A systematic review of argumentation related to the engineering-designed world

Abstract

Background: Across academic disciplines, researchers have found that argumentation-based pedagogies increase learners' achievement and engagement. Engineering educational researchers and teachers of engineering may benefit from knowledge regarding how argumentation related to engineering has been practiced and studied. Purpose/Hypothesis: Drawing from terms and concepts used in national standards for K-12 education and accreditation requirements for undergraduate engineering education, this study was designed to identify how arguments and argumentation related to the engineering-designed world were operationalized in relevant literature. Methodology: Specified search terms and inclusion criteria were used to identify 117 empirical studies related to engineering argumentation and educational research. A qualitative content analysis was used to identify trends across these studies. Findings: Overall, engineering-related argumentation was associated with a variety of positive learner outcomes. Across many studies, arguments were operationalized in practice as statements regarding whether an existing technology should be adopted in a given context, usually with a limited number of supports (e.g., costs and ethics) provided for each claim. Relatively few studies mentioned empirical practices, such as tests. Most studies did not name the race/ethnicity of participants nor report engineering-specific outcomes. Conclusions: Engineering educators in K-12 and undergraduate settings can create learning environments in which learners use a range of epistemic practices, including empirical practices, to support a range of claims. Researchers can study engineering-specific outcomes while specifying relevant demographics of their research participants.