Synergizing STEM and ELA: Exploring How Small-Group Interactions Shape Design Decisions in an Engineering Design-Based Unit

Abstract

While small group learning through engineering design activities has been shown to enhance student achievement, motivation, and problem-solving skills, much of the existing research in this area focuses on undergraduate engineering education. Therefore, this study examines how small-group interactions influence design decisions within a sixth-grade engineering design-based English Language Arts unit for multilingual learners. Multilingual Learners make up 21% of the U.S. school-aged population and benefit from early STEM opportunities that shape future educational and career trajectories. Grounded in constructivist learning theories, the research explores collaborative learning in the engineering design process, using a comparative case study design. Specifically, this study explores student interactions and group dynamics in two small groups (Group A and Group B) engaged in a board game design challenge incorporating microelectronics. Video recordings serve as the primary data source, allowing for an in-depth analysis of verbal and nonverbal interactions. The study employed the Social Interdependence Theory to examine how group members collaborate, negotiate roles, and make design decisions. Themes such as positive interdependence, group accountability, promotive interaction, and individual responsibility are used to assess how cooperation influences final design choices. Three key themes emerged: Roles and Dynamics, Conflict, and Teacher Intervention. Group A and Group B exhibited distinct collaboration patterns, with Group A demonstrating stronger leadership dynamics that shaped decision-making, while Group B encountered challenges related to engagement and resource control. The results demonstrate the importance of small-group interactions in shaping design decisions and emphasize the role of group dynamics and teacher intervention in supporting multilingual learners’ engagement and success in integrated STEM curriculum.

1. Introduction

The STEM education movement, which began toward the end of the 20th century, has propelled the “STEM” acronym into widespread recognition and use in both public education and workforce development (Strimel, 2024). While the acronym refers to the academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, the STEM movement has evolved over time to emphasize more integrated STEM educational experiences, focusing on the convergence of practices and concepts across these disciplines (National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014). These integrated experiences aim to help students develop problem-solving skills through interdisciplinary collaborations focused on addressing social/technical challenges in innovative ways (National Science Foundation, 2020). In this context, the goals of STEM integration include promoting “STEM literacy”—an adaptable set of concepts, processes, and ways of thinking that can be applied to real-world problems (K. S. Tang & Williams, 2019)—along with developing disciplinary-specific knowledge within meaningful contexts (Strimel, 2024).

Despite the prevalence of the STEM acronym and its promise for integrated teaching, STEM as a term is still used in various ways, including to describe either distinct disciplinary efforts or integrated methods of instruction (Strimel, 2023). This multiplicity of meanings reflects broader educational efforts to enhance STEM literacy, wherein students gain the cross-disciplinary knowledge and skills needed to understand and address relevant issues, as well as S.T.E.M. literacies, which involve discipline-specific concepts and skillsets (K. S. Tang & Williams, 2019). Nonetheless, integrating STEM disciplines can motivate student learning, increase STEM knowledge, encourage the development of 21st Century skills, and cultivate interdisciplinary collaboration. As Wells and Van de Velde (2020) clarify:

STEM is an acronym for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. It is not a discipline, not a meta-discipline, not a field of study, not a curriculum, nor is it a single school subject to be taught. STEM is a concept intended to promote integrative approaches to teaching and learning. A concept meant to go beyond the traditional siloed, mono-disciplinary approach with an experiential learning approach where students integrate disciplines within authentic, relevant learning scenarios.

(p. 220)

Within this broader vision, integrated STEM education emphasizes:

Engineering design-based learning approaches that intentionally integrate content and process of science and/or mathematics education with content and process of technology and/or engineering education. Integrative STEM education may be enhanced through further integration with other school subjects, such as language arts, social studies, art, etc.

(Sanders & Wells, 2010)

In other words, integrated STEM has always been positioned to tie together the STEM disciplines in ways that promote cross-disciplinary synergy while also connecting to other content areas such as English Language Arts (ELA). A common method of achieving this synergy is through design-based activities. Design-based activities can serve as engaging, hands-on approaches to learning and provide a meaningful context for applying disciplinary concepts and cross-cutting skills in tandem (Strimel, 2023).

Design-based learning is now a major feature of integrated STEM instruction, situating “instruction in relevant and authentic contexts, prompting students to acquire and apply knowledge and skills to design potential solutions for meaningful, often open-ended problems” (Strimel, 2023, p. 143). Within integrated STEM curricula, design-based learning is often framed through the practice of engineering design, which emphasizes a more “informed approach” to problem solving, an approach that transcends trial-and-error and allows for technological innovation (Crismond & Adams, 2012). Engineering design has emerged as a powerful integrator of science, technology, mathematics, and other content areas, aligning with growing interest in interdisciplinary and applied learning (National Research Council, 2012; see also; Grubbs & Strimel, 2015; Kelley & Knowles, 2016; Moore et al., 2014; Nadelson & Seifert, 2017; Tank et al., 2018). In many cases, students are placed in small groups to solve authentic, discipline-spanning challenges, allowing them to develop both disciplinary-specific knowledge and cross-cutting literacies in an integrated, collaborative environment. This approach has increasingly expanded to “non-STEM” contexts, like ELA, to create more engaging learning experiences that connect reading, writing, and language development with design challenges.

Such integrated STEM approaches within ELA are especially relevant for multilingual learners (MLL), who represent the fastest-growing demographic in U.S. schools (Li & Peters, 2020). Multilingual learners (MLLs) are students who speak a language other than English at home and are often classified as English learners in schools, representing a rapidly growing population in U.S. classrooms (Grapin et al., 2023). Currently comprising 21% of the nation’s school-aged population (Li & Peters, 2020; Li, 2015; Aud et al., 2012), MLL benefit from early STEM opportunities that can shape future educational and career pathways (D. Tang et al., 2023). Research suggests small-group learning can improve achievement, motivation, and problem-solving skills (Guzey & Jung, 2021), but much of this evidence focuses on undergraduate engineering (Wieselmann et al., 2020; National Academy of Engineering & National Research Council, 2014). Consequently, there is an opportunity to examine how younger MLL students engage in small-group interactions during engineering design-based tasks in an ELA setting, and how these interactions affect their design decisions. Therefore, this study sought to answer the research question of: How do small group interactions influence design decisions within an engineering design-based ELA unit for MLL? This inquiry will help broaden the understanding of how researchers and practitioners can structure integration and synergies within STEM, particularly when disciplines outside of STEM, such as ELA, are included. By examining MLL students’ collaborative design processes in an engineering design-based ELA context, this study aims to generate insights into both the pedagogical strategies that best support synergy between STEM and ELA, and the ways small-group dynamics influence learning outcomes.

2. Review of Literature

Collaboration in learning has been widely studied across educational disciplines, emphasizing its role in developing critical thinking, problem-solving skills, and teamwork. In integrated STEM education, collaborative learning plays a crucial role, particularly in engineering design-based learning environments. This literature review examines key theoretical perspectives on collaborative learning, the role of decision-making in engineering design, and how these elements impact student populations, including MLLs.

Theoretical Foundations of Collaborative Learning: Constructivist theories serve as the foundation for research on collaborative learning. From the 1940s to the 1970s, cooperative learning was largely overlooked as the rise of social Darwinism promoted individualism and limited classroom collaboration (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009). However, social scientists later challenged this individualistic approach, recognizing the critical role of peer interaction in learning. Today, cooperative learning is one of the most widely used instructional practices across academic disciplines. Piaget (1932) proposed that cognitive development occurs through active engagement with the environment, a principle that directly supports learning in group settings. Vygotsky (1978) expanded on this idea, emphasizing the social nature of learning and arguing that knowledge is co-constructed through peer interactions. His concept of the Zone of Proximal Development highlights the importance of structured collaboration, where students reach higher levels of understanding with guidance from peers or instructors. Building on these theories, Lave and Wenger’s (1991) concept of situated learning suggests that knowledge is best acquired in authentic, real-world contexts. This perspective aligns with collaborative engineering projects, where students develop expertise by engaging in design challenges that mirror professional practice. These theories of collaborative learning are relevant to understanding integrated STEM projects where teamwork and real-world problem-solving are essential.

Collaboration in the Engineering Design Process: Collaborative teamwork can enhance students’ understanding of complex concepts by fostering shared problem-solving and knowledge construction. The engineering design process is an iterative approach that requires students to define problems, brainstorm solutions, prototype, and test their designs. Research suggests that group dynamics can impact the success of teams (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Factors such as equitable participation, effective communication, and conflict resolution are crucial for productive collaboration (Griffiths et al., 2021; Denis & Umoh, 2024). Additionally, peer leadership plays a key role in shaping outcomes—Dym et al. (2005) found that teams using shared leadership models often outperform those with traditional hierarchical structures. Encouraging shared responsibility within groups can enhance student agency and accountability.

Learning is shaped by the interaction between individuals, their activities, and the surrounding context (Lave, 1988; Wieselmann et al., 2020). Within small group settings, students interpret and construct meaning in varied ways, especially when engaged in engineering design projects that promote abstract and creative thinking. However, group work is not without challenges. Some students may rely on their peers to complete tasks or make decisions, leading to issues like “free riding” and passive participation (Dingel et al., 2013; Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022). Additionally, unclear expectations can contribute to a lack of preparation, disengagement, or negative attitudes. To address these challenges, educators can use an engineering design-based approach that clearly defines roles and responsibilities from the outset (Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022).

Students take on different roles during small-group engineering tasks based on their experiences and skills. S. Pattison et al. (2020) examined the roles students adopt in small group engineering tasks, highlighting how students position themselves and others based on perceived skills. Some sought recognition as the most successful in design challenges, while others acted as helpers or collaborators. Furthermore, students framed activities as either competitive or collaborative, shaping their perception of failure as either a setback or a learning opportunity. These roles and perspectives are fluid, shifting throughout different interactions (S. Pattison et al., 2020). However, because engineering content is not universally mandated in school curricula, students enter with varying levels of prior knowledge. In some cases, a more experienced student may naturally assume the role of leader (Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022), while others may disengage if they do not recognize the value of contributing meaningfully to the project.

