Art and Artifact

Art and Artifact of Children's Designing: A Situated Cognition Perspective
Author(s): Wolff-Michael Roth

Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of the Learning Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1996), pp. 129-166
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1466773 .
Accessed: 27/11/2012 01:22
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of
the Learning Sciences.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.64 on Tue, 27 Nov 2012 01:22:39 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
THEJOURNAL
OFTHELEARNING
SCIENCES,
5(2), 129-166
Associates,Inc.
Copyright
? 1996,LawrenceErlbaum
Art and Artifactof Children's

Designing: A SituatedCognition
Perspective
Wolff-MichaelRoth
Faculty of Education
SimonFraser University
Thepurposeof thisstudywasto investigate

knowingandlearningin anengineering
within
an
environment
elementaryclassroom.Basedon extensiveethnodesign
andobservers,
video
interviewswithparticipants
observation,
recordings,
graphic
and children's design artifactsand engineering logbooks, fourth- and fifth-grade
students'designingactivitieswere interpreted
from the perspectiveof situated
tools,
designingwasrelatedtotheartifacts,
cognition.Theresultsshowthatchildren's
andcurrenttrendsin thesetting.However,these
materials,teacher-set
constraints,
elementscannotbe takenas havingsomeabsoluteontologybutareinterpretively
flexible.In the courseof the engineering
unit,the fourth-andfifth-gradestudents
learnedto exploitthis interpretive
flexibilityto frameand solve problems.The
functions:Theywereresourcesthat
emergingartifactshadat leasttwo important
structured
the designprocessby bothopeningup possibilitiesandprovidingcondiscursiveandpracticalactions.Thefindings
straints,andtheyservedto coordinate
haveimportant
foraffordances
andconstraints
of learning
environments
implications
in whichdesigningis botha goalanda vehicleof instruction
andfortheevaluation
of students'activitiesin suchsettings.
Interestsand goals are centralto people's meaningfuleveryday activities;understandinghow people pursuegoals is criticalto understandingcognition (Schank,
1993/1994). Design is a form of problemsolving in which interestsand goals bear
on processesandoutcomesin essentialways;by theirvery nature,design processes
are aboutthe new, uncertain,andill-defined(Bucciarelli,1994). Becausedesign is
Requests for reprintsshould be sent to Wolff-Michael Roth, Faculty of Education,Simon Fraser
University, Burnaby,BritishColumbia,Canada V5A 1S6. E-mail:michael_roth@sfu.ca
130
ROTH
the central activity in technology (Faulkner,1994), it fits well with an emerging

interestin science, technology,and society issues, and in technologyas contextfor
learningscience (see essays in Layton, 1994).
Designing, the creationof artifactsthatspecify how a system should be organized, is one of four types of learningenvironmentsthatmake learningin practicea
centralelement (Schank,Fano, Bell, & Jona, 1993/1994). Design activities offer
opportunitiesfor learningin school because they are the epitome of open-ended
and ill-structuredproblemsolving and allow studentsto constructand test knowledge by incorporatingin the designtheirideasandfeelings (e.g., Harel, 1991;Harel
& Papert, 1991; Kafai, 1994). Papert and his students distinguished between
learningthroughdesign andprofessionaldesigning.Learningthroughdesign is not
exclusively representedin finalproducts(theartifactsin the title),butin the process
(art).Althoughmostprofessionaldesignconcentrateson theproductas theessential
outcome, learning to and through design makes process the central issue of
education.Such learningis only partiallyreflectedin the artifactsthatresultfrom
the design process and which are traditionallythe sole basis for the evaluationof
learning.
Based on the results of previous studies on children'sdesigning and my own
work on student-centereddesign of science experiments,I identifiedthe Engineering for Children:Structures(EFCS) curriculumthat allows students to design
artifactsin an open-endedprocess (Associationfor the Promotionand Advancement of Science Education, 1991). EFCS activities are not designed to transmit
legitimatedand canonical engineeringknowledge. Rather,they provide students
with opportunitiesto (a) explore and experiencesome critical(but not necessarily
prespecified)issues aboutdesigningstructures,(b) learnto managethe complexity
of open-ended and ill-structureddesign situations,and (c) learn to collectively
design, make sense, negotiate,plan, and execute groupprojects.
The goal of this study was to understandthe processof designingduringEFCS
activities. Specifically, the study was designed to provide empiricallybased answers to threequestions:(a) Whatelementsof the learningenvironmentcontribute
to the design process and products?(b) What is the ontological status of the
identified elements? and (c) What is the role of design artifacts in collective
designing? The answers provide an understandingof the processes by means of
which students achieve learning outcomes, such as knowing how to design,
negotiatedifferences,use a varietyof tools andmaterials,talkandwriteengineering
design, andexploit complexityanduncertaintyof open-endedproblems.I assumed
that my new understandingswould help to constructbetterdesign environments
that capitalize on the strengthsof currentlyexisting curriculaand eliminatesome
of their weaknesses. To make minimal assumptionsabout the contributionsof
individualandcontextto cognition,this studytakesas a startingpointa theoretical
position based on situatedlearning(Gooding, 1990; Lave, 1988; Suchman,1987)
CHILDREN'S
DESIGNING 131
and symmetricanthropology(Latour,1993) which do not a prioriplace cognition

into the head of individuals.
THEEMPIRICAL
STUDY
This is one of a series of studies designed to understandelementary students'
knowing and learningin science classroomenvironments(McGinn, Roth, Boutonn6, & Woszczyna, 1995; Roth, 1995c, in press). All studies in this series are
based on the following threeattributes.First,childrendesign artifactsas a means
to learnscience. Premisedon the workof Schankandhis colleaguesandtheirnotion
of coincidentallearning(Schanket al., 1993/1994), I assumedthat childrenwho
designed towers, strongarms,bridges,or domes would learn(a) aboutproperties
of materialsand forces operatingin structuresand (b) how to modify material
properties,structuralstrength,and stability.By designing complex machines for
specific purposes,such as lifting or moving heavy loads, I predictedthat students
would learnaboutsimple machinessuch as pulleys, levers, or inclinedplanes and
aboutassociatedconcepts,such as mechanicaladvantage,force, energy, and work
(McGinn et al., 1995). Second, these studiesare designed as "authentic"learning
environmentsto the extentthatproblemsareeitherill-definedor definedso loosely
that the studentscan define theirown goals and problemframesand experiencea
sufficient level of uncertaintyand ambiguityin finding and achieving solutions.
Third,these learningenvironmentsallow studentsto (a) experiencethemselvesas
part of a community in which specific practices and resources are shared and
scientific andtechnologicalknowledgearesocially constructedand(b) drawon the
expertiseof moreknowledgeableothers,whethertheyarepeers,teachers,oroutside
experts.Threeethnographicstudieshavebeencompleted.Thedatausedto illustrate
children's designing in this study came from a Grade4 to 5 classroom in which
childrenengaged in the design of structures.The extent to which this classroom
was a community of practice has already been described and theorized (Roth,
1995c, in press). The following paragraphsprovide descriptionsof curriculum,
participants,data,and methodsof analysisemployed in this study.
Curriculum
The curriculumEFCS was developed to generateopportunitiesfor elementaryschool children'sconstructionof engineeringknowledgeandpositive first experiences with engineering.As a practicalapplicationof science, EFCS is a vehicle for
introducingscience concepts,providingill-definedproblem-solvingcontexts, and
fostering positive attitudesin childrentowardscience and technology. Activities
132
ROTH
in the programare set up as engineering design problems and as contexts for

learningto work and solve problemsin a collaborativemanner.Thus, the EFCS
curriculum exhibits some of the fundamentalproperties of courses that take
students'goals andinterestsas startingpointsfor learningandthatfocus on practice
ratherthanmereacquisitionof facts (Schank,1993/1994;Schanket al., 1993/1994;
Schon, 1983). As the core goal, EFCS studentsconstructedbridges that became
partof an exhibit staged by the local science museum.This exhibit explainedand
illustratedan ongoing engineeringcompetitionfor constructinga link betweentwo
sections of the city via a tunnelor bridge.
In this curricularimplementation,the unitbeganwith a seriesof initialproblems
designed as motivationalactivitiesandas an occasionto observestudents'problem
framingand solutionfindingpriorto the engineeringactivities.In two subsequent
activities, students developed strengtheningtechniques and joints with given
materialslike glue, pins, paperclips, maskingtape,pipe cleaners,cardboard,paper,
popsicle sticks, skewers,string,wool, andso forth.These lessons allowed children
to develop resourcesfor laterengineeringchallenges.Aftera lesson on stabilizing
two- and three-dimensionalgeometricfigures such as pentagons,hexagons, and
cubes, the childrenbuilt theirfirst structure,a real or imaginaryobjector creature.
For the remainderof the unit, students(a) constructedtowers meeting student-determinedspecifications(e.g., beingearthquakeproof,supportinga ball,or featuring
a moving elevator), (b) built bridges with a minimum span of 30 cm, and (c)
mountedhuts from newspaperand newspaperrolls large enoughto harborseveral
children,the so-called "megastructure."
The EFCS unitlasted 13 weeks. Due to the regular,part-timeteacher'sworking
schedule, the unit was taught twice per week, normally for 90 min. In some
instances, however, the students spent all morning (3 hr) on their engineering
projects.Two engineersvisited the class to talk for about30 min each abouttheir
own work and to interactwith the students in the context of their engineering
projects. The unit ended with two activities: (a) a field trip to the local science
museum to see an exhibition on bridges,which also includedthe children's own
bridgeprojectscompletedduringthe unit;and(b) anindividualconstructionproject
completed at home, which was used as an occasion to assess individuallearning.
Studentshadthe opportunityto view severalfilms on bridges,usuallyduringlunch
hours,includingthe classic recordingsof the TacomaNarrowsBridgecollapse, the
buildingof wooden bridgesin the 1990s, and a spaghetti-bridgecompetition.
Studentsspent most of theirtime on practicalwork thatthey completedwith a
partnerof theirown choice. The two teacherspresentwent from groupto groupto
talk with the studentsat length about engineeringissues and technical problems
arisingfromtheirwork,to facilitategroupworkandcollaboration,andto dissipate
studentfrustrations.Duringeach lesson, time was set aside to talk with the whole
class aboutthe children'swork.Teacherspointedout featuresin children'sjoining
or strengtheningtechniquesthatarealso usedby professionalengineers,or students
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
133
presentedwhatthey haddone to date,the problemsthey hadencountered,andhow

