| Abstrakt: |
Mechanistic reasoning about an artifact or system involves thinking about its underlying entities and the properties, activities, and cause-effect relationships of those entities. Previous studies of children's mechanistic reasoning about engineering solutions have mostly focused on specific mechanical systems such as gear trains. Yet there is growing interest in more contextualized, community-connected engineering design experiences for elementary students. Important questions remain about how the specific features of community contexts influence student opportunities for engineering design practice and reasoning. In this study, we explore whether comparisons in students' mechanistic reasoning can be made across a range of five different community design contexts. For this qualitative descriptive study, we focus on interview data collected after each of five community-connected engineering-enriched science curriculum units: accessible playground design (3rd grade, N = 8, district A, schools 1 and 2), displaced animal relocation design (3rd grade, N = 10, district A, school 1), migration stopover site design (4th grade, N = 4, district A, school 2), retaining wall design (4th grade, N = 13, district B, school 1), and water filter design (5th grade, N = 9 students, district A, school 3). The findings showed that all students named entities and described entity factors for the design solutions for all five units. For the playground, displaced animals, and stopover sites units, some students described the design artifacts without explicitly expressing connections between entity factors and/or the way factors linked up to the design performance. We argue that particular features of the design tasks influenced students' approaches to explaining their design solutions. Therefore, we can claim that comparisons can be made across different community-connected engineering design contexts in terms of children's mechanistic reasoning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
Full text from SpringerLink