Collaborative learning approaches can add complexity to the learning process (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Studies suggest that factors such as disagreement, social status, hierarchical role distinctions, competition, power dynamics, and the regulation of expertise and knowledge shape peer group interactions (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). These elements can influence group members’ participation, assigned roles, and overall learning experiences (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Peer group interactions are integral to learning both in and out of the classroom (Leman, 2015). Group interactions involve complex social dynamics, including decision-making, conflict resolution, idea-sharing, and the negotiation of roles, authority, and expertise (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Friendship, social status, perceived expertise, age, language ability, and group norms all shape student’s group dynamics (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Research on classroom peer interactions emphasizes the role of peer leaders in shaping group dynamics and outcomes (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Leaders in peer groups guide the group forward, whether by managing organization, such as turn-taking, or by facilitating intellectual engagement, like idea development (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Leadership is continuously negotiated, with leaders emerging with attempts to direct the group, which can be referred to as “leadership moves”, and they are recognized and accepted by peers. Leaders influence participation by steering discussions, shaping opportunities for involvement, and providing encouragement (Yun & Kim, 2015; S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Leaders can impact the group’s objectives and interpretations of tasks, and the expectations that govern participation and interaction (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Peer group interaction can also support or undermine roles and identities (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Students’ learning experiences in groups can be shaped by many factors that influence the outcome of the project and students’ identity within and beyond the project experience.

Small-group decision-making within the engineering design process can take different forms depending on the students involved. Structured discussions can help guide students toward productive interactions, ensuring they remain focused and work effectively toward shared goals (Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022). Teachers play a crucial role in fostering accountability and encouraging active participation, ensuring that engineering design remains accessible to all students. Similarly, collaboration influences how individuals and groups develop their understanding of technical concepts. Research suggests that increasing student engagement in STEM requires hands-on, collaborative experiences (Wieselmann et al., 2020). This raises key questions about small-group collaboration: How do students cooperate? What roles do they adopt? What individual task preferences emerge? (Yuen et al., 2014). These questions inform a broader research inquiry into how students collaborate to design solutions as part of engineering design-based integrated STEM and ELA curricula.

Decision-Making in Collaborative Learning: While integrated STEM instruction is a relatively new teaching approach, there has been limited research on small group learning in elementary science classrooms since the early 2000s (Wieselmann et al., 2020). A 21st Century education should be equipping students to become active, informed, and engaged decision-makers. To fulfill this responsibility, students should have opportunities to make decisions that have consequences (Meyer, 2018). One approach to enhancing decision-making experiences and fostering 21st Century skills is through the use of Problem-Based Learning (PBL) as an instructional strategy (Meyer, 2018). PBL allows students to engage in real-world challenges, encouraging critical thinking and collaborative decision-making skills. The engineering design process is a structured approach to problem solving. It provides a framework for students to address complex problems, which are often central to PBL activities, through the design of viable solutions (Meyer, 2018). When implemented effectively, both the engineering design process and PBL require students to make critical decisions as they progress toward a design or solution (Meyer, 2018). Svenson (1996) pointed out that research on decision-making has concentrated on developing rules and procedures, rather than engaging students in addressing complex problems that do not have a single, clear solution (Meyer, 2018). It was also noted that decision-making processes, like how students use the engineering design process, are often underexplored (Svenson, 1996; Meyer, 2018). Therefore, while engaging students in the engineering design process, there are opportunities for students to learn and practice decision-making. For many educators, releasing control over decision-making to students can be challenging (Meyer, 2018). This may be because research shows that students often do not follow the steps of the engineering design process when making decisions (Lee & Grace, 2012; Hsu & Lin, 2017; Åkerblom & Lindahl, 2017; Acar et al., 2010). Students can act on intuitive and emotion-based reasoning, rather than using a systematic decision-making process like the steps within the engineering design process (Hsu & Lin, 2017; Åkerblom & Lindahl, 2017). When students make decisions based on intuition or emotion, Ullman (2010) considered this as using weak information versus using strong information. Strong information is content knowledge, while weak information includes interpersonal relationships, behaviors, and judgments. Although both weak and strong information are important in decision-making, teachers using the engineering design process were looking for students to use strong information, but students were more likely to use weak information (Meyer, 2018). The way in which students make a decision is crucial, as all decisions have impacts. Siverling et al. (2021) mentioned that in engineering-based learning, argumentation can be referred to as evidence-based reasoning. Evidence-based reasoning, used in professional settings, allows students to use evidence to make engineering decisions. When directed towards students, evidence-based reasoning can show up as negotiating, correcting, validating, clarifying with a team, or sharing (Siverling et al., 2021). The curriculum of focus in this study engages students in evidence-based reasoning throughout the unit. Engineering design projects are an ideal way for evidence-based reasoning to be implemented in the classroom (Siverling et al., 2021).

Effective decision-making is a critical component of teamwork in integrated STEM education. Research suggests that structured decision-making frameworks enhance group performance by guiding students through evaluating alternatives, considering evidence, and reaching consensus (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993). Successful teams often rely on key elements such as evidence-based reasoning, where decisions are grounded in data and systematic evaluation rather than intuition alone. Additionally, consensus-building through collaborative negotiation allows teams to align their perspectives and make informed choices. Role distribution further strengthens decision-making by fostering accountability and ensuring different viewpoints are considered.

Multilingual Learners (MLL) and Collaborative Learning in Engineering Design: As the focus on MLL education grows, understanding how different student populations engage with STEM learning becomes important. Notably, as of 2019, there were over five million students in the public school system in the United States that identified as an English language learner (National Center for Education Statistics, 2022). While MLL students can face challenges with STEM-focused content, Mouboua et al. (2024) found that addressing linguistic differences in STEM education is important for promoting equity and for leveraging insights and experiences that multilingual students contribute to the classroom. Contributions from MLL students can enhance the educational experience for all learners involved (Mouboua et al., 2024; Buchs & Maradan, 2021). Different student populations, including MLL students, face unique challenges in collaborative learning settings. Language barriers and cultural differences can affect participation, comprehension, and confidence. Research by Moschkovich (2002) suggests that integrating visual aids, structured peer interactions, and multimodal communication strategies can support MLL students in STEM disciplines. Thoughtful teaching practices that scaffold discussions, provide linguistic support, and encourage peer mentoring have been found to enhance MLL students’ engagement in engineering projects (Gutiérrez, 2008). Engineering design naturally uses various visual representations (A. M. Johnson et al., 2013). The use of visual representations (plots, graphs) in an engineering-design-based curriculum can allow students to comprehend the descriptive information aided by the depictive information (A. M. Johnson et al., 2013). Furthermore, the implementation of journals where students record their design decisions has been shown to help students explain their design decisions (Siverling et al., 2021; Shanahan et al., 2018). However, each MLL student is unique in that they come from different socio-economic backgrounds, have varying levels of English proficiency, and have different experiences with the STEM curriculum (Grapin et al., 2023). Students’ identities relative to STEM are constructed through students’ culture and experience through interactions with family, with classmates in the classroom, and with informal learning experiences (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018). Research around engineering identity in pre-college students found that PBL can increase students’ interest in engineering and engineering career perception (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018).

To support MLLs in integrated STEM education, educators can employ strategies that enhance comprehension and engagement. Integrating visual aids, such as diagrams and graphs, can help bridge language gaps and clarify concepts (A. M. Johnson et al., 2013). Structured peer interactions and collaborative projects encourage active participation and allow students to learn from one another. Reflective practices, like maintaining design journals, enable students to articulate their thought processes and reinforce learning. These methods can create a learning environment that supports MLL students in developing the skills and confidence necessary for success in STEM fields.

In summary, collaborative learning is key in integrated STEM education, promoting critical thinking, problem-solving, and teamwork. Theoretical perspectives highlight the importance of peer interaction, structured collaboration, and real-world engagement in enhancing students’ learning experiences. Within the engineering design process, decision-making and role negotiation shape group dynamics, influencing individual and team outcomes. While collaborative learning presents challenges, such as uneven participation and group dynamics, research suggests that structured approaches, including clear role distribution and evidence-based reasoning, can improve teamwork and engagement. Additionally, supporting MLLs through scaffolding strategies and thoughtful instructional practices ensures that all students can participate in, and benefit from, STEM learning. By understanding the complexities of collaboration in engineering design-based learning, educators can better create learning environments that prepare students for success in academic and professional settings.

3. Materials and Methods

To answer the research question of how small group interactions influence design decisions within an engineering design-based ELA unit for MLL, the research employed a qualitative approach.

Research Design: This study employed a comparative case study (CCS) design to examine how small group interactions influence design decisions in an engineering design-based ELA unit. The CCS approach allows for an in-depth analysis of multiple cases, facilitating comparisons that reveal patterns across different group dynamics (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). Specifically, this study focused on identifying key factors (interactions and dynamics), participants (students and the teacher), and features (the engineering design-based ELA curriculum contextualized within microelectronics and students’ final designs) that shape group decision-making processes. The students were engaged in an engineering design-based unit, where they were tasked with creating a new board game that included programmable electronics components. The CCS methodology provides a robust framework for understanding the processes that shape moment-to-moment behaviors within collaborative learning environments (Jones et al., 2022; Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017). Unlike single case studies, comparative case studies enable broader insights by allowing researchers to examine variations and similarities across different groups (Flyvbjerg, 2011; Jones et al., 2022; Starman, 2013; Yin, 2014; Chohan, 2019). Each case was analyzed individually before drawing comparisons to understand how different group dynamics influenced design outcomes (Yin, 2014). This study aligns with Yin’s (2014) relativist perspective, which considers how individuals within the same learning environment experience and interpret the curriculum differently. By analyzing students’ engagement with the engineering design process, this research highlights how their perspectives and interactions shape their final design choices.

Data Collection: The data sources used for this study included video recordings of the two student groups and the final designs created by each group as part of the engineering design experience. Two cameras were used to record each group, with one camera focused on each group, and a separate camera focused on the teacher (Kure et al., 2023). For this study, the researchers used only the student video data; however, if the teacher interacted with one of the groups, then the teacher’s dynamic was examined.

Data Analysis: The research team followed a mix of deductive and inductive coding processes. The research team watched videos from the unit and derived a list of themes and codes from the data, which was developed into a preliminary codebook. The research team participated in discussions and peer debriefing to refine the themes and codes and to ensure reliability and trustworthiness. Once the research team reached consensus, the researchers analyzed all the data referencing the themes that emerged from the preliminary coding. A codebook served in the initial organization of the findings. As the research developed, we aligned our findings with D. W. Johnson and Johnson’s (2009) Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning Framework. The framework, shown in

Table 1. Below are the terms the research team used as a basis for categorizing student interactions and dynamics. The definitions are from D. W. Johnson and Johnson’s (2009) Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning.