they had solved them.Teachersused these sessions to help studentsreflect on their
own problems and solutions by asking them to compliment their peers, ask
questions,or providesuggestionsfor improvements.
TeachersandStudents
This investigationwas conductedin a mixed-gradeFrenchImmersionclassroom
with 23 fourthgraders(10 boys, 13 girls) and5 fifth graders(3 boys, 2 girls). Most
of these studentscame frommiddle-classbackgrounds,althoughthe full socioeconomicrangefromworkingclass to middleclass was represented.The unitwas team
taught by one of the two regularclassroom teachers (Tammy) and a part-time
graduatestudent (Gitte) who was also the developer of the EFCS curriculum.
Tammytaughtthe class for 2 days per week; anotherteacherwas in chargefor the
remainderof the week. She had 12 years of experienceteachingat the elementary
level, 6 years of which were parttime. Her previousexperienceincludeda unit on
bridgebuilding,whichshe taughtonce before,andtwo 3-hrunit-relatedworkshops:
one on buildingbridgesandthe otherone on the EFCScurriculum.Gittehadtaught
at the same grade level for 3 years and had worked for 4 years as a curriculum
developerandworkshoppresenter.TammyandGitteplannedthe activitiestogether
to adjustthem to the specific needs of the participatingstudents.
Data Collection
Because of its focus on reasoningin complex ill-definedsituations,this investigation was modeledon studiesof cognitionin everydayactivityandof workpractices
in scientific laboratories(e.g., Hutchins,1991;Lave, 1988;Suchman,1987). Direct
observationsand videotapesof design-relatedactivity,field notes, interviewswith
students and regular and visiting teachers, and students' engineering logbooks
constitutedthe primarydata sources.Data analyses adheredto recommendations
by theoristsin the domainsof interpretiveresearch(Erickson,1986), discourseand
conversationalanalysis(Edwards& Potter,1992), andinteractionanalysis(Jordan
& Henderson,1995). Any assertionconstructedwas testedin the entiredatacorpus
or used to directfurtherdatacollection to seek both confirmingand disconfirming
evidence.
Two video cameras were used to establish a continuous record of student
activitiesduringthe EFCS unit.At appropriatemoments,I interviewedstudentsin
the context of their ongoing work. Video-based data were complemented by
ethnographicdescriptionsof eventsthatcould not be capturedby the cameras.Data
sources included the children's engineeringlogbooks where they kept plans for
constructions,reflectionson theirlearningexperiences,a glossary,andphotographs
of their work. Videotapedmeetings with Tammy, Gitte, and other teacherswho
134
ROTH
had observed the classroom and interactedwith the childrenconstitutedanother

data source.
To providesome indicationof children'slearning,two types of testingsituations
were arranged.First,studentswere askedpriorto the unitto noteor drawtheirideas
aboutengineering(e.g., "Engineeringis
?").At the end of the unit, students
respondedto the same questionby writinga sentence and mappingall the words
they associatedwith the topic. Children'sglossariesconstitutedanotherdatasource
for analyzingtheir understandingof engineeringdesign. To obtain a bettersense
of changes in theirdesigning-relatedactivities,I askedstudentspriorto the unit to
build a bridgefrom a single sheet of papersupportingas much weight as possible.
Theirbridgeproject,in which they were to build a bridgeas strongas possible and
spanningat least 30 cm, provideda comparisoncase 2 monthslater,butbeforethe
end of the unit.
Data Analysis
My interpretativework began with the assumption that reasoning as socially
structuredand embodied activity can be observed (Suchman& Trigg, 1993). I
treatedthe transcriptsof students'conversationsas naturalprotocolsof theirefforts
to makesense of events, structuretheirphysicalandsocial environments,or interact
with teachers.Togetherwith the collected artifacts,protocolsprovidedoccasions
for construingthe design work done by individuals,groups, and the classroom
community.Sense, objectivity,fact, andsocial orderin humanactionwere treated
as irremediablylocal and contingentlyproducedphenomena.
All videotapeswere transcribedas soon as possible afterthey were recorded.In
daily meetingswith my researchteam,I generatedassertionsthatweresubsequently
tested in the body of the data sources or used to directthe data collection efforts
during futurefield days. Data sources were searchedfor evidence supportingor
rejectingthese assertionsand followed up with on-site interviews.On the basis of
any new information,I discarded,modified,or retainedworkingassertions.
EMPIRICAL
DESIGNING
EVIDENCEFORCHILDREN'S
This study sought answers to three questions:(a) What elements of the learning
environmentcontributeto the design process and product?(b) What is the ontological statusof the identifiedelements?and(c) Whatis the role of design artifacts
in collective designing? Each of the subsequentsubsectionsis framedby one of
these researchquestionsand a brief answer;each frameis followed by supporting
empirical evidence. An overview of learningoutcomes is provided in the subsequentsection.
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
135
ActorsandHeterogeneousProducts
Multiple
"Whatelementsof the learningenvironmentcontributeto the design process
and product?"Cognitionin designingis situated:It is best understoodas the
confluence of many differentelements (actors)and thereforeis a heterogeneous process. Designing is not a cognitive activity that can be reducedto
individualmentalprocesses. Decisions takenby principalactors,or owners
of projects,cannot be understoodapartfrom the tools, materials,artifacts,
teacherinterdictionsandconstraints,or the emergentpropertiesof collective,
discursiveand tool-related,activity and design artifacts.
Although the childrenclaimed sole authorshipfor the creationof certainartifacts,
therewere otheraspectsof the learningenvironmentthatcontributedin fundamental ways to the artand artifactsof theirdesigning (see Figure 1). Designing in this
classroomdid not occurin a vacuumbutin a studio-likeatmospherethatrepresented
a learningcultureandthe associatednetworkof relationshipsamongpsychological,
sociological, andmaterialactorsin specific settings.(In symmetricanthropologies,
actor standsfor any aspectof the settingthatcould be importantin the learningof
the system to preventprematureclosure in my orderingactivities on questionsof
causes and effects, human and nonhumanfactors involved in the constructed
phenomena, or individual and social aspects of knowing; Latour, 1987.) The
contributionsof variousactorsto an emergingartifactare graphicallyrepresented
in Figure 1; these contributionsfind their materialexpression in the completed
artifacts.
A varietyof actorscontributedto an artifact'sdevelopmentat variousstages to
give it its final shape. Figure 1 shows how tools, materials,communitystandards,
teacher-setconstraints,currentstate-of-the-designartifacts,individualpreferences,
andpastdiscursiveachievementscontributedto the emergenceof a specific design
artifact,AST's' tower.The heterogeneityof the tower's originsmakesthe description assemblage (Turnbull, 1995) quite appropriate.In spite of the observed
heterogeneousorigins of each artifact,one studentgroupwas always identifiedas
its author.This attributionwas assertedby childrenthroughaccompanyingdescriptions assigningideas andworkto themselvesandby the teacherswhenthey praised
the designers.Thereexisted very few instancesin which a child or groupcredited
others. In this example, AST's tower emerged as a product of the interaction
betweenthese elements,withthethreestudents-the designers-as principleactors
(see Figure 1). However, not all tools, artifacts,materials,individuals,and rules
thatexist in theclassroomwereof equalimportancein accountingfor theemergence
Ilnitialsare used to referto a groupas a whole. The following abbreviationsare used: AST (Andy,
Simon, and Tim), CA (Chrisand Arlene),JJ(Jeff andJohn),KK (Kitty and Kathy),and PR (Peterand
Ron).
__)
DAY 1
Interdiction,constraint
Negotiation
strong' [9:52]
tapean pinjoint:
'Wearenot
allowedto use
[tape]''Butit
makes[thejoint]
DAY 2
S:'Makecubes'.
T:'Makecubesand
thenwe attachthem
all together'[9:441
Negotiation
T: Wearemaking
thebottompart.
[Yours]is forthe
bottompart.
[9:50]
Presentstate
S: It'sreallyunshapely,
butit'scoming
T: Itreallyhasthe
shape,'causeit'sgonna
shape... [10:12]
Teacher
Tammy:Whichshapedoes
it taketo makesomething
stable?
T:A triangle[10:191
Presen
T: Take
off, and
bottomr
stable..
reassem
Individual
T:'I ammakinga
-cone top'[9:16]
Negotiation
- S: Makea pyramid
A: 'Don'tmakea triangle',
'thebottomneedsto be
square'[9:19]
- Teacher
Tammy:'Canyouadd
sometrianglesthere?'
[9:351
Other student,material
Tom:'Ican'tgluethat,it's
waytoo hard.Use tape'
pinjointI
[9:43]
Tool
Teacher
Tammy:'Canyouenlargeit in this
direction?'[9:35]
[vertical]
'welded'joint
weldedjoint:Timmeltedand
fusedstrawwithhis gluegun.
A: 'Whenwe attachedit with
tape,it wouldcomeapart'
T:'SimonputthesethingsandI
got anideathatit wouldn't
wigglethatwell.'(Repair,Day3)
FIGURE 1 The developmentof a design artifact,Andy, Simon, and Tim's tower, beginning with some i
emergedfrom the interactionof individualswith theirpeers, materials,setting, teachers,tools, communitys
"-4
138
ROTH
of an artifact.There exists a horizon of events; elements that lie outside of this

horizon, although they may exist for other people in the same setting, are not
relevantaspectsin the designhistory.Forexample,althougha glue gun was present
in the classroom,it did not influencethe design of AST's tower in its early stages.
Only later,with a growingsense in this classroomcommunitythatglue guns make
strongjoints, did AST also considerthe use of this tool in theirown activities.The
following examples highlighthow (a) intragroupnegotiations,(b) interactionsin
the community, (c) tools, and (d) the present state of the artifactshaped design
processes and products.
HowIntragroup
ShapeDesigningand
Negotiations
Designs
Design artifactsemerged as materialwitnesses of the collaborativeplanning,
constructing,and negotiatingof teammembers.Duringthese negotiations,design
changes and "master"plans emerged, but they were not the sum total or least
common denominatorof the key actors' initial input. Rather,the negotiations
constituteda changing context such that individualproposalswere transformed.
New plans emerged with or without bearing any likeness to the originating
individualideas.
Example 1. Tim had first suggested and then constructeda "cone top" for
AST's tower which had a triangularbase. Simon andAndy objected,claimingthat
the triangularbase could not be fittedto the squareof the cubic shapes which they
had produced(see Figure 1, bottomleft). AfterTim's solutionto the lack of fit was
rejectedon bothtechnicalandaestheticgrounds,for it consistedof joists acrossthe
top floor (see Figure 1, top right),he changedthe triangularbase into a squarebase.
The resultingtop of their tower emerged from their interactionratherthan being
the idea of any single individual.NeitherTim's pointyandtriangularcone top, nor
Andy and Simon's "cubetop" became the common plan. They designed a much
wider pyramidaltop thatfit to the top level of the existing tower artifact.
Example 2. Chris (C) and Arlene (A) discussedover theirartifact,a bridge
deck with two piers.
A: Why don't we attachit to cardboard?
C: You want to? And put waterunderit?
A: Yeah, and we could attachit so it will stay up, straight.[1210V3p.1]2
2Sourcecodes areused throughout.A sourcecode, suchas [1210V3p.1], indexesthe excerptin terms
of the date (December 10th), type and numberof recording(V3 = Videotape3 of thatday), and page
of the correspondingtranscript(p. 1).
CHILDREN'S
DESIGNING 139
Arlene suggested to attacheach pier to a small cardboardfoundationthat would

stabilize the "wobbly"bridge.Chris, who thoughtthatArlene wantedto glue the
bridge onto a large piece of cardboardsuggested to "put water under it." Their
design artifactconsequentlydevelopedto includeboth features.Ratherthanbeing
the sum total of two ideas, the resulting artifact emerged as the second idea
contingentlyfollowed the first.
in the Community
HowInteractions
ShapeDesigning
andDesigns
This classroomshowedsimilaritieswith design studiosin whichknowledgeand
informationcirculatefreely amongmembers(Roth, 1995c, in press).The natureof
the classroomas design studiofacilitatedinteractionswith otherdesign groupsand
the emergence of community standardsand trends. Such standardsand trends
contributedto individualdesigns andcould be recognizedin resemblancesamong
artifactsbelonging to different groups and the associated explanations,such as
"everyoneelse is doing a Canadianflag."Furthermore,studentsdirectlyinteracted
with studentsfrom othergroups.Throughthese interactions,outsidersto a design
projectbecame themselvesactorswho shapedan emergingartifact.
Example 1. KK's tower showed a numberof influences and inspirations
some, but not all of which werecreditedto peers.Forexample,theirinitialsolution
consistedof a compactcentraltowerfrombundledstraws;in this, it resembledJJ's
tower. After a catastrophiccollapse, KK relocatedtheir constructionsite next to
AST where they completedthe design with an additionthat bore greatsimilarity
with AST's tower. To make bracesfor the lower section, they doubledthe length
of straws, a techniquewhich Kathycreditedto Clare. Finally, they adornedtheir
structurewith a Canadianflag because"a lot of people have them"[1105V4p.2].
Example 2. Other design artifactssimilarly embodied contributionsfrom
passing groups and students.In AST's tower, a pinned-sleevejoint for producing
double length strawswas used for the base module (see Figure 1, bottomcenter).
Tim developed this joint after Tom refused to hot glue the straws and suggested
using cellophanetape.When the tape failed to producea solid joint, Tim addeda
pin resultingin a pinned-sleevejoint. Tim also constructeda Canadianflag to adorn
the tower long after other flags had appearedin the classroom community (see
Figure 1, bottomright).
HowToolsShapeDesigningandDesigns
The availabilityof certaintools changed the design process and affected the
artifactsproduced.As an increasingnumberof studentsbroughttheir glue guns,
140
ROTH
andas even morelearnedhow to operatethem,the design culturechangedfavoring

