A thematic analysis of high school students' scientific argumentation of what constitutes a 'better' engineering design journal.
Saved in:
| Title: | A thematic analysis of high school students' scientific argumentation of what constitutes a 'better' engineering design journal. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lee, Wonki1 (AUTHOR) lee3065@purdue.edu, Mentzer, Nathan2 (AUTHOR) nmentzer@purdue.edu, Jackson, Andrew3 (AUTHOR) andrewjackson@uga.edu, Bartholomew, Scott4 (AUTHOR) scottbartholomew@byu.edu, Thorne, Scott5 (AUTHOR) sthorne@purdue.edu |
| Source: | International Journal of Technology & Design Education. Mar2026, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p83-112. 30p. |
| Subjects: | Engineering design, Argument, Thematic analysis, Peer review of students, High school students, Critical thinking |
| Abstract: | The current study explores the quality of students' argumentation within the context of Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ) and Learning by Evaluation (LbE), focusing on the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) framework. The aim is to understand what students consider essential for superior engineering design journals and why, particularly examining evidence and reasoning components. Thirty-five students from four high schools participated in LbE, justifying their preferences for selected options. These schools were part of a broader five-school project, though one did not conduct the relevant session and was excluded from the study. Utilizing the CER framework, the study analyzed the structure of scientific argumentation, supplemented by thematic analysis to elucidate students' reasoning. Three response models emerged: Claim-Evidence (CE), Claim-Reasoning (CR), and CER. CE responses lacked reasoning, while CR responses lacked evidence. Students favored design portfolios with visual aids, detailed content, documentation of design failures, and clearly stated challenges. For reasoning, students highlighted the value of clear explanations of the design process, facilitation of group and individual work, idea generation, and instructional clarity. The study underscores the importance of teacher-led scaffolding to help students articulate comprehensive claims and suggests structured group discussions and modeling as effective supports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of International Journal of Technology & Design Education is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | The current study explores the quality of students' argumentation within the context of Adaptive Comparative Judgment (ACJ) and Learning by Evaluation (LbE), focusing on the Claim-Evidence-Reasoning (CER) framework. The aim is to understand what students consider essential for superior engineering design journals and why, particularly examining evidence and reasoning components. Thirty-five students from four high schools participated in LbE, justifying their preferences for selected options. These schools were part of a broader five-school project, though one did not conduct the relevant session and was excluded from the study. Utilizing the CER framework, the study analyzed the structure of scientific argumentation, supplemented by thematic analysis to elucidate students' reasoning. Three response models emerged: Claim-Evidence (CE), Claim-Reasoning (CR), and CER. CE responses lacked reasoning, while CR responses lacked evidence. Students favored design portfolios with visual aids, detailed content, documentation of design failures, and clearly stated challenges. For reasoning, students highlighted the value of clear explanations of the design process, facilitation of group and individual work, idea generation, and instructional clarity. The study underscores the importance of teacher-led scaffolding to help students articulate comprehensive claims and suggests structured group discussions and modeling as effective supports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 09577572 |
| DOI: | 10.1007/s10798-025-09984-z |