Term	Definition
Positive Interdependence	Allows for the development and discovery of new ideas and motivates the group/student to work and try harder.
Outcome Interdependence	The connection between goals and rewards, where shared success leads to higher achievement and productivity. When individuals experience positive outcome interdependence, their collective efforts contribute to improved performance.
Means Interdependence	Refers to the reliance on shared resources, distinct roles, and coordinated tasks within a group. This type of interdependence ensures that individuals work together by sharing materials, fulfilling specific responsibilities, and contributing to a common objective. When resources, roles, and tasks are interconnected, collaboration becomes essential for success.
Boundary Interdependence	The establishment of boundaries to define the interconnections between individuals or groups. These boundaries can exist within a group, between a group and external entities, or between different groups.
Positive Goal Interdependence	In positive goal interdependence, individuals believe they can achieve their goals only if the others they are working with also succeed in reaching their goals.
Resource Interdependence	When group members do not share their resources but need the resources of their group members. This interferes with the group’s productivity as no one is willing to share.
Group Accountability	Occurs when the group’s collective performance is evaluated, and the results are shared with all members to compare their achievements against a set performance standard.
Individual Accountability	Happens when each member’s performance is evaluated, and the results are returned to both the individual and the group to compare against a performance standard.
Promotive Interaction	Occurs when individuals support and assist each other in completing tasks to achieve the group’s goals.
Oppositional Interaction	Happens when individuals hinder, block, or prevent each other from reaching their goals.
Appropriate Use of Social Skills	Interpersonal and small-group skills are essential for effective collaboration. To work together productively and manage the challenges of teamwork, individuals must possess a basic level of these skills.
Group Processing	Happens when group members (a) evaluate which actions were beneficial or detrimental and (b) decide which behaviors to maintain or alter.

, is included as it was used to analyze our data and relates to the findings. While watching the videos, if further themes emerged, those were also recorded.

The primary data source for this study was video recordings, which allowed the research team to analyze verbal and nonverbal interactions. As Erikson (2006) describes, video data capture the dynamic exchange between speakers and listeners, akin to a “ping-pong match of successive moves” (p. 179). To fully leverage this data source, it was crucial to have a systematic approach to reviewing footage to avoid overlooking important nonverbal cues or allowing personal bias to influence the analysis. Kure et al. (2023) highlight that video footage enables researchers to revisit interactions multiple times, ensuring a thorough examination of details. This method allowed the researchers to understand how students interacted with one another and with the manipulatives used in the curriculum (Erikson, 2006). Additionally, video analysis offers a neutral means of data collection, reducing observational biases (Kure et al., 2023). The use of video recordings was integral to this research as it provided an unbiased and detailed perspective on both verbal and nonverbal interactions. Moreover, understanding how individuals make meaning through their interactions with others and their environment is central to studying human learning (Jordan & Henderson, 1995). Videos of student interactions during design activities provided the basis for our analysis, allowing us to examine design decision-making interactions and dynamics.

For the analytical framework of the study, the research team used the D. W. Johnson and Johnson (2009) Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Social interdependence theory demonstrates that outcomes of individuals are shaped by their respective actions as well as the actions of others (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009). There can be positive outcomes, where the actions of individuals aid in the achievement of the shared goal, or there can be negative outcomes where the actions of individuals hinder the achievement of goals. Social dependence occurs when student A is trying to reach a goal and is affected by student B’s actions; however, the reverse is not true. Social independence is when student A’s goal achievement is unaffected by student B, and that can go both ways. Social helplessness occurs when no one can affect goal achievement. D. W. Johnson and Johnson (2009) listed five key elements for effective cooperative learning: (1) positive interdependence, (2) group processing (reflect on the member actions that were helpful or not helpful, cannot tell if individuals are reflecting, instructor specified what cooperative skills to use), (3) promotive interaction (individual efforts to accomplish shared goals), (4) individual accountability and personal responsibility (group and personal accountability), and (5) appropriate use of social skills (they need to get to know each other, resolve conflicts, communicate).

Social interdependence theory will allow the researchers to analyze the interactions and dynamics occurring within the small-group settings by providing a framework to examine how individual and group actions affect the design. By distinguishing between positive and negative interdependence, this theory helps identify whether group members are effectively collaborating toward shared goals or if certain dynamics are hindering progress. Additionally, the five elements outlined by D. W. Johnson and Johnson (2009)—positive interdependence, group processing, promotive interaction, individual accountability, and appropriate use of social skills—offer a lens to assess how cooperative learning is facilitated or challenged within the group. Through social interdependence theory, the researchers analyzed the group interactions and dynamics within the engineering design-based ELA unit.

Context: The focus of this study is a specialized intervention program designed to provide targeted instructional support for students demonstrating language proficiency needs, as determined by standardized language assessments. While the schoolwide program focuses on reinforcing core competencies in math and literacy based on common assessment data, this particular course serves students who have not yet reached a specific language proficiency threshold, as measured by a widely recognized language proficiency test. The evolution of multilingual teaching approaches in STEM education can be understood within the broader context of educational reform, where policy changes and accountability measures, such as standardized testing, have driven schools to prioritize strategies that enhance academic outcomes for all students, including MLL (Mouboua et al., 2024). The instructional focus is adjusted to enhance language acquisition skills and promote academic growth in MLL. The instructional approach aims to enhance skills in the four language domains of reading, writing, listening, and speaking. Within the class of focus, the student’s primary language was Spanish.

In the course at the center of this study, students participated in an engineering design-based ELA curricular unit focused specifically on microelectronics, partially developed by their teacher. This district is classified as a small midwestern city. As part of a broader research initiative, the curricular unit was collaboratively created by a group of teachers, researchers, and graduate students. This collaborative process allowed the teacher to actively shape both the content and delivery methods used in their classroom. The unit implemented in this class centered around a fictional company aiming to reduce family screen time by introducing a new board game incorporating a microcontroller. Utilizing electronic tools such as the micro:bit (a tiny computer, sometimes referred to as a microcontroller, that allows students to explore how software and hardware work together), students went through the engineering design process to create their board game. Along the way students took part in informative writing, sequencing, and code writing. Given the ELA context for the unit implementation, a key goal as mentioned by the teacher was to strengthen students’ sequential writing abilities while introducing them to microelectronics through coding and the use of the micro:bit. The teacher’s prior STEM experience includes the use of the engineering design process and its related vocabulary throughout her standard curriculum during the school year. For this study, the focus of data collection was only on the lessons wherein students were making design decisions; therefore, not all of the lessons within this curriculum unit were analyzed. The findings start with the planning stage of the engineering design process. Prior to the planning stage, students explored the engineering design process, developed an understanding of microelectronics, and learned about their client. The client, which is an integral part of the curriculum unit, gives real-world context for the design challenge. Therefore, students are working through the engineering design process for a “real client” that keeps in communication with the class through multiple client letters throughout the unit. For this unit, the client is a company looking to revive interest in board games and reduce screen time for students and families. The client is planning to increase game board engagement through the addition of technology, more specifically a microcontroller. Lessons four through seven were the focus of this study. Lesson summaries (4–7), along with the objectives, can be seen below in Table 2. The lessons observed occurred over 21 class periods, with each class totaling 40 min. The lessons included in the analysis are the lessons shown in Table 2. Figure 1 shows the different board game templates students could choose from for this unit. Table 3 highlights the different board game themes that the students could choose from for their design activity.

Table 2. Curricular context of the microelectronics board game design STEM unit.

Lesson	Classes Observed	Lesson Objectives	Lesson Summary
4	3	Identify information gaps and rewrite poorly written instructions. Annotate and identify criteria and constraints in a client letter. Plan game concepts by brainstorming and reflecting on notebook prompts. Communicate in teams to finalize plans using evidence-based reasoning.	In this lesson students plan their board game designs (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Before planning, students revise a set of poorly written game instructions. Then they annotate a client memo, which provides additional criteria and constraints they will have to consider as they plan. Students spend time individually brainstorming their ideas then work in groups using evidence-based reasoning to justify their design decisions.
5	2	Explore sequencing through multi-modal representations. Code a micro:bit using block-based coding.	In this lesson students are introduced to coding and micro:bits through two different styles of activities. The unplugged activity involves putting together code (Block or Python) puzzle pieces. The plugged activity involves coding the micro:bit to fit within the constraints and criteria of the engineering design challenge. Students work with starter codes, which they can adapt to fit their design ideas.
6	5	Craft clear instructions using informative writing practices. Collaboratively construct a game prototype. Evaluate their game instructions through testing.	In this lesson students use their plans and knowledge of informative writing to compose the first draft of their instruction manuals and build their game prototypes. Once assembled, each team playtest their own game, then reflect and redesign based on what they learned from alpha testing.
7	2	Evaluate other teams’ designs using a rubric. Redesign their solution to the engineering challenge using evidence and feedback from other groups. Create a publishable quality version of their instructions for the client.	Students’ playtest other groups’ games and evaluate the quality of other games using a rubric that focuses on context, constraints, and playability. Then, students redesign their games and instructions after receiving feedback from their peers. Students use evidence-based reasoning to justify their redesign decisions. Students receive another client memo about presentation requirements.

Table 2. Curricular context of the microelectronics board game design STEM unit.

Lesson	Classes Observed	Lesson Objectives	Lesson Summary
4	3	Identify information gaps and rewrite poorly written instructions. Annotate and identify criteria and constraints in a client letter. Plan game concepts by brainstorming and reflecting on notebook prompts. Communicate in teams to finalize plans using evidence-based reasoning.	In this lesson students plan their board game designs (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Before planning, students revise a set of poorly written game instructions. Then they annotate a client memo, which provides additional criteria and constraints they will have to consider as they plan. Students spend time individually brainstorming their ideas then work in groups using evidence-based reasoning to justify their design decisions.
5	2	Explore sequencing through multi-modal representations. Code a micro:bit using block-based coding.	In this lesson students are introduced to coding and micro:bits through two different styles of activities. The unplugged activity involves putting together code (Block or Python) puzzle pieces. The plugged activity involves coding the micro:bit to fit within the constraints and criteria of the engineering design challenge. Students work with starter codes, which they can adapt to fit their design ideas.
6	5	Craft clear instructions using informative writing practices. Collaboratively construct a game prototype. Evaluate their game instructions through testing.	In this lesson students use their plans and knowledge of informative writing to compose the first draft of their instruction manuals and build their game prototypes. Once assembled, each team playtest their own game, then reflect and redesign based on what they learned from alpha testing.
7	2	Evaluate other teams’ designs using a rubric. Redesign their solution to the engineering challenge using evidence and feedback from other groups. Create a publishable quality version of their instructions for the client.	Students’ playtest other groups’ games and evaluate the quality of other games using a rubric that focuses on context, constraints, and playability. Then, students redesign their games and instructions after receiving feedback from their peers. Students use evidence-based reasoning to justify their redesign decisions. Students receive another client memo about presentation requirements.