joining techniques on the basis of this tool (Roth, 1995c). The strengththat the
materialsandjoints received from this techniquewas so great that some students
found specific engineeringtechniquesunnecessary,in particularsome of those that
the teachers wanted studentsto "discover,"such as triangularbraces. This phenomenonwas so pervasivethatGitteindicatedshe woulddisallowcertainmaterials
and tools when she taughtthe unit again. In the following examples, the glue gun
changed the task of designing. It affordedthe constructionof artifactsimpossible
to achieve with othertechniques.
Example 1. Tim serendipitouslydiscovereda "welding"techniquein which
two strawscould be joined by softeningthe plasticwith the glue-guntip. Drawing
on this technique,his team designed a very tall tower that drew its stabilityfrom
Tim's joint (see Figure 1, bottomcenter).Similarly,Tom's tower projecttook its
shape because of the strengthit received fromanother,serendipitouslydiscovered
joint. Afterhe accidentallyburneda hole into a straw,Tom recesseda second straw
into this hole. The strengthof this new joint allowed him to constructa windmill
with turningblades.
Example 2. Because Peter and Ron used a glue gun to join their wooden
materials,they could design the archof theirbridgeon the basis of rectangularand
trapezoidalbuilding elements. Glue and skewers provided enough strengthand
stability to make triangularbracesredundant.In this way, Peter and Ron did not
use the bracing technique ("triangles")that teachers hoped all children would
eventuallymasterand employ on a regularbasis.
Howthe PresentStateof an Artifact

ShapesDesigning
and Design
Children'sideas literallytook formin the emergingdesignartifacts.As the ideas
took form in the artifacts,the latterconstrainedand limited otherdesign options,
but also affordednew and differentideas. In this sense, children'sdesigns became
self-reflexive artifactsthatembodiedpast activitiesand at the same time foreshadowed affordancesand future constraints.The future constituteda horizon that
includedall thinkabletrajectories.However,in the evolutionaryprocessof design,
only one of these trajectorieswas realized. The emerging artifactembodied and
enfolded the actual design trajectory,decisions, conversations,and so on. In this
way, design projectssummedovertheirown history:Any new ideatook the present
state of the artifactas startingpoint (in more than50 projectsthere was only one
counterexample where a design was abandonedin its currentform).
DESIGNING 141
CHILDREN'S
Example. AST began theirtower (see Figure 1) fromcubic modules but did
not know whether the smaller or larger cube should form the base (see their
negotiation in this situationlater). They framedtheir alternativedesigns as "the
earthquakebuildingdowntown"(alsoWest CoastEnergy)or as the LondonTower,
which are narroweron the bottomor the top, respectively.After the decision was
made to go with the LondonTowerplan,AST continuedwith this shape,although
they encounteredstabilityandstrengthproblemsso thatthey reframedtheirproject
as Tower of Pisa. Later,while they discussed how to attachTim's cone shape to
the existing artifact,Tim suggestedseveralintermediatecubic modulesto produce
the shape of the EmpireState Building. Finally, the group agreedthat Tim could
attachhis cone top if he made a squarebase for it so thatthey could make a shape
like the Eiffel Tower. At each of the decision points, future design states were
discussed in terms of the presentartifactand individualpriorknowledge, shared
priorknowledge, or both. Had the studentsdecided to use the West Coast Energy
design with a base narrowerthan the top, subsequentframing of their design
problemsas Tower of Pisa, EmpireState Building, and Eiffel Tower would have
been less likely.
Summary
After an artifactwas completed,specific individualsor groups received credit
for its design andconstruction.On the otherhand,the presentedempiricalevidence
shows that design processes are situatedand their productscannot be reducedto
individual, or sum of individual, knowledge and skills. Rather,many different
elements (e.g., intragroupnegotiations,interactionsin the community,tools, and
the state of the artifact)came to bear on designing and emergingdesign artifacts.
The importantpoint is that designing is not a homogeneousprocess by means of
which designs are thought of and then implementedin materialform as design
artifacts.Rather,designingis a heterogeneous,distributed,andsituatedprocessthat
arises from the interactionof differentelements.The resultingartifactshave to be
understoodas heterogeneousassemblagesthat emerged from situatedactivity of
designersratherthan as homogeneousfixationsof children'sideas and skills.
InterpretiveFlexibility
"What is the ontological status of the identified elements?"The relative
importanceof tools, materials,communitystandards,teacher-setconstraints,
currentstate-of-the-designartifact,individualpreferences,and past discursive achievementsis indeterminatebecausethey do not exist in any absolute
sense. Their meanings are interpretivelyflexible and the degree of their
142
ROTH
salience is contingent on specific local developments. Tools, materials,

artifacts,teacherinterdictionsand constraints,historyof activity and design
artifacts,or plans do not have stable ontologies. Because of the different
meanings that they can have for different children, they lead to different
design actions and ultimately,learning.
In the engineering design lessons, children learned to recognize and exploit in
productive ways the interpretiveflexibility of discourse with group members,
materials,tools, design artifacts,andteacherinterdictions.Ratherthanbeing stifled
by the open-endedand ill-structuredsituation,studentsused the flexibility of their
situationin creativeways. Problemsdid not exist in any absolutesense butemerged
as interactive achievements. As a consequence of this interpretiveflexibility,
situational choices made by the principalactors (members of a design group)
appearedto be inherentlyunpredictable.There is ample evidence in the data that
all the elements indicatedin Figure 1 were subjectto variableontology. I limit the
analysisto factorsnot previouslypresented;thatis, empiricalevidence is provided
for the interpretiveflexibility of (a) plans, artifacts,and problemsand (b) teacher
constraintsand interdictions.
of Plans,Artifacts,
andProblems
Interpretive
Flexibility
In this classroom,it made sense to understandthe artifactsas outcomes of first
draftsratherthanas the fabricationand implementationof complete and standard
architecturalplans. From the children's perspective, they treadednovel design
territoryandengagedin design innovation.Children'sfinal artifactswere products
of a designingprocess,andtheir"experiments"were morelike engineers'sketches
ratherthantheirfinal plans, models, or actualstructures.Such activitiesare of that
kind which,accordingto Anderson(1990), have not yet yieldedto modelingefforts
in termsof "rational"processes.The failureof such modelingrises in partbecause
problem is frequentlyused as an ontological category, such as in word problem
(Roth & Bowen, 1993/1994, 1995). In this context, the interpretiveflexibility of
materials,artifacts,tools, or rules and constraintsled to the simultaneouscharacterizationof situationsas problematicandunproblematic.Thatis, one studentmay
have seen a problemto be solved before the overall design work could resume,
whereas a partnermay not have seen a problem at all. Being able to interpret
situationsin a flexible manner,to reframea situationsuchthatit was unproblematic
or affordedan action which would remove a problematicsituation,was one of the
majoraspects of learning.
Example 1. Initially,children'sideas andplans were unspecifiedso thatthe
tower"(AST), "two towers
meaning of an expression,such as "earthquake-proof
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
143
with sliding objectbetween"(CA), or "baseballstadiumwith removabletop"(PR),

was quite open even among membersof a group. As the artifactsemerged (like
residuesof children'sdesigningactivities),meaningsconvergedand stabilized.In
the beginning of each project,existing artifactsdid not constrainthe interpretive
flexibility enough for groupmembersto have similarconceptionsof how the final
artifactwould look. The following episodeillustratesthatstudentscouldbegin their
design process (includingconstruction)withoutprespecifyingexact outcomes so
thattheirplans remainedopen to interpretationto be settledfar into the project.
AST had decided to constructan earthquake-proof
tower. They had plannedto
"makecubes and then attachthem all together"[1104Vlp.1]. At the point of the
following conversation, Tim (T) and Simon (S) had already constructed two
"cubes"of differentsizes thatthey attachedin the way shown.The excerptwas part
of a discussion aboutwhich shapethe tower shouldtake.3
1 T: We are makingthe bottomthough (1) like the bottom
part,this is for the top ((pointingto Simon's cube)), the
top part(1) becausewe aremakingthe base 'cause we
can make like a smallerpartand a bigger one, like the
one building,like the earthquakebuildingdowntown.
2 S: But then you have to turn it over (1) ((turns artifact
over)) so it can stay on the ground.
3 T: Yeah (2)
4 S: So I am actuallybuildingthe bottom((touchingbottom
cube))
5 T: Yeah, but we are supposedto be buildingthe bottom
just for the change of the ground.(1) So we are going
to change (1) and we are testing it on either side (4)
[1104Vlp.2]
Simon
Tim
Tim
Simon
Tim thoughtthat he had built the (smaller)base, which would make his tower
look like the earthquake-proof
West Coast EnergyBuilding downtown (line 1), a
landmarkwhich the class had repeatedlydiscussed (see the uppersketch). Simon,
on the otherhand,felt thatthe largercube shouldmakethe foundationto assurethe
tower's stability.He lateradmittedto one of the teachersthat their differencesin
interpretationhad confused him ("I thoughtI was going to do the floor, and Tyler
3Thefollowing transcriptionconventionsare used:
((pointing))
(10)
(??)
Ion the ground]
double parenthesesenclose concurrentgestures,actions

