Exploring Practical, Disciplinary, and Engineering Reasoning in a High School Technology Classroom
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.46328/ijemst.5410Keywords:
Technology education, Engineering reasoning, Science integration, Secondary education, Design-based learningAbstract
This paper presents how students in a secondary school technology classroom navigated different forms of reasoning during the early stages of a design project to build gravity-powered street luges. The data collection methods included classroom observations, examining student artefacts, teacher interviews, and focus group discussions with students, the analysis identified three modes of reasoning, practical (trial-and-error), disciplinary (use of science and mathematics), and engineering (conceptual design integration). Findings show that students predominantly relied on practical reasoning early on in the project, with disciplinary concepts often referenced at a surface level. Engineering reasoning emerged later especially when triggered by testing failures or design constraints. This paper contributes to understanding how conceptual learning can be fostered through design-based activity and offers implications for strengthening interdisciplinary thinking in technology education.
References
Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2022). Australian curriculum: Technologies. https://v9.australiancurriculum.edu.au/
Australian Curriculum. (2024). Design and Technologies: Curriculum version 8.4. ACARA. https://australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/technologies/design-and-technologies/structure/
Bethke Wendell, K., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. C. (2017). Reflective decision making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20173
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). SAGE.
Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5
Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271
Denzin, N. K. (2012). Triangulation 2.0. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 80–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689812437186
Duschl, R. A., Schweingruber, H. A., & Shouse, A. W. (Eds.). (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. National Academies Press.
English, L. D., & King, D. (2019). STEM integration in primary school: Aligning theory with classroom practice. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0176-2
English, L. D., Hudson, P., & Dawes, L. (2012). Engineering education in the middle school: Exploring foundational structures. In L. Mann & D. Scott (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Australasian Association for Engineering Education (pp. 1–9). ESER Group, Swinburne University of Technology.
English, L. D., Hudson, P., & Dawes, L. (2013). Engineering-based problem solving in the middle school: Design and construction with simple machines. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 3(2), 43–50. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1074
Falloon, G., Powling, M., Fraser, S., & Hatisaru, V. (2022). Shaping science, technology, engineering and mathematics curriculum in Australian schools: An ecological systems analysis. Australian Journal of Education and Developmental Psychology, 22(2), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00049441221083347
Fleer, M. (2020). Engineering play: A cultural-historical response to STEM learning in early childhood. Cambridge University Press.
Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). Cambridge University Press.
Hadgraft, R. G., & Kolmos, A. (2020). Emerging learning environments in engineering education. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 25(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2020.1713522
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM integration in K–12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. National Academies Press.
Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00007.x
Kelley, T. R., Knowles, J. G., & Han, J. (2020). Integrated STEM education: Current practices and future directions. In C. M. Johnson, E. E. Peters-Burton, & T. J. Moore (Eds.), STEM road map 2.0: A framework for integrated STEM education (pp. 14–36). Routledge.
MacDonald, A., Hunter, J., & Kempa, R. (2020). The integration of engineering design in secondary science education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 30, 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-018-9455-2
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Learning Media.
New Zealand Curriculum Online. (2018). Unpacking the curriculum: Technological practice. https://newzealandcurriculum.tahurangi.education.govt.nz/unpacking-the-curriculum---technological-practice/5637164144.p
Reeve, E. M. (2015). STEM thinking! Technology and engineering teacher. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 74(4), 8–16.
Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.
Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Confronting the epistemological nature of science in teaching. Science Education, 98(3), 383–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21112
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
Wells, J. G. (2013). Efficacy of the technological/engineering design approach: Imposed cognitive demands within design-based biotechnology instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 27(2), 32–49.
Wendell, K. B., & Rogers, C. B. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20026
Williams, J., Nguyen, N., & Mangan, J. (2016). Engineering education in the school curriculum: The missing context. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 21(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/22054952.2017.1294879
Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48–60. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v11i2.a.4
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Articles may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the copyright of the articles. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
The author(s) of a manuscript agree that if the manuscript is accepted for publication in the journal, the published article will be copyrighted using a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license. This license allows others to freely copy, distribute, and display the copyrighted work, and derivative works based upon it, under certain specified conditions.
Authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to include any images or artwork for which they do not hold copyright in their articles, or to adapt any such images or artwork for inclusion in their articles. The copyright holder must be made explicitly aware that the image(s) or artwork will be made freely available online as part of the article under a Creative Commons “Attribution 4.0 International” license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