Figure 1. This figure shows the different board game templates students could choose from. Group A chose template C and Group B chose template A.

Figure 1. This figure shows the different board game templates students could choose from. Group A chose template C and Group B chose template A.

Figure 2. Group A’s final board game design. Group A has most of their spaces labeled with a clear “Start” and “End”. There are additional spaces such as “Draw Card”, “Stuck”, and “Slip”, as well as various blank spots. In the middle of the board there is a place for the game cards, as well as a path that the game pieces can go down if a player lands on the “Slip” spot.

Figure 2. Group A’s final board game design. Group A has most of their spaces labeled with a clear “Start” and “End”. There are additional spaces such as “Draw Card”, “Stuck”, and “Slip”, as well as various blank spots. In the middle of the board there is a place for the game cards, as well as a path that the game pieces can go down if a player lands on the “Slip” spot.

Figure 3. Group B’s final board game design. There are different colors used on different squares. The board game template chosen appears to have a natural beginning and end.

Figure 3. Group B’s final board game design. There are different colors used on different squares. The board game template chosen appears to have a natural beginning and end.

Table 3. Each group had the choice to design their board game with one of the following themes. Group A chose vintage re-Vamped and Group B chose vintage re-Vamped.

Theme Name	Theme Description
Bilingual Boards	Bilingual Boards is focused on creating games to help students learn languages. The same rules of board game design apply, but the games for this division often involve gameplay (not just instructions) that use more than one language.
Games 4 Girls	Games 4 Girls is focused on creating games that are centered on girls’ interests. Their mission statement is “Games for all”. Game designers for this branch undertook research into how to appeal to the female demographic.
Kollaborative Kwests	Kollaborative Kwests is focused on “collaborative gameplay”. The designers dive into how to bring players together to solve problems and overcome challenges as a team. Players win when their team succeeds.
Athletic Adventures	Athletic Adventures is focused on creating board games with a theme of sports. The designers consider how to translate the traditional rules of a particular sport into a board game setting.
Vintage re-Vamped	Vintage re-Vamped is focused on putting modern twists on classic board games. This division finds way to reignite interest through the redesign of traditional board games.

Table 3. Each group had the choice to design their board game with one of the following themes. Group A chose vintage re-Vamped and Group B chose vintage re-Vamped.

Theme Name	Theme Description
Bilingual Boards	Bilingual Boards is focused on creating games to help students learn languages. The same rules of board game design apply, but the games for this division often involve gameplay (not just instructions) that use more than one language.
Games 4 Girls	Games 4 Girls is focused on creating games that are centered on girls’ interests. Their mission statement is “Games for all”. Game designers for this branch undertook research into how to appeal to the female demographic.
Kollaborative Kwests	Kollaborative Kwests is focused on “collaborative gameplay”. The designers dive into how to bring players together to solve problems and overcome challenges as a team. Players win when their team succeeds.
Athletic Adventures	Athletic Adventures is focused on creating board games with a theme of sports. The designers consider how to translate the traditional rules of a particular sport into a board game setting.
Vintage re-Vamped	Vintage re-Vamped is focused on putting modern twists on classic board games. This division finds way to reignite interest through the redesign of traditional board games.

Participants: Data for this study were collected from two groups and the teacher in a sixth-grade MLL classroom. The teacher was an author of the curriculum being implemented. Placement of the students into groups was determined by the teacher, without specific criteria for selection. Students’ primary language was Spanish; however, the students used English in the classroom.

Table 4. The student groups were separated into Group A and Group B. The student pseudonyms in each group are listed in the table.

Group	Student Pseudonyms
A	Antonio
A	Amber
A	Austin
A	Alice
A	Asher
B	Ben
B	Brandon
B	Blake

below provides pseudonyms for students involved.

The students in Group A consisted of four students: Antonio, Amber, Austin, and Alice. However, during the unit, Austin left the group for unknown reasons and Asher was added in his place. The addition of Asher into Group A helped shape the design of the students’ final project. The students in Group B consisted of Ben, Brandon, and Blake. These students seemed to be working as friends rather than classmates. Their collaboration was marked by a sense of camaraderie, suggesting a strong bond beyond the classroom. These groups demonstrated unique working styles, leading to intriguing insights.

4. Results and Discussion

The findings are organized into three themes that emerged from data analysis: Roles and Dynamics, Conflict, and Teacher Intervention. To address the research question of how small group interactions influence design decisions within an engineering design-based ELA unit for MLL, the researchers examined how each target group engaged with one another through the lens of Social Interdependence Theory (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The focus of this study was two groups, Group A and Group B. Both groups’ dynamics and interactions were characterized through their collaborative processes when designing in an engineering design-based unit. The findings demonstrate how interdependence structures shaped their design decision-making and interactions.

4.1. Interactions and Dynamics That Lead to Group Member Roles

Group roles and dynamics shape decision-making and collaboration within an engineering design-based project. Social Interdependence Theory provides a lens for understanding how group members influence each other through promotive and oppositional interactions, shaping productivity and engagement. In Group A, Antonio emerged as a leader, demonstrating both positive and negative interdependence by guiding tasks while sometimes stifling peer contributions; however, all group members frequently contributed, demonstrating positive social interdependence in the group overall. Group B struggled with engagement and control over resources, leading to frequent oppositional interactions that prevented collaborative decision-making. The groups’ dynamics exemplify how interdependence structures influence group collaboration and design decisions. Below, examples from the data of each group’s roles and dynamics are shared to illustrate what the researchers observed.

4.1.1. Group A

Leadership or Control

A consistent theme within Group A was how Antonio emerged as the leader of the group, often asserting his opinion, which impacted his group members’ collaboration when making decisions. For example, early in the planning process, Austin reminded the group of their task, stating, “We have to share the board game… our ideas”. The teacher intervened and asked Group A, “Did you share your ideas?” Antonio responded, “We did”, despite having discussed little as a group. While Austin demonstrated an understanding of positive outcome interdependence and promotive interaction by reminding the group of their shared goal, Antonio’s response to teacher intervention is evidence of oppositional interaction. In this case Antonio obstructed his teammate’s attempt to collectively accomplish a group goal in favor of individual productivity. Antonio then shared a design idea to the teacher as if it was the group’s choice, but the teacher noted that the decision seemed one-sided and encouraged Amber and Alice to share their design ideas. Here the teacher facilitated positive interdependence by including other group members in the task of making a design decision. By including other group members in the task, the teacher could be impacting the responsibility forces that help mitigate “social loafing”. This pattern highlights Antonio’s tendency to dominate the interactions surrounding decisions, as the other students appeared to comply rather than challenge the proposed idea. While dominating group decision-making, Antonio demonstrated both promotive and oppositional interaction types. For example, when Alice asked, “Do we have to write one criterion?” Antonio deflected, saying, “I don’t know, ask the teacher”, discouraging Alice’s effort to complete the task, which was oppositional in nature. However, when the teacher provided clarification, Antonio took an informal leadership role, guiding Amber and Alice through their responses, even going so far as to help fill in parts of their worksheets. This led to Antonio effectively “answering” for the group. By facilitating his teammates’ efforts in completing their tasks, Antonio demonstrated promotive interaction, while implicitly utilizing positive role interdependence and appropriate social skills by acting as a leader and summarizer while supporting his teammates.

A shift to positive interdependence occurred after completing the initial coding task, when Antonio shared his success, “I did it, look, look, come here, come here!” This excitement extended as Antonio quickly took the teacher-provided code template and began helping Amber with her code. Both students worked together until they completed Amber’s code. Antonio then said, “We did it!”, showing a shift from individual to collaborative problem-solving through promotive interaction. Antonio then continued supporting his group members who had not yet finished coding.

Early in the planning stage, Antonio and Austin were absent for a day and Alice temporarily emerged as the leader. Despite working collaboratively, Alice chose to maintain physical control over the planning sheet while students began to plan as a group. At times Alice displayed reluctance to share decision-making authority with Asher, who replaced Austin. At first by acting as both leader and recorder, Alice restricted the potential for positive role-based interdependence in the group; however, she soon demonstrated promotive interaction by displaying trust in the new group member and handing over control. For instance, Asher tried to reach for the planning sheet, and Alice held it back until finally allowing Asher to sketch the game board layout. These interactions demonstrate ownership and control, with Alice asserting individual responsibility over the design decisions of the group project. When Antonio was absent, the interactions between Amber and Alice, with occasional input from Asher, revealed a dynamic marked by role shifts as Antonio and Austin were not present during this decision-making process. Asher joined the group during this stage, and replaced Austin for the rest of the unit.

After they designed and assembled the prototype for their game, students tested another group’s game. When playtesting the game, the students showed initial interest or individual accountability, particularly Antonio, who again took a leadership role in evaluating the game. This structured peer evaluation momentarily re-centered students, providing them with a clear task and goal, allowing them to complete the evaluation rubric on context, constraints, and playability with positive outcome and means interdependence. Antonio continued to take control by grabbing the feedback papers first, demonstrating a strong influence over the group’s process. While leadership dynamics remained a strong theme throughout the group’s decision-making process, the students in Group A often split up tasks, and demonstrated positive social interdependence as they collaborated to accomplish their shared goal.