pause, in seconds
unheardwords;the numberof "?"indicatesapproximatenumberwords missing
"/"begins overlapwhich, for both speakers,ends with "]"
144
ROTH
said, 'do the top'; and now I am confused"[1104Vlp.6]). Tim resolved the issue
by suggestingthatthey could test bothdesigns, thus leaving open whatthe tower's
final shapeshouldbe andwho hadbuiltthe "bottompart"(line 5). Eachof the three
towerwithhis own idea. Immediatelybefore
boys had startedthe earthquake-proof
the conversation,all of these ideas were compatiblewith their activities of constructingcubes of differentsizes. Duringthe episode, it becameclearthatTim and
Simon interpretedtheircurrentartifactin differentways; thus, whetherthe design
was the same dependedon the pointof view. Children'sdiscussionover and about
the artifactallowed the differences to come out and to be discussed. The group
acceptedTim's suggestion in line 5 and deferredto a futuremomentthe decision
thatwould removethe interpretiveflexibility of the artifact.In this way, the design
of their tower was repeatedlyreinterpretedas expressedby theirlabels, including
West Coast Energy Building (Vancouver),Eiffel Tower, LondonTower, Empire
State Building, CN Tower (Toronto),and the LeaningTower of Pisa.
Example 2. In a similar way, the interpretiveflexibility of KK's plans (a
tower thatsupportsa ball) allowed themto make significantdesign changes.After
their first tower collapsed, they reinterpretedthe artifactat hand to be the center
piece of their new tower. With the redesignedtower in the form of an oil rig, they
achieved their goal. The old tower was then reinterpretedas a centrallylocated
elevatorthatcarriedmuch of the load placed on top of the tower.
of Constraints
andInterdictions
Interpretive
Flexibility
Both teacherscontributedto the students' designs to a nonnegligible degree.
These contributionswere primarilyof threetypes:(a) Teacherssuggestedpossible
shapes and forms for the students' artifacts;(b) they provided hints as to how
existing artifactscould be strengthenedand stabilized;and (c) they set certain
constraintswhich allowed or forbidcertainmaterials.Some of the suggestions or
constraintswere constantacrossgroups,such as when teacherswantedchildrento
be familiarwith specific engineeringtechniques(triangularbraces, testing structuresby bringingthemto "catastrophicfailure"),whereasotherswere moredesign
specific andchangedfromgroupto group.The childrenusuallyrecapitulatedthese
."Whether
constraintsby taggingeach others'ideas:"Wearenotallowedto
andhow these constraintslimitedthe students'designs was a matterof interpreting
a teacher's utteranceand the situation at hand. Thus, teacher interdictionsand
constraintscould not be takenin any unequivocalway because theirmeaninghad
to be establishedin each specific situation.Constraints,such as "designa bridge
by using only a set of materialsprovided,"meant different things in different
contexts. There were situations in which students acted in a way that may be
interpretedas "accordingto the law." In other cases, the same group of students
CHILDREN'S
DESIGNING 145
submittedto an interdictionin one situation,but bypassedthe same interdictiona
little while later.Finally, studentsrenegotiatedthe conditionsof a project,essentially changingit in the process.Theseobservationsareconsistentwithotherreports
that show rule following as a creative achievementratherthan a self-evident act
(Suchman, 1987). It is also possible to arguethatrules as such do not exist. What
a text (pronouncedby a teacher, written on a piece of paper)means has to be
constructedin each situationso that it makes little sense to speak of a constraint,
interdiction,or rule as existing a priori.
Example 1. It was quite difficult to predict how students would interpret
teacher constraintsbecause this differed not only across groups but also within
groups.For example, each groupwas allowed only a limited amountof materials
for their bridge designs. When Tim and Stan, who workedtogetheron a bridge
from cardboardand glue, wantedmore material,they negotiatedwith one of the
adults.They convincingly arguedthatthe skewersprovidedadditionalstrengthto
theirproject.Only momentslater,theyrequestedmorecardboard,butGitterefused.
Immediately afterwards,Tim and Stan cut up the cardboardpad that they had
previously used to protecttheir table top; the pad became a source for additional
materialsin spite of the interdiction.They reinterpreted"cardboardpad"to mean
"cardboardas a source of needed material."The students'actions appearedto be
possible (therewere no repercussions),for the teachershadnotexplicitlyforbidden
more materials.
Example 2. AST did not even ask a teacher to get additionalmaterials.
Although they hesitated at first to add anotherfastening material(tape), Tim's
argumentthat tape would strengthentheir structurelegitimizedtheir "forbidden"
action(see Figure 1, top center).In spite of the teachers'constraintsto use only one
of theteachers'otherconstraint,"make
type of fasteningmaterial,the interpretation
it strong,"was moreimportant;it was also the groundsfor convincingthe teachers
that changingthe rules of the assignmentwas necessaryand thus legitimate.In a
similarway, JJexploited the interpretiveflexibility of the constraintthatno tower
could be tapedto a support.They stabilizedtheirtowerwith stays (fromstring)that
they tapedto a support.Duringa whole-classdiscussion,Jeff arguedsuccessfully
thatthe stays andthe centralstructureweredifferent;althoughthe stays weretaped,
the tower itself was not taped.
Summary
Interpretiveflexibility influencedprocesses and productsof children'sdesigning. Contraryto traditionalassumptionsaboutdiscourse,objects, and events, the
dataillustratethatthese hadan ambiguousontologyandwere inherentlysubjectto
146
ROTH
interpretiveflexibility. Thatis, what an utterancemeant,what activities a specific

tool afforded,what actions a plan implied, or how teachers'interdictionsand task
constraintslimited students'designing was subjectto local interpretations;these
interpretationswere contingent and situated achievements. At the same time,
students'activitieswere not random-although inventionswere often spontaneous
and serendipitous-but studentsframedand actively used inventions to varying
purposesto completetheirideasandgoals. Theiractivitiescouldnotbe downgraded
as "mereplaying"and "trial-and-error"
processes;rather,the nonrandomnatureof
children's designing rested in the exploitationof interpretiveflexibility and the
interpretationsof unexpectedoutcomesas affordancesfor futureactivity.
Devices
Structuring
DesignArtifacts:
"What is the role of design artifacts in collective designing?" Artifacts
resulting from the children's designing not only bear the marks of their
situated,or heterogeneousorigins but also have importantfunctions in the
design process itself. They reflexively constitutetheir own context. Design
artifactsbecome tools for the design process,thatis, tools to thinkwith.They
constitute part of a designing discourse, and become tools for mediating
design talk.
Earlierstudiesrevealedthe importanceof physicalobjectsfor high-schoolphysics
students' planning of experiments(Roth, 1994, 1995b). By means of material
objects, high-school physics studentsstructuredphenomenathat allowed them to
framemeaningfuland importantresearchquestions.Furthermore,the objectsthey
used constrainedthe interpretiveflexibility of talk in such a way that they could
make sense of each other's ideas. Design artifactsin this study had the same
functions. They not only were productsof children's design activities but also
allowed childrento structurean initially ill-defineddesign problem;they allowed
children to negotiate the interpretiveflexibility of tools, materials, teacher-set
constraints,or the present state of the artifact.In this way, design artifactsare
reflexive becausetheyarebothgoals of children'sactivitiesandthey structurethese
activities.Two aspectsof designartifactscontributeto learningin a significantway:
(a) Duringthe design of artifacts,thinkingand actingare inextricablyintertwined;
and (b) design artifactsconstrainthe interpretiveflexibilityof students'design talk.
of Thinkingand Acting
Designing:Inextricability
This and otherformalstudies of children'sdesigning (e.g., Harel, 1991; Kafai,
1994) attestto the powerof design activitiesto engendervariousformsof learning.
One may ask, whatis it aboutdesigningartifactsthatleadsto demonstrablelearning
outcomes?Is it thatdesign artifactsthemselvescontributeto children'scognition
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
147
and interactionwith others duringthe design process? I contend that the design
artifactallows the reintegrationof thinkingand acting that traditionalschooling
(based on traditionalpsychological theory) separatedinto abstractand concrete
modes, and after denigratingthe concrete, supportedthem to different degrees
(Roth, 1995b;Wilensky, 1991).This studyshows thatdesign artifactsareimportant
aspects of learning because they allow thinking throughmanipulating;they are
objectsstudentuse to integrateactingandthinking.(InDoubleHelix,Watson, 1968,
providedan interestingaccountof how importantinsightsaboutthe DNA structure
arose from the manipulationof physicalrepresentationof the four bases involved:
Materialobjectswere thingsto thinkwiththatintegratedthe concreteandabstract.)
Children'smanipulationsof materials,tools, andartifactswerepartof an integrated
designingactivity.Thinkingandmanipulatingtools, materials,andthe artifactwere
intricatelyintertwined.Thus,designingcould not be understoodas fixationof ideas
from the head.Rather,it was an integralactivitythathadmental,material,practical,
and social aspectsthatmake"thinkering"a quite suggestivemetaphor.Thinkering
decentersthe traditionalnotion of cognition to include,as the following examples
show, the manipulationof nonmentalentities.
Example 1. Although Chris and Arlene constitutedone of the two groups

thatused drawings(which were not required),theirdesign workwas characterized
by the union of thinking and acting. While Chris manipulatedsome straws in
designing a tower, she repeatedlyuttered,"Iamjust experimenting"[1104V2p.6].
Out of these experimentationsgrew the design artifact.She laterexplained,"Ijust
startedout to make an experimentof the framesand then Arlene tapedit; and she
said to makeit morestable"[1104V2p.7].This experimentalnatureof thedesigning
process, the union of manipulatingand thinkingwas also evident in the following
transcriptionfrom the first day of Chris (C) and Arlene's (A) first bridgedesign
[1126V1p.7].
1 C: I got an idea too, we can just, this could be the bottom one, we tie it
aroundlike this ((begins to tie)), like I might use (??)
2 C: If it's still too wobbly at the end, ((she moves stringandstructurewhich
"wobble"))//we can put (??)]
3 A: And then we] go aroundlike that ((loops stringaroundpost)) and tie it
((ties loop aroundsecond post))
4 A: Is this a little far off? We should put it down a bit ((lowers the loop))
5 C: Yeah, a bit down
6 A: Put it down a bit, righthere ((lowers string))before we tie it.
After deciding to make a bridgefrom string,they began tying a stringaroundtwo
posts "whichcould be the bottomone" (line 1). Chrisuttered,"if it's still wobbly"
148
ROTH
simultaneouslywhile she testedthe structure(line 2); Arlene'splanningforthe next

design move coincided with tying the string into a loop. In line 4 again, Arlene
reactedto the currentstateof the artifact,especiallyto theresultof an earliermove;
she testedherquestion,"Isthis a bit faroff?,"by loweringthe loop of string.While
Chrisworkedon her secondbridge,herquestion,"Howarewe gonnaget this span
on?" was accompaniedby the move of bringingtogether the pier and platform
(span),andresultedin threeutterances(C: "Glue?"A: "Tape."C: "Glueandtape."
[1209V1p.9]) and the associatedactionsof hot gluing (Chris)and taping(Arlene)
the two pieces.
Example 2. JJ designed a straw bridge in repeatedcycles of testing and
modifying their emerging artifact.In the process, they spontaneouslyinvented
layering of materialsand bracingas techniquesthat increasedthe strengthof the
bridge from about 50 to 346 wooden blocks of testing weight. The difference
between buildinga bridgeaccordingto a prespecifiedplan (theirdrawings)or by
algorithmicallyapplying standardformulasand designing an artifactcan be seen
furtherfrom Jeff's recollectionof the design process:"FirstI wantedto make my
bridge,but me andJohnstartedto argue,so we didn'tuse our plans, andjust made
it up as we went along" [1209V1p.2].
Example 3. Similarly, Stan designed a hinge for his coffin from a coneshapedcardboardroll as he went along. First,he used two pins to fix the moveable
cover plate. However, as he opened and closed the cover plate, the pins came out
of theirposition. In response,Stan addeda dropof glue on the tips of the inserted
pins preventingthem from leaving their position. He realized that he had constructeda hinge in a new way and withoutusing a lot of metal ("Ijust kept doing
like that, [andthe pins] went in andthencame out. And thenI glued them, with the
glue gun ... andwhen I closed it up andpulledit up, it hardlybroke"[1029V1p.9]).
HowArtifactsConstrainInterpretiveFlexibility
Emergingdesign artifactshad importantsocial functionsalso attributedto adult
designing:They make designingas collective activitypossible (Henderson,1991;
Suchman& Trigg, 1993). Design artifactsactedas conscriptiondevicesin thesense
that they (a) permittedstudentsto engage one anotherby makingdirectreference
to the artifact(pointing,gesturing),(b) focusedparticipants'attentionandcommunication, and (c) served to representthe knowledge negotiatedand constructedin
the pursuit of some goal. In this way, design artifactsprovided a setting and a
backdrop to students' design talk. The presence of the artifacts reduced the
interpretiveflexibility of students'utterancesabout their design ideas. This conscriptivequality of the artifactsencouragedand facilitatedextended studentcon-
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
149
versationsand was an importantaspectof the activity structurethat supportedthe

emergence of meaningfulengineeringdesign language.
Design artifacts also provided a context in which students could begin to
incorporatenew elementsintotheirlanguagewithoutloss of intersubjectivitywhen
andambiguousways. Sometimesthey appropriated
they used themin inappropriate
a word, such as span, from a teacher'sdiscourseon the span of bridges.At first,
they often used these wordsincorrectly:They hadnot yet populatedtheirdiscourse
with their own intentions(Bakhtin, 1981). Nevertheless,in spite of the incorrect
and ambiguous use (e.g., using span to refer to the piers of a bridge), others
understoodwhatthey said.Theirmanipulationsof andgesturesto the artifacthelped
listeners to make sense of their partner'sutterances.It was only over time that
studentsdeveloped a consistentlanguage(e.g., to referto the piers of their bridge
as piers or posts). The following two examples illustrate how design artifacts
facilitatedcommunicationby constrainingthe interpretiveflexibility of design talk.
Example 1. This example clearly shows how the artifactssupportedstudents' talk.Tim (T) andRenata'scommunicationcould not be understoodseparate
from the artifactsthatwere thus partof the conversationalactivities.
1 T: If you make one giant triangle((points to

her structure))
2
it only takes two sticks to make a giant
triangle.
3
Like you see, I got the shapeandthen I got
two pieces of spaghetti ((gestures their
placementover his pentagon))
4
so its a gianttriangle((outlinesthe triangular shapeover his pentagon))[1028V1p.2].
(4)
(3)
(3'
Renata had wondered how to stabilize and make a pentagonalshape rigid.

