwork may haveused argumentation when each curriculum was enacted, butthis was outside of the scope of this study.

References

ABET. (2016). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, 2016–2017.Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/accreditation/accreditation-criteria/criteria-for-accrediting-engineering-programs-2016-2017/#outcomes

Besnard, P., & Hunter, A. (2008). Nature of argumentation. In Elements ofargumentation (pp. 1–20). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Breiner, J. M., Harkness, S. S., Johnson, C. C., & Koehler, C. M. (2012).What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in educationand partnerships. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3–11.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative andmixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SagePublications.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: KappaDelta Pi.

Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the normsof scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84,287–312.

Fink, F. K. (2001). Integration of work based learning in engineeringeducation. In Frontiers in Education Conference, 2001. 31st Annual.Reno, NV: IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2001.963747

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 301–316).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jonassen, D. H., Shen, D., Marra, R. M., Cho, Y.-H., Lo, J. L., & Lohani,V. K. (2009). Engaging and supporting problem solving in engineeringethics. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3), 235–254.

Krippendorff, K. (2013). Content analysis: An introduction to its method-ology (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Inc.

Kuhn, D. (1993). Science as argument: Implications for teaching andlearning scientific thinking. Science Education, 77(3), 319–337.

88 C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research

13http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163

Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory life: The construction ofscientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Llewellyn, D. (2014). Inquire within: Implementing inquiry-based sciencestandards in grades 3–8 (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., &Stohlmann, M. S. (2014a). A framework for quality K-12 engineeringeducation: Research and development. Journal of Pre-CollegeEngineering Education Research, 4(1), 1–13.

Moore, T. J., Stohlmann, M. S., Wang, H.-H., Tank, K. M., Glancy,A. W., & Roehrig, G. H. (2014b). Implementation and integration ofengineering in K-12 STEM education. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, &M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizingresearch, policy, and practices (pp. 35–59). West Lafayette, IN:Purdue University Press.

Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSSand the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318.

National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2009).Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status andimproving the prospects. Washington, DC: The National AcademiesPress.

National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2010).Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: NationalAcademies Press.

National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2014).STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agendafor research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://doi.org/10.17226/18612

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, &Institute of Medicine. (2007). Rising above the gathering storm:Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://doi.org/10.17226/11463

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education:Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering,

and mathematics. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.http://doi.org/10.17226/13158

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 scienceeducation: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington,DC: The National Academies Press. http://doi.org/10.17266/13165

Newton, P., Driver, R., & Osborne, J. (1999). The place of argumentationif the pedagogy of school science. International Journal of ScienceEducation, 21(5), 553–576.

NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: Forstates, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).(2010). Prepare and inspire: K-12 science, technology, engineering, andmathematics (STEM) education for America’s future. Washington, DC.

Sampson, V., Enderle, P., & Grooms, J. (2013). Argumentation in scienceeducation. Science Teacher, 80(5), 30–33.

Schwarz, B. B. (2009). Argumentation and learning. In Argumentationand education: Theoretical foundations and practices (pp. 91–126).Boston, MA: Springer US.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958). The uses of argument. New York, NY: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in ourtimes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Van Epps, A. S. (2013). Educating for evidence based decisions inengineering: The view as librarian and instructor. Paper proceedingsof the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conferenceand Exposition, Atlanta, GA.

Wang, H.-H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEMintegration: Teacher perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-CollegeEngineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–13. http://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

C.A. Mathis et al. / Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research 89

14http://dx.doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1163