Shared Sense of Ownership

Despite the leadership dynamics, there were moments of effective collaboration within the group. Each student demonstrated a sense of ownership over the project to varying degrees. Antonio appeared invested in the overall design and remained hands-on, selecting colors and instructing others on placements. He initially took charge of design decisions, instructing other group members on what role they would play in creating the board game design. When initiating the plan for decorating the board, Antonio assigned roles based on perceived strengths. First, he directed Asher, saying, “How about you make the popsicles right here”, pointing to the corner of the board, then explained “and I’ll make the squiggly line here”. Asher clarified by asking, “Like this?” and pointing to their planning sheet. Antonio confirmed, responding “Yeah, we’re going to do it exactly like this”. Alice volunteered to help Asher and suggested that Antonio complete his task first. Then Antonio and Asher both voiced the suggestion that Amber should write the letters due to their “nice handwriting”. As they continued planning and trying out their plan, the group showed positive interdependence through means interdependence. While Antonio may have led the initial task assignment, the group worked together to make decisions about how their board should look and accomplished the goal with full engagement and participation from all group members. Amber, though less vocal, was attentive to detail, asking questions about layout and suggesting preliminary steps (e.g., sketching in pencil) to improve quality. Alice and Asher, meanwhile, focused on the coloring and details, with Alice asking before drawing new elements to confirm alignment with the group’s vision. Asher prompted the group to finish their game cards and assigning tasks, like asking Alice to gather materials since they were nearby. Later in the process, Asher also showed ownership over the game board’s visual design, asking questions about drawing choices, showing the teacher specific design details, and continuing to work on coloring up until the cleanup time. Meanwhile, Amber and Alice focused on creating game cards, demonstrating a division of labor that allowed the group to tackle multiple aspects of the project simultaneously, as this was their last class to design their board. Although no student initially volunteered to handle coding, Alice eventually took the lead with the laptop after the teacher encouraged them to attempt it. This shared task ownership showed that each student valued specific parts of the process.

Each individual’s interaction style within Group A was varied, with Austin largely working independently and showing little interaction with others, whereas Antonio and Amber engaged actively with each other. Asher took on an organizational role and collaborated quietly with Alice, who engaged with all group members differently depending on the task at hand. This contrast in interaction styles shows how individual work preferences influenced Group A’s dynamics for this piece of the engineering design process. Antonio and Amber’s collaborative efforts allowed them to have a shared problem-solving experience. However, the group’s interactions originally centered around Antonio’s approach, where he directed other students’ moves, but as the project moved forward, he took a less domineering approach, while still remaining the leader of the group.

4.1.2. Group B

Disengaged and Disconnected

In the beginning of the planning stage, Group B struggled to remain engaged when discussing their individual ideas for their board game design. Blake exhibited resource interdependence by physically holding the game board templates, limiting others’ access to them until the teacher intervened and placed the templates in the middle of the table. Despite this redirection, Ben and Brandon continued to interact off-task during this class period. Blake became frustrated, expressing to the teacher, “I don’t know how to do this because they keep talking…and I could not focus”. Ben and Brandon’s interactions often led to disruptions, including physical distractions. That led to Ben opting for individual accountability rather than group accountability. Ben seemed to want to complete the task and shifted toward working alone.

When it became time to select an idea for the group’s board game, Blake tried to encouraged participation by saying, “Okay guys, we have to share ideas for each”, but receiving minimal response from the other people in the group. When the teacher asked if they had made a decision, Brandon claimed his idea was the final choice, stating, “Mine because it’s better”, showing oppositional interaction. When Ben was asked of his opinion, he had said “Which one is easier” before agreeing with Brandon’s suggestion. The group’s final design idea became Brandon’s “Food Land” board game, justified only by Brandon’s claim that it was “more fun” than Blake’s choice. Blake demonstrated promotive interaction by encouraging conversation; however, his efforts were met with minimal response.

Brandon and Blake demonstrated a struggle for control over the group’s design decisions. Brandon threw the graphic organizer into the center of the table, and Blake then claimed ownership over the graphic organizer, demonstrating oppositional interaction. Blake then suggested an idea and Brandon asserted, “We chose my design, not yours”. Blake responded, “I don’t care, you picked one so fast”, highlighting a clash of design ideas, where Brandon’s assertive style often led to unilateral decisions. Choices for the theme of the board game and the number of players created an atmosphere where one student’s input overshadowed the others. Brandon often led the decision-making process, as demonstrated by his firm choice to use dice over cards, even when it was not immediately well-received by his team member Blake.

When the group finished designing their board game and moved into playtesting, Ben noted that the game needed “more cards”. The group’s engagement stopped there, demonstrating oppositional interaction, as there was no encouragement from group members to achieve the goal intended through playtesting. Despite encouragement from the teacher to make specific changes to the instructions, their engagement waned as soon as the teacher left. During the reflection period, Brandon was either entirely disengaged or required specific prompts to contribute. Students were learning to integrate the micro:bit into their board game design, when Brandon found some completed micro:bit code on the group’s laptop and asked, “Why can’t I just submit that?”, demonstrating low intrinsic motivation. Throughout the activity, students tended to work in parallel rather than engaging in meaningful collaboration. Blake’s query, “How do you do this?” went unanswered by peers, leaving them reliant on teacher support instead, demonstrating oppositional interaction. Even when the teacher prompted the group with a question about the dice, only Ben responded. Although no other team member contributed to the conversation, Ben’s response was not favorably received by Blake. As a result, Blake gave away the responsibility of recording the decision by telling Brandon, “Then you write it”. Group B seemed to show oppositional interaction and low promotive interaction. The groups interactions seemed to be encouraged by Blake, but the decisions were predominantly made by Brandon, with Ben choosing the easy and fun route.

Designing Together

While Group B had interactions that were characterized as oppositional, they also demonstrated promotive interaction when they were engaging in tasks to design their board game. For example, when students explored the sound feature in the micro:bit, engagement seemed to climb, with Brandon asking, “how did y’all get the music thing?” This showed a shift in attention toward an element they found entertaining. While the sound element did not get implemented in their final design, this showed a shift in minimal group discussion to collaborative exploration. Group B did struggle with meeting the microcontroller criteria for the assignment; however, it was one of the times where they were most engaged in learning and demonstrated promotive interaction.

During a discussion on how to play a student designed board game, Group B participated heavily in the discussion, sharing thoughts on game strategy, special scenarios to make the game exciting, and how to determine a winner of the game. While writing directions for their board game, Group B moved their chairs closer together and worked as a team, per the teacher’s suggestion. Ben asked, “What do we need” when referring to the microelectronic materials required for the game, while Brandon checked with the teacher on writing a narrative versus making a list in the materials section of the instructions. For a full 15 min in that class period, Ben and Brandon took turns writing the directions. Blake displayed promotive interaction by proposing ideas for the game cards, like “move forwards or move backwards” and creating “good and bad cards”; these suggestions were met with limited feedback from the group. However, the group did demonstrate means interdependence when they split up the tasks for creating pieces of their board game. When the teacher asked the group how they could complete their board, Blake said “Everybody has to do something”, Ben said, “I can make cards”, and Brandon began to hand out the markers for them all to get to work showing means interdependence and promotive interaction. Ben volunteered to write the code for the game dice, responding with enthusiasm to the teacher’s question with, “Me! I’m good [at coding]”. The group had moments of being off-task, and the teacher reminded students about the game cards, where Brandon said they forgot about the cards because they “blended in with the table”. Blake began to focus on the cards, while Ben and Brandon split the board coloring of the game board. When Brandon made a mistake on the board design by not consulting the board design sketched during earlier collaborations, Blake coached him through a way to correct the mistake, and there was a moment of additional collaboration about the board design. This interaction showed promotive interaction, where Blake helped Brandon to achieve the group’s goal of the board game design. Group B did show ownership toward the end of the design process when they were creating their physical game board, with more ownership in the designing phase of the engineering design process rather than the planning or brainstorming.

Each student in Group B demonstrated different interaction and dynamics styles, with Blake trying to create promotive interaction, but not being acknowledged by Ben and Bradon, whereas Brandon drove a lot of the group’s decisions, with Ben usually just being passive and agreeing with Brandon’s suggestions. These interactions demonstrate how different students can collaborate to make design decisions in engineering design process. Similar to Group A, Brandon made a lot of design decisions for Group B, but still allowed the group to progress in the engineering design process.

4.1.3. Group A and Group B Interactions and Dynamics

Using Social Interdependence Theory (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009), this section examines the interactions and dynamics across Group A and Group B that influenced engagement, decision-making, and group dynamics. Social Interdependence Theory posits that the way group members perceive their interdependence relates to their interactions, which shapes cooperative, competitive, or individualistic engagement styles. In Group A, Antonio emerged as the leader, both facilitating and restricting collaboration. Antonio’s enthusiasm for coding positioned him as the decision-maker, fostering promotive interaction by guiding solutions but also creating dependency, limiting others’ participation. While enthusiasm spiked with successful coding breakthroughs, moments of oppositional interdependence arose when members felt excluded. The group’s dynamics led to efficient task execution but uneven engagement. Group B had a decentralized but unstructured leadership dynamic. Brandon led discussions, but his indecisiveness stalled progress. Blake attempted to balance participation, sometimes challenging Brandon’s authority, creating a competitive interdependence dynamic where roles were negotiated rather than assumed. There was no clear leader with coding expertise; therefore, the group struggled with focus and progress. While microcontroller tasks briefly unified them, inconsistent decision-making hindered collaboration.

Research highlights the importance of clearly defined roles and communication in group work (Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022). Group dynamics in learning settings are shaped by academic and social factors, influencing participation and leadership roles (Wieselmann et al., 2020). Both groups faced challenges with inclusivity; Group A’s structure limited contributions outside Antonio’s leadership, while in Group B, Ben’s ideas were often overlooked. Group A demonstrated the stronger integration of coding elements, while Group B’s lack of focus led to prioritizing quick decisions over collaboration. These interaction patterns illustrate how social interdependence shapes group dynamics. Group A’s structured but leader-dominated approach led to moments of disengagement despite efficient execution. Group B’s open but unfocused approach fostered some dialogue but resulted in random decision-making. Effective collaboration requires a balance of promotive interaction, equitable role distribution, and shared decision-making (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993).

4.2. Managing Conflict

Collaborative design processes naturally involve negotiation, disagreement, and conflict as students make decisions. Group A and Group B approached conflict differently, with Group A engaging in negotiation despite oppositional moments, while Group B exhibited minimal debate. Often, both groups deferred to a single decision-maker, either Antonio in Group A or Brandon in Group B. The groups presented contrasting patterns that showed the role of outcome and resource interdependence in creating, or preventing constructive engagement. Analyzing the groups’ interactions when it came to conflicts let us understand how group structures influence design decisions in collaborative learning environments.