Because she was not successful in her first trials, Tim offered to explain what to
do. In his attemptspriorto the aforementionedtranscript,Tim had tried without
success to explain with words and gestures in the air how to stabilize a pentagon
("Youjust take, you only have to put one on the top"and "If you make a triangle,
if you makea gianttriangle,it keeps it stabler"[1028V1p.2]).He thenused his own
pentagonfrom spaghettiand mini marshmallowsto outline where to put the two
pieces (line 3), and how this would yield the trianglehe talkedabout(line 4). The
presenceof the artifactandTim's gesturesallowedRenatato constructthe meaning
of "putone on the top" and "makea giant triangle."Pointingto and gesturingthe
150
ROTH
placement of the two pieces of spaghetti and outlining where the two "giant
triangles"could be seen were importantandintegralaspectsof the communication.
This integrationof discourseandgesturewas madepossible by the design artifacts
thatprovideda backdropagainstwhich both were renderedmeaningful.
Example 2. In the earlier cited episode during which AST discussed the
shape of their tower, the students were able to make sense of their respective
utterancesby referringto andmanipulatingtheartifact.By standingtheartifact(see
Figure 1, top left) on the smaller side and pointing to the respective cubes, Tim
elaboratedthe meaningof "bottompart,""toppart,"the shape of the earthquakeproof tower he wantedto buildsimilarto the "earthquakebuildingdowntown."In
turn,Simon elaboratedhis utterancesby gesturingandmanipulatingthe artifact.In
this way, his comment, "so it can stay on the ground,"referredto stabilityof the
building,and his cube became the bottom.
Summary
There are two importantfunctionsof artifactsto the process of designing: (a)
Design artifactsaffordthe integrationof thinking(abstract)and acting (concrete),
the processof designing;and(b) emergentdesign artifactssupportcommunicative
processes by reducinginterpretiveflexibility. Thatis, the design of artifactsis not
merely a context in which childrenlearn to design and learn about the materials
they use, butthese artifactsreflexivelyinfluencethe way childrenlearnandinteract.
Childrendo not just design, but the design artifactsstructuredesigning;children
do not just talk abouttheirdesigns, but the design artifactsshape the interactions
from which they emerge.
LEARNING
OUTCOMES
The purposeof this study was to understandthe processesof children'sdesigning.
Many stakeholdersin the educationalarena,however, are interestedin outcomes
and are likely to ask questions, such as, "Whatdid your students learn through
engineeringdesign?"At this point, the answershave to be tentative,for the study
of situatedcognition in schools is starting.Some of the domain's currentassumptions make it difficult to compareperformanceacross contexts and time. Human
(practicaland intellectual)activities arealways situated,tool mediated,and object
oriented;tools andobjects arestructuringresourcesfor knowingand learningsuch
thata changein tools andobjectsconstitutesa changein the taskenvironmentrather
thansimply a changein humancapacities(Callon, 1994;Lave, 1988;Sayeki,Ueno,
CHILDREN'S
DESIGNING 151
& Nagasaka, 1991). A problem for assessing children's learning resides in the
question,"Whatconstitutesdesign-relatedknowledge?"Pea (1993) suggestedthat
in thediscourseof
expertiseis defineddynamically
throughcontinuing
participation
notprimarily
of
a community,
the
set
skills
through
problem-solving andconceptual
inyouractionsanduses
structures.
Achievingexpertiseis becomingindistinguishable
of representations
inthelanguagegamesatplayfromothermembers
of acommunity
of practice.(p. 271)
Surely then, expertise has many dimensions across which the performanceof
individuals varies. For example, some children in this study competentlytalked
about braces as an importantfeaturein the stabilizationof structuresor included
them in design drawings.At the same time, becausethey did not includebracesto
stabilize theirdesign artifacts,they did not demonstratethe same level of competence in the constructions.Differentformsof knowledgeassessmentmay therefore
yield differentlevels of competence.We observedsimilar variationsin a class of
sixth- and seventh-gradechildrenengaged in the design of machines(McGinnet
al., 1995). Some childrencorrectlyanalyzeddiagramsof pulleys and predictedthe
tensions in variouspartsof the apparatus.At the same time, they could not set up
appropriatepulley systems when providedwith materials.
To assess learning,I tookteachers'top-levelgoals as a startingpoint.Therewere
three such top-level goals teachershad for children:
Goal A: To explore and experiencesome critical,but not necessarilyprespecified, issues involved in designing structuressuch as learning to
strengthenindividualmaterials,buildandreinforcejoints,or stabilize
structures.
Goal B: To learnto managethe complexityof open-endedand ill-structured
design situations.
Goal C: To learnto collectively design, make sense, negotiate,and plan and
execute groupprojectswhere"collective"implies thatchildrenlearn
to talk aboutthe objectsof theiractivityandthe processesby means
of which to attainthem.
On the basis of these considerations,I identified six dimensions of children's
learningin the engineeringdesign contextthatarealso characteristicfor competent
design engineers (Bucciarelli, 1994): (a) coping with complex design tasks (Goal
B); (b) exploiting interpretiveflexibility for creatinginnovativedesigns (Goal B);
(c) knowing importantaspects aboutdesign and constructingstructures(Goal A);
(d) negotiatingdifferencesbetween individualplans and understandings,courses
of actions, and the organizationof collective work (Goal C); (e) using a varietyof
tools and materialsand using their propertiesin new and innovativeways (Goals
152
ROTH
A and B); and (f) talkingand writingengineeringdesign (Goal C).4Each of these

dimensions is illustratedand discussed in the following paragraphs.
CopingWithComplexity
During this engineeringunit, studentslearnedto cope with the complexities of
open-endeddesign tasks.On the engineeringpretest,whichasked studentsto make
a strongbridgefromjust one sheetof paper,theyquicklyabandonedthe task.Some
studentstried to supportthe load withoutmanipulatingthe sheet of paper,others
folded it once or twice, and very few attemptedto searchfor strongersolutions.
Two monthslater,the childrentook the design problem(a bridgespanningat least
30 cm and supportingas much weight as possible) as an extendedchallenge that
they pursuedwith greatpersistenceover a 3-week period.They consideredseveral
design alternatives,actively searchedfor solutionswhich would enhancestrength
and stability, and exploited collaborationto achieve bettersolutions. Before the
unit, studentsappearedto be at a loss, they walkedaroundtheclassroom,seemingly
not knowing what to do next. Two monthsinto the unit, theirbehaviorduringthe
bridge-buildingprojectwas characterizedby a great deal of self-confidence that
permittedthem to deal with the challengesof ill-defineddesign tasks.
ExploitingInterpretiveFlexibility
Studentslearnedto exploit the interpretiveflexibility of tools, artifacts,materials,
talk,andso on. Ratherthanacceptinglimitedmeaningsthatmay be associatedwith
a specific tool or material,childrengeneratednew meaningswhich allowed them
to put these thingsto new use. A case in pointarethe glue guns. Ordinarily,in what
may be interpretedas the canonicaluse, glue guns areemployedto heatandliquefy
solid glue sticks by means of electricalenergyfromAC outlets.In this classroom,
glue guns were creatively reinterpretedand successfully used, but frequentlyin
ways for which they were not designed. Childrenproducednew and very stable
joints fromdrinkingstrawsby burningholes in strawsinto whichthey placedother
straws that they carefully attachedwith glue. Ratherthan using the glue gun to
exude hot glue, they interpretedit as a tool for burningholes into straws. They
createdanothertype of joint by bringingtogetherthe heatedareasof two strawsto
form a solid bond. Finally, afterserendipitouslydiscoveringthatglue guns could
4With the notion of "talkingandwritingengineeringdesign,"I follow the equivalentexpressionsof

"talkingscience" (Lemke, 1990) and "wrightingsociology" (Ashmore,1989).
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
153
be operatedeven after they were unpluggedfor a few minutes,they inventedthe

"portable"glue gun.
Designing
Studentsincreasedtheirunderstandingof design andthey intentionallyappliedthis
understandingin theirsubsequentwork.This was particularlyevident for "design
knowledge related to the naturalworld," one of Faulkner's(1994, p. 447) five
categoriesof design knowledge.Towardthe end of the unit,mostchildrenstrengthened their materialsby, for example, laminatingsheets of cardboard,bundling
straws,spaghetti,and skewers,or producingtight newspaperrolls. At an intermediate level of complexity, they used braces, cantilevers, stays, and arches for
stabilizingand strengtheningtheirstructures,all of which areexamples of knowledge relatedto design practicein Faulkner'sscheme. There is also evidence that
childrenlearnedwhen they could frameproblemssuch thatpreviouslysuccessful
solutions could be reapplied.In such situations,they intentionallyapplieddesign
strategiesthatevolved from solutionsto earlierproblems.
Differences
Negotiating
Therewere manyopportunitiesfor participatingin collective activity.Throughthis
participation,children learned skills that allowed them to negotiate alternative
understandings,plans, and actions.This ability is well-illustratedin the following
example from a worst-case scenario:the collective work of two students with
previousproblemsrelatingto others.A video analysisof StanandTim's collective
bridgeprojectshowed thatin the courseof its 9-hr duration,the two negotiatedall
their plans and actions. There was not one situationin which either studentwas
unwilling to negotiate.NeitherTim nor Stanprovedto be intransigentor followed
the other withoutreflection.When therewere two options to be considered,both
demonstratedflexibilityby allowingfor a comparisonbetweenthe alternativeideas
or solutions and helped each otherpreparethe second solution. They then based
theirdecision on the relativemeritsof the two solutions.
UsingToolsandMaterials
Students developed competent practices related to tools and materials. Thick
descriptions of these practices and the development of a design culture, where
studentslearnedfrom each other many tool-relatedengineeringdesign practices,
are providedelsewhere (Roth, 1995c, in press). I showed that childrendeveloped
great skill in strengtheninga varietyof materials,stabilizingstructures,handling
154
ROTH
tools such as glue guns, andworkingwith a varietyof othermaterials.Manyof the

resourcesandpracticesdeemedrelevantby the childrenwere rapidlysharedat the
classroom level, which contrastedwith a much slower appropriationof discursive
practiceschampionedby the teachers.
TalkingandWriting
Engineering
Design
Centralto successfulengineeringdesign and science is the abilityto communicate
in talkingand writing(Bucciarelli,1994; Latour,1990). The growing competence
with communicatingdesign is thereforean importantif not the main aspect of
learningfrom design activities.The children'spresentationof theirwork, conversations during construction,and their glossaries preparedat the end of the unit
providedevidence of the engineeringdiscourseconstructedin this class (Roth, in
press). This discoursewas rich and appropriatefor designing,negotiating,critiquing, andframingproblemsandsolutionsin ill-defineddesignsituations.It is evident
fromthedatathatthechildrenhadpopulatedthisdiscoursewiththeirown intentions
and purposes.
Children'sexpertisein talkingengineeringdesign is exemplifiedin the following episode. Jeff hadpresentedhis bridgeanddescribedthathe includedparticular
bracesto distributethe forces actingin the structure:"Itbringsthe weight down on
the end. And it would be easierfor a force to go acrosshere,the weight goes here,
and the tensionbringsit down"[1216V1p.3].He accompaniedthis explanationby
gesturesthat correctlyindicatedthe directionof the forces acting in his structure.
The fact that he and his partnerJohn had tested their bridge both in its normal
position and upside down gave rise to several exchanges. In one, their classmate
Ron (R) explicitly questionedJeff (J) aboutthe symmetryof the construction.
1 R: If you took the legs off, if you cut them off aroundthe bottom of the
bridge, do you think it would hold the same as upside down. Is it built
the same?
2 J: Well actually,if you cut the legs off, you might try it puttingit down
like this, withoutthe legs, to see how strongit would be, you might try
that,but we don't thinkit would hold any more.
3 R: Is the bottomand the top built the same?
4 J: Yes, originallythis was it, and then we built this underthe bottom, to
make it stronger.
In situationssuch as this, studentsdemonstratedtheirdesign expertise.Much like
Jeff here, they were able to explain and defend design choices, and, like Ron,
questionthose of othergroupsin the community.Jeff explainedthe distributionof
forces along various braces.When Ron asked aboutthe symmetryof the bridge,
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
155
which could have led to differentperformanceduring the test for strength,Jeff

pointed to the specific parts of the bridge that they had added to strengthenthe
design and increasethe maximumcarryingcapacity.
Students'expertisewas also expressedin theirwrittenwork. Initially,children
demonstratedrathervague conceptions of engineeringdesign. At the end of the
unit, their associations were rich and varied. The analysis of students' posttests
providesevidence for five aspectsof learning:(a) Childrenmaderich associations
afterthis unit, (b) they commandedan extendedcivil engineering-relatedvocabulary, (c) childrenintegratedtheir experiencesand ideas they had priorto the unit
with those they addedduringthe unit,(d) they integratedthe experiencesof various
activitieswithinthe unitinto theirunderstandings,and(e) childrenmademeaningful connections.
Furtherevidence for children'sunderstandingof variousaspectsof engineering
design comes from the analysis of their glossaries. They demonstratedtheir
understandingthroughdrawings and text. The two glossary entries in Figure 2
illustratethat childrenexpressed both static and dynamic aspects of engineering
design. Chris's explanationof triangles(braces)shows that she understoodsome
of the typological featuresof bridge building;that is, namingpartsof the bridge
appropriately(in termsof thedesignlanguagesharedin theclassroom)andshowing
bracesas fundamentaldesignelementsfor strengtheningstructures.Theentryunder
"compression"expresses dynamic features of engineering design. Rather than
explainingwhat compressionis, Chrisexplainedthe termas somethingthatcould
be felt.
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to answer three questions: (a) What elements of the
learningenvironmentcontributeto the design processandproduct?(b) Whatis the
ontological status of the identified elements? and (c) What is the role of design
artifactsin collective designing?In answeringthese questions,I followed recommendationsof interactionanalysis to trackartifacts,their appearanceand disappearance from the horizon of human actors, and the function of artifacts in
structuringinteractions(Jordan& Henderson,1995). My answersemphasize the
heterogeneous(situated)natureof cognition:
* Designingis not simplya psychological,social-psychological,or sociological
phenomenonas radicalconstructivisttheorists, social constructivisttheorists, or
both want to have it, but has importantmaterialaspects.These materialaspectsdo
not only lie in the artifactualnatureof students'productsin engineeringdesign, but
much of their individualand collaborativethinkingand sense making are constitutedby manipulatingmaterials,tools, and artifacts.
01
0)
L
o~fesiQoL
-W'e
\OI'C~e
A1A44~0
'0A6
ki,
2W
it AA"
,o
AWAAAA6
FIGURE 2 Two-pageentry in Chris's glossary.Her entries illustratean understandingof the typologica

structures)and dynamicfeaturesof design (forces and their actions).
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
157
* The elements of a setting (discourse,materials,tools, artifacts,interdiction,

community standards,etc.) do not exist in any absolute sense but have a flexible
ontology such that their meanings and applicationshave to be determinedand
elaboratedin the context of theiruse.
* The artifacts created by students are not just ends in themselves but are
importantstructuringresourcesin children'sdesigning. They are also important
mediatingtools for makingsense throughcollective activity.
Children who participatedin these open-endeddesign activities increasedtheir
competence along several dimensions also characteristicfor design engineers. I
brieflydocumentedthatstudentslearnedto cope withcomplexdesigntasks,exploit
interpretiveflexibility, design structures,negotiate differences, use a variety of
tools and materials,and talk and writeengineeringdesign.
The view of children'sdesigningdescribedin this articleadvancesknowledge
in at least three ways. First, althoughthere are a small numberof descriptionsof
learning in complex classroom settings (Harel, 1991; Kafai, 1994), none have
attemptedto conceptualizelearning(designing in this study) as situatedactivity
equivalent to existing studies on adult and out-of-school cognition. This study
shows thatlearningthroughdesignis integrallyrelatedto thoseaspectsof the setting
thatstudent-actorsconstructedas important.Second,otherstudiesrelatedto school
learningtake discourse,artifacts,settings,andtools to have stable ontologies with
fixed inherentmeanings.In contrast,I showed that these items are ontologically
unstableandthus in essentialways interpretivelyflexible. Finally,the studyviews
design artifactsin two ways: (a) as integralaspects of students'cognitive activity
during design and (b) as tools to facilitate negotiating, constructingcollective
meaning,thinking,andplanningin groups.In this effort,I addresssituatedlearning
in a classroom, an issue explicitly eschewed by Lave and Wenger (1991) in their
influentialmonograph.
Engineeringdesign constitutesan interestinglearningenvironmentdistinctly
differentfrom traditionalones. The majoreducationalgoal in engineeringdesign
is so that studentscan develop two importantkinds of knowledge necessary for
making increasinglyintelligentchoices and decisions: (a) deep familiaritywithin
a specific domainand(b) strategiesfor structuringcomplexandill-definedproblem
settings. I documentedthatstudentsachievedsuch knowledgeas outcomeof their
artifactshave importantfunctionsin that
learning.In the process,student-produced
they serve as and supportthe structuringof the learningenvironmentandproblems
themselves;they become tools for designing by indissolublyintegratingthinking
andacting.At the sametime,the emergingartifactsconstitutea focus andbackdrop
for students'discursiveactivitiesof talking,pointing,andgesturing,thatallow them
to make sense of each other's utterancesand to negotiatesharedmeaningsin the
face of ambiguity.Emergentdesign artifactsembody these negotiationsand thus
contributeto the convergenceof meaningsin the collectivities.In theirprogression,
158
ROTH
and with the convergenceof meanings,the interpretiveflexibility of plans, ideas,

and the artifactsthemselves are increasinglyconstrained.In these respects, the
engineeringdesign artifactshave similarfunctionsin the sense-makingprocesses
of students as those observed in settings where students used computer-based
microworldsto constructray diagramsand Newtonianmotion experiments(Pea,
Sipusic,& Allen, in press;Roschelle, 1992;Roth, 1995a, 1995c),ordesign-learning
environmentsfor other,youngerstudents(Harel, 1991; Kafai, 1994).
Tools, artifacts,materials,andspokenandwrittentext areinterpretivelyflexible
ratherthan embodying and embeddingspecific meanings and applications.Students developed a remarkablecompetence to recognize and capitalize on the
ontological ambiguities of their settings, a knowledge dimension importantin
engineeringdesign. Interpretiveflexibility is a crucial attributeof learningenvironmentsintendedto foster studentinnovation,creativity,and negotiation,all of
which characterizesuccessful and adaptive technological change (e.g., Bijker,
Hughes, & Pinch, 1987; Bucciarelli, 1994). Being able to thrive or capitalize on
interpretiveflexibility allows engineersto frameandreframeproblemsso thatthey
become suitable for resolution,to redefine needs in a society, or to negotiate or
renogotiatecustomers'demandsand thus to become successful entrepreneurs.
Interpretiveflexibility is also an importantconceptfor understandingthe negotiation of meaning,and for the constructionof design languages,which, although
not necessarilythose of engineers,are importantand productivemeans for communicatingand designing withinthe elementarystudents'design studio. Students
experiencefirst handthe social constructionand maintenanceof theirown design
language without the concomitantemergenceof an "anythinggoes" attitudethat
teachers often associate with constructivistteaching. In the process of learning
throughdesign, teachers,engineers,films, or a science museum exhibit become
importantintermediariesthatallow childrento link theirown design languagesto
canonicaldiscourses;the extentto whichthis was achievedby childrenin this study
has been sketched in the section on learningoutcomes. Although I was able to
observe the influence of the canonicaldiscourseson children'sdesign language,
the teachersin this classroomexperiencedenormousresistancewheneverthey tried
to force a changein students'language(Roth,1995c,in press).Rather,suchchanges
came aboutwhen studentsfelt thata particularnotionwas relevantandmeaningful
in their own and theirpeers' work.
The view of elementarystudents'designing developed in this articleacknowledges the situated nature of cognition by accounting for the contributionsof
multiple actors in the constructionof design artifacts.Thus, althoughindividual
actors claim their authorship,the children'sartifactshave to be seen as heterogeneous objects whose originscannotbe tracedto specific individualsand times. As
in the world of adult designing, children's designing is not a linear process of
applyingindividualideas, the sum totalof which will leadto some end product,the
design artifact. Rather, designing changes aspects of the setting; changing the
DESIGNING 159
CHILDREN'S
setting changes cognition in fundamentaland irreversibleways. An appropriate