4.2.1. Group A

Negotiation vs. Domination

Group A students showed a tendency to prioritize group consensus over individual brainstorming, reflecting positive outcome interdependence. However, even when participating in negotiation, Antonio dominated the conversation. For instance, when picking templates, Antonio stated, “I want to do this one”. Amber suggested a different template than Antonio’s selection and Antonio asked for Alice’s opinion. This led to a conflict among the group, ending with Antonio suggesting they “rock, paper, scissors” to resolve the issue. Antonio won the game and declared, “I want this one”, prompting the group to defer to his choice.

When the group received their planning document from the day Antonio was absent, Antonio expressed dissatisfaction with using dice and questioned why the group chose a different template from the one selected during brainstorming, saying, “Why are we doing dice? Why are we being simple?” This reaction shows a misalignment in the group’s expectations, with Antonio dissatisfied with the direction decided on during his absence. Alice’s attempt to explain the team’s decision, coupled with Antonio’s resistance, reflects a challenge in maintaining continuity within the team’s design decisions. This occurred multiple times as Antonio continued to questions the board game idea on the planning sheet, saying “I thought we were doing this one!” pointing to one of the templates on the planning sheet that was not chosen by the team. Again, Alice justified the design decisions and explained who chose each component of the board game plan. Antonio’s claim that the game was “really boring” allowed students to discuss new ideas for their game board design. Antonio continued to express a lack of interest, questioning the design’s creativity, claiming that his own idea would have been better. Most of these interactions can be classified as oppositional interactions, where Antonio was obstructing the efforts of his other groupmates to achieve the goal of designing a board game. However, it could also be seen as outcome interdependence, as the goal in Antonio’s mind was different than the current team goal; however, he wanted to work toward his idea.

This tension seemed to be temporarily resolved when Antonio saw the drawing of the board game plan and asked “Who drew this? It’s actually really good”. While Antonio was absent, Asher joined the group and Alice explained that he was the one who did the drawing. Although seemingly frustrated at the progress made without him present, Antonio participated in group processing, as he determined how Asher added potential value to the overall outcome of the group’s design solution. This could have helped redefine the boundary interdependence of the discontinuous group.

When working on their prototype, the students faced several moments of disagreement, particularly regarding the application of their design details. In these instances, it was common for Antonio to dominate the resources and demonstrate a lack of appropriate use of social skills. Although Antonio was quick to decide on colors and layout, other students offered alternative suggestions. For instance, before Amber began tracing the general layout on the game board, Asher said “I gotta say something before we start. The start is going to be right there, right?”, questioning where the players will begin the game on the board. Antonio replied “Yeah” then Asher asked, “Where’s the end?” Antonio said “The end is going to be right here, right?” pointing at a place on the board. Asher tried to question this multiple times but Amber and Antonio talked over Asher when he questioned the layout and game rules, while Amber continued tracing their design on the board. This trend of Antonio persisting with his initial ideas continued, sometimes dismissing these suggestions as he dominated the group decisions without any discussion until the teacher intervened to move the table and resources to a more central location for the group, as described in the following section on teacher intervention. Later on, Alice voiced frustration when Asher and Antonio posed questions regarding game mechanics (e.g., whether it would be a team game), showing signs of decision fatigue or frustration with the lack of consensus. After tracing out some of the spaces, while group members suggested many different ideas, Alice said “Okay I’m finished!” and walked away. However, they still worked through decisions together, such as discussing card mechanics and board decoration.

When one student, such as Antonio, dominates design decisions, it can shift the dynamics of the group project, leading others to agree passively rather than actively contribute to the group’s design. Despite being encouraged by the teacher to share their ideas, Amber and Alice appeared hesitant to challenge Antonio’s proposal, while Asher’s moments of negotiation were frequently ignored, reflecting a pattern wherein Antonio’s leadership stifled or dominated independent input. Even during negotiations, there was a lack of social interdependence reflected through negative resource interdependence and the lack of appropriate use of social skills.

4.2.2. Group B

Design-Decisions Without Consensus

Group B experienced oppositional interaction and resource interdependence that allowed for design decisions to be predominately made by Brandon. There was not a lot of conflict or argumentation when it came to design decisions outside of the brainstorming phase when the group was ideating their game board design. The conflict that was observed was during the initial brainstorming, where the group struggled to commit to an idea. Blake said, “I want to do a vintage risk [theme]”, and Brandon said, “No, no”. followed by “I want to do candy land [theme]”, and then Ben said “shhhh”. The group decided on a theme; when the teacher inquired about what theme the group selected, without further group discussion Brandon told the teacher the group was going to do a Candyland game. The teacher provided the feedback that they could not copy an existing game, and so Brandon said “Food Land”, hence going with the vintage re-vamped theme. While there was feedback about Brandon choosing the idea by himself, there was limited conflict or further discussion about the groups now-chosen board game theme. However, this example demonstrates resource interdependence, as Brandon needed the assistance of his group mates to complete the project, but the group did not share the common vision of the game board design.

Group B’s adoption of Brandon’s design decisions and the teacher’s guidance was not enough to overcome the group’s general disengagement and conflicts, which led to a fragmented planning process. The group demonstrated oppositional interaction while sitting in the space of unresolved conflict, specifically around the choice of board game design made by Brandon. Blake suggested an idea that Brandon dismissed, asserting, “We chose my design, not yours”. This statement, and Blake’s response, “I don’t care, you picked one so fast”, highlight a clash of design ideas, but the conflict was not resolved; rather, Blake accepted Brandon’s assertive approach to the groups design decisions. Furthermore, when the students were planning a part of their board game design there was conflict, as Brandon’s firm choice of using dice over cards was not well-received by Blake, and it became an unresolved conflict. This singular decision led to further frustration, with Blake eventually handing over the responsibility of recording the decision to Brandon, saying, “Then you write it”. Brandon, not content with the design decisions being made, did not want to record the decisions since the opportunity for collaboration was being overlooked. Additionally, Group B challenged the teacher’s guidance, resulting in an unfinished set of game instructions. Although the teacher encouraged the group to follow the intended design procedures, the students resisted, modifying their game instructions. When the teacher suggested adjustments, Blake dismissed these ideas, insisting that their instructions were “fine”. Ben noted that the game needed “more cards”, but the team’s engagement stopped there. Lastly, Group B displayed oppositional interaction while in the redesign phase, when Ben and Brandon demonstrated a reluctance to engage in the redesign process. When encouraged to include the name of their game in the playtesting instructions, Ben responded, “The name of the game is ‘The Name of the Game’...” and laughed. When the teacher encouraged them to think about the number of players for the game, Brandon responded with “any number”. When Ben suggested, “Four” Brandon responded with “No!”.

Overall, Group B demonstrated that Brandon’s decisions were singular, creating conflict with Ben and Blake. The unresolved conflict could have led to Ben and Blake not feeling ownership or engaged in working on the board game design.

4.2.3. Group A and Group B in Conflict

Throughout the board game design unit, students engaged in design decision-making, creating opportunities for conflict. Using Social Interdependence Theory (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009), this section examines how Group A and Group B navigated conflict, reflecting different interdependence structures that shaped their design processes.

Both groups faced challenges in integrating strong information into their decision-making, despite the curriculum’s emphasis on evidence-based reasoning (Meyer, 2018; Siverling et al., 2021). While teachers encouraged students to rely on strong information to support their design choices, students often defaulted to weak information instead (Meyer, 2018). This distinction played a role in how conflict unfolded in each group. Group A engaged in persistent negotiation, with Antonio asserting control but allowing some group discussion. Their conflicts, though oppositional at times, contributed to an evolving design process where members adjusted based on peer feedback. In contrast, Group B’s conflicts were brief and often silenced, leading to disengagement rather than constructive resolution. Group A struggled with Antonio’s leadership but worked through their disagreements, while Group B’s lack of sustained debate resulted in a design process mainly determined by one member, with minimal group input.

These findings align with Social Interdependence Theory, illustrating how different interdependence structures impact group interactions (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Group A’s mix of outcome and boundary interdependence fostered moments of promotive interaction despite conflict. Group B’s reliance on individual control limited meaningful collaboration, reinforcing the importance of balanced leadership and shared decision-making for effective teamwork. Key factors like fair participation, clear communication, and effective conflict resolution are essential for successful teamwork (Griffiths et al., 2021; Denis & Umoh, 2024). Additionally, peer leadership significantly impacts group performance; Dym et al. (2005) found that teams adopting shared leadership structures often achieve better outcomes compared to those with rigid hierarchies. Promoting collective responsibility within groups can strengthen student ownership with the design process and improve group member accountability. Ultimately, the differences between the groups show how structured decision-making frameworks can help students apply evidence-based reasoning and develop stronger collaboration skills.

4.3. Teacher Intervention for Positive Goal Interdependence

The teacher served as a catalyst for on-task behavior and focus during this unit for both groups. As each group needed the teacher to intervene at various points, it can be said that the teacher’s intervention was key to keeping students focused on positive goal interdependence, as the teacher wanted to promote high achievement and greater productivity among the groups to complete their board game design. Group A seemed to need less intervention, as Antonio seemed to emerge as a leader, encouraging the group to complete tasks, whereas group B seemed to rely more on teacher intervention in order to maintain positive interdependence in relation to their board game design.

4.3.1. Group A

Balancing Individual and Group Responsibilities

Group A exhibited intermittent off-task behavior, with the teacher stepping in to refocus them by asking questions or reiterating the task at hand. For example, after students used rock, paper, scissors to decide on which template they wanted to use, the teacher intervened to remind the group about the importance of individual brainstorming before group discussion about their board game design. After the teacher walked up to the group, Antonio told the teacher “We agreed on one”. The teacher responded, “Oh, but you’re supposed to be doing this by yourself first, and then tomorrow is when you meet in your groups and come to an agreement all together, okay”. The teacher then walked through the other decisions they still needed to make in the planning process. Without a group-focused task, the members of Group A started discussing unrelated topics and had no reason to maintain positive interdependence for the rest of the individualized task. Antonio returned to the task but frequently drifted his attention, discussing off-topic matters until prompted again.