metaphorfor this processof changeis evolution.We do not simplyfind an organism
of interestadaptingto a stableenvironmentbut a complex system in which all the
partscontinuallyadaptto each other.Because of the complexityof the system, the
trajectoriesof individualorganismsover longer time scales are unpredictable.In
this classroom,for example,as soon as childrenintroducedglue guns in increasing
ways, the task and artifactswere changed in fundamentalways (Roth, in press).
The tool permitted new actions (e.g., building new types of joints) and was
reconstructedby the childrenin such a way thatit affordedactivitiesfor which it
was not designed(meltingstraws,portability).The availabilityof new tools,joints,
or engineeringtechniquesfor stabilizingstructureschangeddesigning itself. In a
similarway, new interpretationsof design artifacts,tools, interdictions,and materials changed the design environmentand provided new opportunitiesand constraints.
Design-learningenvironmentsare consistentwith the findings of situatedcognition (e.g., Lave, 1988). Students learn as they are challenged by designs of
considerablecomplexity. Ratherthan learningan odd collection of decontextualized principles,they contextualizetheirknowledgein sets of experiencesthatmake
learningmoremeaningful.In this, design-learningenvironmentssharesimilarities
with the goal-based scenario approachthat specifies designing as one of four
categories for organizing learning environments(Schank, 1993/1994). Specifically, my studentsengaged in the explicationof the design aspects of their tasks.
Questions such as, "Whatwas your majorproblem and how did you solve it?"
"Whatis it aboutthe glue that'sreallygood comparedto pinsandtape?"and"Which
partwould go first if you were testingit?"askedchildrento criticallyreflecton the
decisions they made duringthe design process.
DesigningandStudents'Goals
Thereis a tensionbetweenthe notionof design as open-endedactivityandthe fact
thatthe goals in the activities-building towers,bridges,andmegastructures-were
set by teachers.At a second level, the goals of individualstudentswere subjectto
group processes in which one collective goal was negotiated. In schools, the
specification of top-level goals by the teacher has the purpose of specifying
pedagogical goals to be achieved through the design activity. To work at all,
however,top-level goals needto be accessibleto learners.Forstudentsin this study,
the goals included the provision of opportunitiesfor exploring and experiencing
critical engineeringdesigning issues, managingcomplex open-endeddesign situations, and learningto collectively design, make sense, negotiate, and plan and
execute group projects.The learningoutcomes documentedthat the curriculum
achievedthese goals. The learningenvironmentsharesa characteristicfeaturewith
160
ROTH
Schanket al.'s (1993/1994) goal-basedscenariosand Harel's(1991) software-design environment:After some top-level goal has been establishedby the teacher,
studentsdefine theirown goals and subgoalsand subsequentlycompletethe tasks
on their own behalf. Gitte and Tammy specified the constructionof creatures,
towers, bridges,and megastructures.The specificationsfor each of these projects
was then determinedby the students:Groups chose to make earthquake-proof
towers, wind mills, cranes,towers connectedby gondolas, or strongarms(towers
sticking out from wall).
Importantaspectsnotdiscussedby Schanket al. (1993/1994) arethepossibilities
emerging from collective designing where group goals arise from negotiations
between individualmembers.That is, for example, children interestedin trucks
were not in the positionto convertthe curriculuminto a "truckcurriculum"buthad
to negotiate their goals with teachers and peers. However, students learned to
flexibly interpretthe overallgoal so thatthey foundways to includetheirpersonal
(various
goals in the collective goals. Theyincludedtrucks,other"micromachines"
toy machines),and dolls as decorativepieces to towersandbridges.5Furthermore,
pursuingone's goals constrainedby those of otherscontributesto learning.Kafai
and Harel(1991) indicatedthatcollective designing enrichesthe learningexperience by providingopportunitiesto externalizeandreflecton ideas and by building
argumentswhichareessentiallydifferentthanthoseproducedby individuals.Thus,
although individuals submit to collective decision making, they gain from the
opportunitiesspecific to collective activities. In particular,childrenin this study
learned to talk and write engineering design, fundamentalto engaging in the
communicativeaspectsthatconstitutedesigning.
CognitionIntothe Environment:
Unloading
Think
to
With
Objects
This study showed thatin children'sdesigning,cognitionarose from the interplay
of material with social and individual worlds. The design and constructionof
objects in the world allows individualsto engage in a relationshipwith them and
the knowledge requiredin theirconstruction(Wilensky, 1991). The construction
of objectsrequiredchildrento makeexplicitdecisionsaboutvariousaspectsof their
knowing.Designingtowersandbridgesaffordedchildrenopportunitiesto get close
to theirown ideas.Ratherthansimplytalkingaboutbraces,childrenexploredways
of using them, exploredtheir strengthsand weaknesses,and even developed new
ways of buildingthat made bracesdispensable.Throughthese explorations,children constructedunderstandingsof design elements, such as braces, stays, dead5Ina more recentstudy, more evidence was foundto confirmthis claim (McGinnet al., 1995). For
example,one studentdesigneda machinein whichhis favoritePowerRangerswereused as second-class
levers. Again, his personalgoals found legitimateexpressionwithinthe teachers'top-level goals.
CHILDREN'S
DESIGNING
161
men, or forces that act within structuresor on structures(stability). It is in the

relationshipthatchildrenestablishedwith materials,tools, andartifactsthatdesign
of artifactswas concrete,for concretenessis not a propertyof an object, but of the
relation a person establishes with objects (Gooding, 1990; Wilensky, 1991).
Through this relationship-which Sch6n (1987) described as action and talk
back-students had continuousopportunitiesfor interactingwith their own ideas
as manifestedin the artifactsbecausephysicalartifactstalkbackto childrenin ways
that othersystems do not.
The essentialsimilaritiesamongHarel(1991), TurkleandPapert(1992), Wilensky (1991), and my own work on concreteobjects to thinkwith appearsto be the
following. The collective design of artifactsis a powerful context of learning
because it allows childrento unloadcognitioninto the physicalandsocial environment:Cognition,ratherthanbeing abstractedfromindividuals'settings,is actively
situatedin theirsetting.It is in buildingandplaying with physicaldevices thatthe
incompletenessof representationsis exposed. Unloading part of mental activity
into the environmentthusallows completenessanduniversalityof cognitionto arise
from the uniformperformanceof correspondingphysical systems.
OntologicalAmbiguity
The work by Wilensky (1991) and Turkle and Papert (1992) loosely specifies
learning as the process of entering and establishinga relationshipwith objects,
whetherthey are physical or other ("mental").Gooding (1990, 1992) provideda
moredetaileddescriptionof how suchrelationshipsareestablished.His accountof
the design process illustratesthe pervasivenessof ontological ambiguityand the
agency throughwhich this ambiguityis madeto disappear.Ontologicalambiguity
is not a nuisancebut "allows free movementbetween actualand possible worlds,
enablingnew phenomenalpossibilitiesto be constructed.... The ambiguousstatus
of manipulatedobjects is essential to the creativedevelopmentof thoughtexperiments as well as real ones"(Gooding, 1992, p. 72). AST's earthquake-proof
tower
underwenta series of conceptualizations,such as Tower of London,Eiffel Tower,
Empire State Building, West Coast Energy Building, CN Tower, and Leaning
Tower of Pisa. The boys constructedtheirtower's phenomenalpossibilitiesbefore
an open horizonof possibilities.In the end andthroughthe boys' agency and skill,
one of these possibilitieswas realizedas a materialtower.
Ontological ambiguityis not a nuisancebut has importantcreative potential.
Turkleand Papert(1992) used the notion of bricoleurto describeindividualswho
create artifactsand theoriesin this movementbetween the actualand possible by
arrangingand rearrangingmaterials,associating ideas, and interactingwith the
social and physical environment.From the work of bricoleursemerge artifacts
whose propertiesare not preplanned.Designing as understoodin this articleis an
162
ROTH
evolutionaryprocessandcontrastsprofessional"normaldesign"(Faulkner,1994),
which is constitutedby the routineimplementationof prespecifiedplans.Through
their evolutionary emergence, children's design artifacts that "integrateover"
(Knorr-Cetina,1995) theirown history.Previouslytentativedesign moves become
"facts"and in this factualnatureshapefuturedesign moves. Thus, the emergence
of artifactsis associatedwith the reductionof interpretiveflexibility that characterizes tentativeplans such as AST's earthquake-proof
tower. The additionof new
elements to the artifact is constrainedby the present state of the artifact.This
concretion of ideas into artifactsalso reaches into the futureby constrainingthe
horizonof possibilities.In this way, decisions emergeratherthanhave to be taken.
In the end, among the virtuallyunlimited numberof possible earthquake-proof
towers, only a few arerealizedin the artifactspresentedby the children.
IMPLICATIONS
This study has importantimplicationsfor classroomteachingbecause it questions
some centralassumptionsof traditionaleducation.Among these assumptionsare
the following three myths: (a) Students'activities and artifactsare the result and
sum total of individualcognition thatcan be entirelyattributedto specific human
actors(studentsareevaluatedon individualworkorcontributionsto ajoint project);
(b) artifacts,tools, teacher-setconstraints,trends,or rules unequivocallyembody
specific meanings;and (c) the manipulationandproductionof artifactsareends in
themselves in order to motivate studentsand get their hands on science. These
myths, de facto, allow educatorsto uncouple learning outcomes from learning
processes. Although I acknowledgethat learningoutcomes, such as those documented in this study, are importantaspects of schooling, the main purposeof this
article was to show that learningprocesses (and thereforetheir products)are in
fundamentalways situatedin social and materialsettings.The implicationsof this
study for each of the threeassumptionsare outlinedin the following paragraphs.
First,this study has shown thatstudents'activitiesincludemultipleactorswho
interactin nonadditivefashion.The conversations,ideas,or artifactsresultingfrom
this activityaresituatedandemergent,thusheterogeneousassemblages.Individual
aspectscannotbe isolatedandattributedto individualstudents,which is a common
teacherpracticefor markinggroupactivity.It follows thatthe activitiesdescribed
do not easily lend themselves to the traditionalevaluation practices that prize
individualprowessover functioningas partof a collective.Thatis, towersorbridges
have limited value as indicatorsfor assessing designing.As in this study,multiple
process indicatorsneed to be included to show how children design, negotiate,
communicate,anduse tools andmaterials.Video assessment,suchas thatproposed
by Collins, Hawkins,and Frederiksen(1993/1994), is an importantalternativefor
evaluatingstudentperformancein such contexts.
CHILDREN'S
DESIGNING 163
Second,artifactsandtools arecommonlyregardedas repositoriesof cultural