In another instance, the teacher’s guidance helped refocus their efforts when tension arose, particularly when they provided input on integrating cards into the game, which Alice found helpful and incorporated into the plan. When the teacher checked on the group’s planning process, she walked through their design confirming the decisions they had made so far, then said, “here you have cards, how do the cards fit into the game?” to which Alice replied, “um, I don’t know”. The teacher referenced games where “certain spots say draw a card”, suggesting the group “could have certain places that say draw cards”. The teacher also asked, “Do you want it to be every time you roll you also draw a card?” Alice responded saying “draw a card” without interacting with the group, and eventually incorporated the teacher’s suggestion. This showed a lack of promotive interaction between group members as they did not all participate in the discussion with the teacher about their shared task. Teacher intervention served as an important support structure that helped the group clarify design decisions; however, as in this instance, the intervention sometimes focused on conversations with a single group member, missing an opportunity to build positive interdependence across the group members.

When carrying out their plan on the physical game board template, Antonio and Amber had resources close to them as they traced out the layout, leaving little for Asher and Alice to contribute to. During this time the teacher suggested that the group move one of the tables out of the way so that Alice and Asher “can reach the board” and “help Antonio”. Antonio seemed to be resistant to the suggestion, saying “we’re just tracing it”, but the teacher reiterated that with the table moved, the students “can all reach the board easier”. Then the teacher moved the table and placed all of the materials and resources on the middle of the group. This allowed for Asher and Alice to actively participate in implementing their design ideas and ended up providing positive resource interdependence within the group.

The teacher actively intervened by providing resources, clarifying instructions, and offering support with tools like the micro:bit to redirect students to the task at hand. Despite the teacher’s intentions to support resource and task interdependence, students in Group A did not always incorporate the teacher’s recommendations. As a result, the students struggled with balancing the individual and group responsibilities within a given task, which can be interpreted as a lack of positive social interdependence. As seen below, the teacher’s interactions with Group A vs. Group B were fairly different in nature.

4.3.2. Group B

Refocusing Student Efforts Through Positive Reinforcement

Group B had moments of productivity when it came to designing their physical board game template; however, the moments leading to that, and other moments after in the redesign phase, were guided by teacher intervention. The teacher was jumpstarting promotive interaction and positive interdependence. For example, the teacher’s guidance refocused the group on specific aspects of the design, like the number of players and materials needed. The students had conflicting responses to the teacher’s encouragement to work on their design idea, which demonstrated the group’s continued difficulty in reaching consensus on their board game design. The group showed resource interdependence when they should have been making collaborative design decisions, but they did not share a common vision with their board game design. Therefore, the teacher intervened again to remind the students of the aspects they need for their board game. Blake resumed work on the graphic organizer, focusing on the details of the group’s board game design, while Brandon and Ben’s disruptive behavior often diverted focus from design planning. This behavior limited the group’s ability to discuss their design ideas in depth, and the off-task actions likely impacted their capacity for thorough decision-making. Although Blake attempted to refocus on completing the worksheet, the group members switched frequently between focusing on the task and off-task behavior, reflecting low outcome interdependence.

The continuation of Group B’s low outcome interdependence occurred when students were not able to determine where to start with their physical board design. The teacher praised their sketch from the planning phase saying, “You came up with that cool design. How can we recreate that? That looks really cool!”. The teacher continuously checked on Group B’s progress, with reminders like “keep going”. Promotive interaction was encouraged again when the teacher encouraged Group B to improve their game instructions, saying “Do you think we could figure out where a period could go [in that sentence]”. Additionally, the teacher helped the group recover instructions they accidentally deleted, all the while encouraging them “That reads so much better!” The teacher was encouraging promotive interaction among the group members to motivate the group to achieve the goal of completing their board game design.

Means to Promote Collaborative Design

For the group’s board game design, the teacher reminded students about their game cards, and the students briefly refocused. Additionally, the teacher encouraged the students to rearrange the desks so that each member of the team could easily access the game board and contribute to the design in hopes of outcome and mean interdependence. The teacher wanted students to work together and be productive. Without constant intervention, students returned to unrelated activities. The teacher attempted various strategies to re-engage the group. The teacher involved the group in the discussion by asking, “What can we do to get your board done today?” These efforts were effective; for example, after the teacher reminded students about the design plan and directed them to specific colors, students Ben, Brandon and Blake began coloring the game board squares.

In instances where students appeared unsure or were stalling, the teacher stepped in to facilitate means interdependence. However, when Blake was unable to find a marker, he asked for the teacher’s help. The reliance on the teacher indicated a low level of positive goal interdependence. Blake’s effort was low and there was minimal desire to achieve the goal of completing the board game design.

Disregarding Teacher Suggestions

Lastly, when the group began playtesting, Brandon placed his game piece at the start of the game and Ben said, “You go first!” Ben and Blake each took a turn. But when the directions they had written were in opposition to how they wanted to play the game, the group did not take the opportunity to re-design their instructions. Although the teacher encouraged the group to follow the rules they originally designed, the students resisted. The teacher was met with the same response after suggesting redesigning their board game instructions. When the teacher suggested adjustments, Blake dismissed these ideas, insisting that their instructions were “fine”. The teacher was encouraging outcome interdependence; however, the group was exhibiting oppositional interaction toward the teacher’s suggestions. The reluctance to engage in work was a recurring theme throughout Group B, even when encouraged by the teacher.

While Group B had moments of promotive interaction, with some moments fueled by teacher encouragement and some fueled by the group’s own motivation, their design decisions were often fragmented. Group B’s reliance on the teacher for guidance, reminders, and even logistical support indicated low levels of outcome and goal interdependence. Although there were instances where students worked together, such as when they collectively colored the game board squares, these moments were often infrequent and required teacher prompting. Even in the playtesting phase, the group resisted refining their design based on their own instructions, further illustrating their reluctance to engage in the project. Positive reinforcement helped redirect their attention at times; however, Group B’s design decisions could have benefitted from more collaborative decision-making.

4.3.3. Group A and Group B with Teacher Intervention

The dynamics of teacher interventions varied between Group A and Group B. In Group A, the teacher’s interventions helped refine the group’s design decisions, and while Antonio’s occasional disengagement was a challenge, the group seemed to benefit more from the teacher’s guidance as she encouraged positive interdependence. Group A had Antonio as the leader, encouraging his peers, which allowed for more independent work, although the group’s collaboration was still disrupted at times by Antonio’s off-task behavior. In contrast, Group B demonstrated a higher reliance on teacher guidance. The teacher stepped in frequently to prevent off-task behavior and ensure that all group members contributed to the design process. The group’s low positive interdependence was shown through Ben’s minimal participation and the group’s struggle to reach consensus on design decisions. Group B’s interactions for design decisions that progressed the design forward were motivated heavily by teacher intervention. Both groups faced challenges with engagement and collaboration, but Group A integrated teacher input into their design process, whereas Group B appeared to lack the intrinsic motivation needed to fully engage with the task. Group B relied on the teacher, suggesting a lack of ownership in the design decisions.

The role of teachers in facilitating engineering design-based curricula within student groups is pivotal. Teachers’ guidance during engineering design processes fosters authentic classroom discourse, enabling students to share, build upon, and respond to each other’s ideas effectively (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019). Furthermore, integrating engineering design into teaching requires teachers to adopt the role of facilitators, creating a classroom climate that encourages active learning (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2019; Ejiwale, 2012). This shift supports students in reaching higher levels of understanding and skill development (Ejiwale, 2012). While Group A responded to the teacher’s guidance and refined their design ideas, Group B showed reliance on the teacher for validation rather than independent problem-solving. These results align with the literature on collaborative learning, emphasizing the importance of the engagement and participation of all students in group tasks (Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022). This study also highlights the importance of balancing teacher intervention with student autonomy. Ultimately, small-group collaboration in the engineering design process presents both opportunities and challenges.

Hands-on, team-based approaches can enhance student engagement in STEM by fostering meaningful interactions and problem-solving experiences (Wieselmann et al., 2020). However, to maximize the benefits of collaborative learning, educators must consider how students negotiate roles, make decisions, and engage with complex concepts (Yuen et al., 2014). This study highlights the importance of structuring group interactions in a way that promotes equitable participation, leadership development, and shared decision-making, ensuring that all students contribute meaningfully to the engineering design process.

In conclusion, both groups benefitted from teacher interventions. Group A’s partial autonomy and leadership dynamics allowed for more productive engagement, while Group B’s dependency on the teacher demonstrated the challenges of fostering meaningful collaboration without strong intrinsic motivation. The students final board game designs can be seen above, with Group A’s final board game design in Figure 2 and Group B’s final board game design in Figure 3. The teacher’s role was vital in both groups, but the level of student engagement and ownership played a critical role in determining how students made design decisions and interacted throughout the engineering design process.

4.4. Overarching Discussion

This study aimed to answer the research question, “how do small group interactions influence design decisions within an engineering design-based ELA unit for MLL?” The Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning Framework (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009) was used to interpret how group dynamics and teacher interventions affected the design process. While both groups experienced challenges, Group A exhibited more positive group dynamics despite occasional leadership struggles. Group B faced disengagement and passive participation due to a lack of sustained collaboration. These differences in group interdependence align with research on collaborative learning, where factors such as power dynamics, social roles, and communication significantly shape group interactions (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018).

Group A seemed to take on roles demonstrating strong means interdependence, as indicated by the strong leadership dynamics. Even on the days where Antonio was not present, a group member stepped in to take control of the task at hand. Due to the strong interdependence when making decisions, Group A did not require a lot of teacher intervention. However, equal participation and a structured process for decision-making could have been improved with targeted teacher intervention, including discussions of positive teamwork skills (Dym et al., 2005).

Group B demonstrated oppositional interactions and low outcome interdependence. This was seen when Blake tried to encourage the group at different points but was either not acknowledged or shut down. Ben and Brandon seemed not interested in the board game design. It appeared Brandon made most of the decisions for the board game design. The roles and interactions shifted throughout the unit, demonstrating the fluidity of group dynamics (S. Pattison et al., 2020). Group B demonstrated promotive interaction while developing their board game template. Their engagement and collaboration were strong during the coloring and game card creation phase, where they appeared most invested in the task and worked together effectively. Group B’s limited outcome interdependence and moments of oppositional interaction suggest that without a shared sense of responsibility and balanced participation, collaborative learning experiences can be fragmented and can impact the design process and the final design.