by theirusersto bring
knowledgethatmerelyhaveto be decodedappropriately
aboutlearning.Furthermore,
teacherconstraints,
andrulesareconinterdictions,
ferredabsoluteontologies;thatis, they havesinglerightmeanings,namelythe
respectiveteacher'smeanings.Studentswhofailtodothisdecodingusethesetools
and artifactsin inappropriateways or arriveat different interpretationsand are
penalized with low grades.If, as I suggested,constraints,interdictions,and rules
areconstructedin every situation,it makeslittlesense to conferto themanyabsolute
character;rather,one has to recognize the accomplishmenteach time they are
applied or observed. If artifacts,tools, constraints,interdictions,and rules are
interpretivelyflexible, teacherscan no longer penalize studentsfor not getting it
but have to establish an environmentin which interpretationsacceptableto the
classroomcommunitycan be negotiated.In the same vein, teacherscan no longer
expect studentsto discovercanonicalformsof knowledge(patterns,scientificlaws,
rules, applicationof tools). One way of introducingstudentsto specific, culturally
devised forms of knowledgeis throughparticipationin culturallyorganizedactivities andenvironmentsin whichthis knowledgeplays a role;thatis, activitieswhere
studentsexperience these canonical forms of knowledge used by someone who
already has a certaindegree of competence.This form of learningis capturedin
learningenvironmentsbuilton the metaphorsof cognitiveapprenticeship(Collins,
Brown, & Newman, 1989), legitimateperipheralparticipation(Lave & Wenger,
1991), orpracticum(Schon, 1987). In all threelearningenvironments,newcomers
to a practiceparticipatein authenticactivitiesof the domainwith moreexperienced
old-timers.
Third,the constructionof artifactsis far moreimportantto learningthansimply
to motivate students. Materials,tools, and artifactsserve in importantways as
structuringresourcesto design andmake sense of the learningenvironmentand as
backdropagainstand with which studentscan constructindividualunderstandings
and negotiate sharedmeanings. Design activities in which studentscollectively
construct artifacts should thus become central aspects of learning ratherthan
appendixeswith mere motivationalpurpose."Hands-on"alone can neitherbe the
focus of instruction,nor its replacement"hands-on,minds-on."Rather,educators
need to realize the possibilities for learningthroughdesign: Designing and constructingartifactsproducesa good dealof problemsolving in ill-structuredsettings,
allows students to construct an experience-baseddesign-relateddiscourse, and
facilitatesinteractionsand sharingof knowledgein the classroom.
FutureResearch
Futureresearchis needed to addressopen questions not answeredby this study.
Among the questions in which I am interestedare (a) How are heterogeneous
artifacts constructed as the result of individual authorship?(b) What are the
164
ROTH
affordances and constraintsof other tools, materials, and design tasks in the
constructionof authenticlearningenvironments?and (c) How do students'activities change when they are allowed to engage in engineeringdesign activities for
time periodsmeasuredin years?
Anotherareameritingattentionis thatof evaluation.Whatkind of performance
indicatorscanbe usedto assess processessuchas collective sense making,planning,
negotiatingof ideas? Are thereprocess indicatorsthatcan feasibly be used in the
constrainedcontexts of teachers'daily work?Furtherresearchmay be concerned
with finding performanceindicatorsfor children'sdesign talk. Which aspects of
students'design communicationcan be formalizedso thatit lends itself to quantification?
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was made possible in part by Grant410-93-1127 from the Social
Sciences andHumanitiesResearchCouncilof CanadaandJointInitiativesStrategic
Grant812-93-0006 fromthe Social Sciences andHumanitiesResearchCouncilof
Canadaand NorthernTelecom. I thank Sylvie Boutonn6,Fiona Crofton, Allan
MacKinnon,ChristinaSchnetzler,BridgetWalshe, and all the childrenfor their
help duringthe data collection. I am gratefulto ReindersDuit, David Hammer,
Michelle K. McGinn, KarenLarsonTonso, Bernice Wong, and the anonymous
reviewersof earlierversionsof this articlefor theirinsightfulcriticismandeditorial
help.
REFERENCES
Anderson,J. R. (1990). Theadaptivecharacterofthought.Hillsdale,NJ:LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,
Inc.
Ashmore, M. (1989). The reflexive thesis: Wrightingsociology of scientific knowledge. Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press.
Association for the Promotion and Advancementof Science Education. (1991). Engineeringfor
children:Structures.Vancouver,Canada:Author.
Bakhtin,M. (1981). Thedialogic imagination.Austin:Universityof Texas.
Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. J. (Eds.). (1987). The social constructionof technological
systems. Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Bucciarelli,L. L. (1994). Designing engineers.Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Callon, M. (1994). Is science a public good? Fifth Mullins lecture,Virginia PolytechnicInstitute,23
March 1993. Science, Technology,& HumanValues,19, 395-424.
Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship:Teaching the crafts of
reading,writing,and mathematics.In L. Resnick(Ed.), Knowing,learningand instruction:Essays
in honor of RobertGlaser (pp. 453-494). Hillsdale,NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
Collins, A., Hawkins,J., & Frederiksen,J. R. (1993/1994). Threedifferentviews of students:The role
of technologyin assessing studentperformance.TheJournalof the LearningSciences, 3, 205-217.
Edwards,D., & Potter,J. (1992). Discursivepsychology.London:Sage.
CHILDREN'SDESIGNING
165
Erickson,F. (1986). Qualitativeresearchon teaching.In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbookfor research

on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119-161). New York:Macmillan.
Faulkner,W. (1994). Conceptualizingknowledgeused in innovation:A secondlook atthe science-technology distinctionand industrialinnovation.Science, Technology,& HumanValues,19, 425-458.
Gooding,D. (1990). Mappingexperimentas learningprocess:How the firstelectromagneticmotorwas
invented.Science, Technology,& HumanValues,15, 165-201.
Gooding, D. (1992). Puttingagency back into experiment.In A. Pickering(Ed.), Science as practice
and culture(pp. 65-112). Chicago:Universityof Chicago Press.
Harel, I. (1991). Childrendesigners: Interdisciplinaryconstructionsfor learningand knowingmathematics in a computer-richschool. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (Eds.). (1991). Constructionism:Research reports and essays, 1985-1990.
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Henderson,K. (1991). Flexible sketchesandinflexible databases:Visual communication,conscription
devices, and boundaryobjects in design engineering.Science, Technology,& Human Values, 16,
448-473.
Hutchins,E. (1991). The social organizationof distributedcognition.In L. Resnick & J. Levine (Eds.),
Perspectiveson socially sharedcognition(pp.283-307). Washington,DC: AmericanPsychological
Association.
Jordan,B., & Henderson,A. (1995). Interactionanalysis:Foundationsandpractice.TheJournalof the
LearningSciences, 4, 39-103.
Kafai, Y. (1994). Mindsin play: Computergame design as a contextfor children'slearning.Hillsdale,
NJ: LawrenceErlbaumAssociates, Inc.
Kafai, Y., & Harel,I. (1991). Learningthroughdesign andteaching:Exploringsocial andcollaborative
aspects of constructionism.In I. Harel & S. Papert(Eds.), Constructionism:Research reportsand
essays, 1985-1990 (pp. 85-106). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Knorr-Cetina,K. (1995). How superorganismschange: Consensusformationand the social ontology
of high energy physics experiments.Social Studiesof Science, 25, 119-147.
Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structureof scientific revolutions(2nd ed.). Chicago:Universityof Chicago
Press.
Latour,B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers throughsociety. Milton
Keynes, England:Open UniversityPress.
Latour, B. (1990). Drawing things together. In M. Lynch & S. Woolgar (Eds.), Representationin
scientificpractice (pp. 19-68). Cambridge,MA: MIT Press.
Latour,B. (1993). Wehave never been modern.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematicsand culture in everyday life. Cambridge,
England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimateperipheral participation. Cambridge,
Layton. D. (1994). Innovationsin science and technologyeducation.Paris:UNESCO.
Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talkingscience: Language,learningand values. Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
McGinn,M. K., Roth,W. -M., Boutonn6,S., & Woszczyna,C. (1995). The transformationof individual
and collective knowledge in elementaryscience classroomsthatareorganizedas knowledge-building communities.Research in Science Education,26, 163-189.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Learningscientific concepts throughmaterialand social activities: Conversational
analysis meets conceptualchange.EducationalPsychologist,28, 265-277.
Pea, R. D., Sipusic, M., & Allen, S. (in press).Seeing the light on optics:Classroom-basedresearchand
development of a learningenvironmentfor conceptualchange. In S. Strauss(Ed.), Development
and learning environments.Norwood,NJ: Ablex.
Roschelle, J. (1992). Learningby collaborating:Convergentconceptualchange. The Journal of the
166
ROTH
Roth, W. -M. (1994). Experimentingin a constructivisthigh school physics laboratory.Journal of

Research in Science Teaching,31, 197-223.
Roth,W. -M. (1995a). Affordancesof computersin teacher-studentinteractions:The case of Interactive
Journalof Research in Science Teaching,32, 329-347.
Physics.TM
Roth, W. -M. (1995b). Authenticschool science: Knowingand learningin open-inquirylaboratories.
Dordrecht,The Netherlands:Kluwer.
Roth, W. -M. (1995c). Inventors,copycats,andeveryoneelse: The emergenceof shared(arti)factsand
concepts as defining aspectsof classroomcommunities.Science Education,79, 475-502.
Roth,W. -M. (in press).Knowledgediffusionin a grade4/5 classroomduringa uniton civil engineering:
An analysis of a classroomcommunityin termsof its changingresourcesand practices.Cognition
and Instruction.
Roth, W. -M., & Bowen, G. M. (1993/1994). An investigationof problemframingand solving in the
context of a Grade 8 open-inquiryscience program.The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3,
165-204.
Roth, W. -M., & Bowen, G. M. (1995). Knowing and interacting:A study of culture,practices,and
resources in a Grade 8 open-inquiryscience classroom guided by a cognitive apprenticeship
metaphor.Cognitionand Instruction,13, 73-128.
Sayeki, Y., Ueno, N., & Nagasaka,T. (1991). Mediationas a generativemodel for obtainingan area.
Learningand Instruction,1, 229-242.
Schank, R. C. (1993/1994). Goal-basedscenarios:A radical look at education. The Journal of the
Schank, R. C., Fano, A., Bell, B., & Jona, M. (1993/1994). The design of goal-based scenarios. The
Journal of the LearningSciences, 3, 305-345.
Sch6n, D. A. (1983). The reflectivepractitioner:How professionals thinkin action. New York:Basic
Books.
Sch6n, D. A. (1987). Educatingthe reflectivepractitioner.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass.
Suchman,L. A. (1987). Plans and situatedactions: Theproblemof human-machinecommunication.
Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Suchman,L. A., & Trigg, R. H. (1993). Artificialintelligence as craftwork.In S. Chaiklin& J. Lave
(Eds.), Understandingpractice: Perspectiveson activity and context (pp. 144-178). Cambridge,
Turkle,S., & Papert,S. (1992). Epistemologicalpluralismandthe revaluationof the concrete.Journal
of MathematicalBehavior, 11, 3-33.
Turnbull,D. (1995). Renderingturbulenceorderly.Social Studiesof Science, 25, 9-33.
Watson,J. D. (1968). Double helix. New York:Atheneum.
Wilensky, U. (1991). Abstractmeditationson the concreteand concreteimplicationsfor mathematics
education.In I. Harel& S. Papert(Eds.), Constructionism:
Researchreportsand essays, 1985-1990
(pp. 193-203). Norwood,NJ: Ablex.

Art and Artifact

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art and Artifact

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Art and Artifact of Children's Designing: A Situated Cognition Perspective

Author(s): Wolff-Michael Roth

Art and Artifactof Children's

Thepurposeof thisstudywasto investigate

the central activity in technology (Faulkner,1994), it fits well with an emerging

and symmetricanthropology(Latour,1993) which do not a prioriplace cognition

in the programare set up as engineering design problems and as contexts for

presentedwhatthey haddone to date,the problemsthey hadencountered,andhow

had observed the classroom and interactedwith the childrenconstitutedanother

of an artifact.There exists a horizon of events; elements that lie outside of this

Arlene suggested to attacheach pier to a small cardboardfoundationthat would

andas even morelearnedhow to operatethem,the design culturechangedfavoring

Howthe PresentStateof an Artifact

salience is contingent on specific local developments. Tools, materials,

with sliding objectbetween"(CA), or "baseballstadiumwith removabletop"(PR),

double parenthesesenclose concurrentgestures,actions

interpretiveflexibility. Thatis, what an utterancemeant,what activities a specific

Example 1. Although Chris and Arlene constitutedone of the two groups

simultaneouslywhile she testedthe structure(line 2); Arlene'splanningforthe next

versationsand was an importantaspectof the activity structurethat supportedthe

1 T: If you make one giant triangle((points to

Renata had wondered how to stabilize and make a pentagonalshape rigid.

A and B); and (f) talkingand writingengineeringdesign (Goal C).4Each of these

4With the notion of "talkingandwritingengineeringdesign,"I follow the equivalentexpressionsof

be operatedeven after they were unpluggedfor a few minutes,they inventedthe

tools such as glue guns, andworkingwith a varietyof othermaterials.Manyof the

which could have led to differentperformanceduring the test for strength,Jeff

FIGURE 2 Two-pageentry in Chris's glossary.Her entries illustratean understandingof the typologica

* The elements of a setting (discourse,materials,tools, artifacts,interdiction,

and with the convergenceof meanings,the interpretiveflexibility of plans, ideas,

setting changes cognition in fundamentaland irreversibleways. An appropriate

men, or forces that act within structuresor on structures(stability). It is in the

Second,artifactsandtools arecommonlyregardedas repositoriesof cultural

Erickson,F. (1986). Qualitativeresearchon teaching.In M. C. Wittrock(Ed.), Handbookfor research

Roth, W. -M. (1994). Experimentingin a constructivisthigh school physics laboratory.Journal of

You might also like