The findings reveal that group brainstorming and planning stages played an important role in shaping the project outcomes. Group A engaged in more thorough group planning and approached the design implementation with a clear idea, while Group B, with less group planning, approached the design implementation with a decision-making-as-you-go approach. The level of collaboration among students in each group was tied to their sense of ownership over the board game design and their motivation to contribute and complete the project (Okolie et al., 2021). Thus, it was essential that every student in the group had the opportunity to share their ideas, be heard, and take on a specific role that would keep engagement in the design process high (Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022). Educators can promote deeper engagement and more cohesive collaboration through role assignment and create more collaborative design outcomes.

A strong piece of the framework which was not apparent in either group was group processing (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Group processing happens when team members (a) evaluate which actions are beneficial or detrimental and (b) decide which actions to maintain or adjust (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009). The goal of group processing is to enhance and refine how effectively members perform the tasks needed to accomplish the group’s objectives. Group A had only a brief instance of acknowledgement of some of the group members’ strengths, but this information was not used for further reflection or adjustment to group roles or task assignment later on. Group B did not part take in group processing, and it was not included within the curriculum. The results show us that the students and the teacher could use self and peer evaluation at different points within the design process. As D. W. Johnson and Johnson (2009) mentioned, they found that participants who worked together and undertook group processing (where they reflected on their work as a group) scored higher in daily achievement, post-instructional achievement, and retention compared to participants who worked together without group processing, or who worked individually. Therefore, when implementing an engineering design-based unit in a classroom that does not traditionally work in small design groups, it can be helpful to include group processing in the curriculum.

Engineering design tasks offer precollege students opportunities to develop arguments and make decisions based on evidence (Siverling et al., 2021). While there were places on the game board planning worksheets for students to use evidence-based reasoning, there was little use of evidence-based reasoning in design decision conversations and conflicts. This may be due, in part, to the teacher not actively reinforcing the use of evidence-based reasoning during these discussions, resulting in students relying more on or peer influence rather than structured reasoning. Siverling et al. (2021) mentioned that when elementary students engage in design discussions, they can make more reflective decisions by considering multiple design ideas, weighing the strengths and weaknesses of different ideas, selecting an approach, identifying design flaws, and suggesting improvements. Hence, a teacher’s understanding of evidence-based reasoning in engineering design tasks, especially when it is integrated in a non-traditional STEM discipline, can allow students to enhance their critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

Implementing an engineering design-based unit into an MLL ELA classroom proved to have its challenges and its benefits. When thinking about how this unit can allow MLL students to understand the microelectronic field, we can see that it can be based on not only the students’ interest, but also on the collaborative social interdependence within a group. MLL students are diverse, as they come from a range of socio-economic backgrounds, possess varying levels of English proficiency, and have different levels of exposure to the STEM curriculum (Grapin et al., 2023). However, as Siverling et al. (2021) and Shanahan et al. (2018) found, the implementation of journals where students record their design decisions has been shown to help students explain their design decisions. During this project, each student used an engineering notebook throughout the unit. However, more research is needed to focus in on the strategies the teacher used to foster the four language domains of reading, writing, listening, and speaking that this class was created for strengthening. Additionally, although the curriculum unit aimed to build students’ competencies in microelectronics, it remains unclear to what extent students developed an understanding of these concepts throughout the unit. While the students used the micro:bit for their board game designs, the students made limited design decisions around the micro:bit. The teacher provided students with the code for their micro:bit, highlighting the need for further research on how non-STEM teachers use and integrate microcontrollers in their classrooms, as well as how this integration impacts student learning. Exploring this topic could provide valuable insights for educators looking to incorporate integrative STEM units into non-STEM settings.

In conclusion, group interactions and dynamics play a big role in shaping the design process within an engineering design-based ELA unit for MLL students. The findings show how effective both group planning and brainstorming are in guiding design decisions and outcomes, with Group A demonstrating clear design implementation due to thorough planning, whereas Group B’s decision-making-as-you-go approach, driven by limited planning and sporadic collaboration, resulted in a fragmented design process. These differences reflect the importance of teacher interventions in fostering productive group interactions and encouraging the use of evidence-based reasoning throughout the design process. Incorporating group processing activities, as well as reinforcing evidence-based reasoning, could enhance the effectiveness of collaborative learning and support students in making thoughtful design decisions. Additionally, while the integration of microelectronics into the curriculum presented its challenges, it also offered an opportunity for students to explore STEM concepts in a real-world context.

5. Implications

This study adds to research on integrated STEM education by demonstrating how engineering design-based activities in ELA classrooms can support collaborative learning and engagement among MLLs. The findings of this study suggest several actionable strategies for educators implementing engineering design-based learning in ELA classrooms. For example, when students were introduced to coding, there was a spike in interest in using the micro:bits; however, moments of oppositional interactions arose when group members felt excluded. Relying on the analytical framework (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009) to structure small-group learning can encourage promotive interactions within groups. Strategies like intentional group role assignment are essential to ensure equitable participation, minimize passive involvement, and encourage promotive interaction.

Professional development that introduces group structuring methods and teacher facilitation models can improve the implementation of an engineering design-based unit in an ELA classroom. To promote the collaboration of students within groups, teachers can adopt structured approaches to group work. Clear role assignments have been shown to mitigate passive participation and “free riding” (Dingel et al., 2013; Ibrahim & Rashid, 2022). The findings suggest that clear role assignment enhances outcome interdependence and task ownership. Students’ roles can be designed to encourage shared responsibility, as teams with distributed leadership models can be more effective in design tasks (Dym et al., 2005). While engineering design tasks offer opportunities for shared problem-solving and authentic engagement, student collaboration is shaped by group dynamics, role clarity, and teacher facilitation. This aligns with prior findings confirming that group work is complex and socially situated (S. A. Pattison et al., 2018; Lave, 1988; Wieselmann et al., 2020). The goal of the engineering-design based ELA unit in this study is not to teach about group dynamics; however, if left unguided, as evidenced in the findings, small-group interactions can impact decision-making.

Group dynamics can impact synergy between disciplinary learning and engineering design-based STEM integration strategies, influencing student engagement. Embedding structured group processing and regular self and peer evaluations into the curriculum may help students reflect on their contributions, improve accountability, and strengthen group cohesion. As student roles and group identities shift throughout a project (S. Pattison et al., 2020), ongoing reflection through group processing (D. W. Johnson & Johnson, 2009) can help students evaluate and refine their contributions to the group project. Teacher facilitation plays a role in guiding student interactions. The teacher was often the primary driver of group engagement, particularly when students struggled to coordinate decisions or share responsibilities. This highlights a need for professional development that prepares educators to manage collaborative dynamics and implement structures like group processing for reflective check-ins (Pasquarella et al., 2025). As Moschkovich (2002) and Gutiérrez (2008) argue, teachers can enhance participation, especially for MLL students, by using scaffolds that support content and language development. This can include visual aids, structured peer interaction, and opportunities for multimodal communication.

Teachers should also be equipped with strategies to promote informed decision-making, such as scaffolding evidence-based reasoning in classroom discourse and the implementation of decision matrices (National Research Council, 2001; Kelley, 2010; Siverling et al., 2021). These strategies can help students move beyond preference-driven decision-making toward more critical and reflective design choices. While the unit provided opportunities for evidence-based reasoning, students rarely used evidence to guide decisions during group interactions. This supports prior research showing that, in the absence of explicit support, students often rely on intuition, emotion, or peer influence, rather than systematic decision-making (Hsu & Lin, 2017; Meyer, 2018). Structured tools, such as evidence-based reasoning prompts, sentence frames, and teacher modeling, are necessary to help students weigh alternatives, justify their decisions, and develop critical thinking skills (Siverling et al., 2021).

Using decision matrices within an engineering design process-based unit is another strategy that offers benefits for team decision-making. A decision matrix is a structured tool that helps teams evaluate design options by assigning weights to key constraints and criteria (National Research Council, 2001; Kelley, 2010). This approach allows students to identify the critical factors in their design, rank them by importance, and assign percentage weights to reflect their importance (Kelley, 2010). Through group discussions, teams determine how each potential solution meets the established criteria. By calculating weighted scores and summing the results, they can objectively identify the most suitable design choice based on their collective assessment. Given the importance of decision-making within the engineering design process, these supports, like design matrices, can increase the collaborative benefits of design-based instruction (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993; Meyer, 2018). For productive and equal collaboration, educators can scaffold group interactions, ensuring that students engage in structured discussions, evaluate evidence, and navigate design decisions.

For MLLs, design-based learning offers opportunities for disciplinary and language development. As students engage in group discourse, problem-solving, and multimodal representation, they can develop language skills across four domains: speaking, listening, reading, and writing. These experiences align with constructivist and sociocultural theories of learning (Vygotsky, 1978; Lave & Wenger, 1991), which emphasize the importance of peer interaction, authentic tasks, and situated learning contexts. Journals, diagrams, and reflective writing are tools whose use is supported in the literature (Shanahan et al., 2018; A. M. Johnson et al., 2013), and which can also help students externalize their thinking and engage in evidence-based design decisions. Through these strategies, engineering design can invoke innovation and problem-solving, while being a tool for MLLs to develop their linguistic and disciplinary knowledge in meaningful contexts.

6. Conclusions

This study found that intentional instructional design when integrating engineering design-based activities into non-STEM classrooms is important, particularly for MLL students. Engineering design encompasses uncertainty, the presence of various possible solutions, and the absence of fixed procedural and declarative rules. Scholars like Vygotsky (1978), Lave and Wenger (1991) highlight how language helps people communicate meaning and participate in a community (Atman et al., 2008). For MLL students, design-based learning offers opportunities for disciplinary and language development (Atman et al., 2008). Language, being essential in learning processes and central to design work, provides a dynamic way for students to engage with complex ideas beyond linguistic barriers. With small groups, collaboration requires more than placing students together; it demands the thoughtful structuring of roles, opportunities for reflection, and explicit support for discourse and reasoning. When students are equipped with the tools to collaborate meaningfully, through group processing, evidence-based reasoning, and clearly defined responsibilities, students can engage deeply with both disciplinary content and their peers. These findings show the potential of design-based learning to support language development, critical thinking, and participation, while pointing to areas where teacher support and curricular adjustments can strengthen learning for students. Future research can examine how teacher preparation and curriculum design can support the integration of engineering technologies in non-STEM classrooms, particularly for linguistically diverse learners.