Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Science Teachers’ Misconceptions in Science and Engineering Distinctions: Reflections on Modern Research Examples

  • Published:
Journal of Science Teacher Education

Abstract

The aim of this exploratory study was to learn about the misconceptions that may arise for elementary and high school science teachers in their reflections on science and engineering practice. Using readings and videos of real science and engineering work, teachers’ reflections were used to uncover the underpinnings of their understandings. This knowledge ultimately provides information about supporting professional development (PD) for science teachers’ knowledge of engineering. Six science teachers (two elementary and four high school teachers) participated in the study as part of an online PD experience. Cunningham and Carlsen’s (Journal of Science Teacher Education 25:197–210, 2014) relative emphases of science and engineering practices were used to frame the design of PD activities and the analyses of teachers’ views. Analyses suggest misconceptions within the eight practices of science and engineering from the US Next Generation Science Standards in four areas. These are that: (1) the nature of the practices in both science and engineering research is determined by the long-term implications of the research regardless of the nature of the immediate work, (2) engineering and science are hierarchical, (3) creativity is inappropriate, and (4) research outcomes cannot be processes. We discuss the nature of these understandings among participants and the implications for engineering education PD for science teachers.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22, 665–701.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying your own school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: The heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17, 454–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, P. (2013). Insect leg cogs a first in animal kingdom. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13723.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Chapel Hill: Horizon Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J., Brown, R., & Merrill, C. (2012). Science and technology educators’ enacted curriculum: Areas of possible collaboration for an integrative STEM approach in public schools. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 71(4), 30–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S., & Melear, C. (2007). Preservice teachers’ research experiences in scientists’ laboratories. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18, 573–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., Crawford, B. A., & Constas, M. A. (2012). A review of empirical literature on inquiry professional development: Alignment with best practices and a critique of the findings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23, 291–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, A. (2013). Grow your own organs as a tissue engineer. New Scientist, 2944, 56–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P., & Bowers, J. (1999). Cognitive and situated learning perspectives in theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coghlan, A. (2014). Blood protein regenerates brain and muscle in old mice. New Scientist. Retrieved from http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25516-blood-protein-rejuvenates-brain-and-muscle-in-old-mice.html#.VXCCxWTBzGd.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39, 124–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. (2013). Design practices and misconceptions. The Science Teacher, 80(1), 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., Knight, M. T., Carlsen, W. S., & Kelly, G. (2007). Integrating engineering in middle and high school classrooms. International Journal of Engineering Education, 23(1), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, G. N. (2002). What science is and how it works. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (1998). Learning in science—From behaviourism towards social constructivism and beyond. In B. J. Fraser & K. G. Tobin (Eds.), International handbook of science education (pp. 3–26). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Eekels, J., & Roozenburg, N. F. (1991). A methodological comparison of the structures of scientific research and engineering design: Their similarities and differences. Design Studies, 12(4), 197–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gunther, M. (2013). Can mushrooms replace plastics? The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/mushrooms-new-plastic-ecovative.

  • Hynes, M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22, 345–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F. A. (2010). Situated learning theory and the pedagogy of teacher education: Towards an integrative view of teacher behavior and teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 98–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F. A., & Kessels, J. P. (1999). Linking theory and practice: Changing the pedagogy of teacher education. Educational Researcher, 28(4), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korthagen, F., & Lagerwerf, B. (1996). Refraining the relationship between teacher thinking and teacher behaviour: Levels in learning about teaching. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 2(2), 161–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (2012). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S. K. Abell & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 831–879). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, J. S., Lederman, N. G., Bartos, S. A., Bartels, S. L., Meyer, A. A., & Schwartz, R. S. (2014). Meaningful assessment of learners’ understandings about scientific inquiry—The views about scientific inquiry (VASI) questionnaire. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libby, T., Moore, T. Y., Chang-Siu, E., Li, D. J., Cohen, D., Jusufi, A., & Full, R. J. (2012). Tail assisted pitch control in lizards, robots and dinosaurs. Nature, 481, 181–184. doi:10.1038/nature10710.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K- 12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospectus. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Technological Literacy (NCTL). (2014). Engineering is elementary. Retrieved from http://www.eie.org/engineering-elementary/.

  • National Center for Technological Literacy (NCTL). (2016). Engineering everywhere. Retrieved from http://www.eie.org/engineering-everywhere/.

  • National Research Council (NRC). (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., & Jones, E. (2010). Extending engineering education to K-12: Teachers significantly increased their knowledge of engineering, developed more positive attitudes towards technology, increased their self-efficacy in using and developing technology-based lessons, and increased their confidence in teaching math and science. The Technology Teacher, 69(7), 14–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Posner, G. J., Strike, K. A., Hewson, P. W., & Gertzog, W. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66, 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (1997). Teacher learning: Implications of new views of cognition. In B. J. Biddle, T. L. Good, & I. V. Goodson (Eds.), International handbook of teachers and teaching (pp. 1223–1296). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Raphael, J., Tobias, S., & Greenberg, R. (1999). Research experience as a component of science and mathematics teacher preparation. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 10, 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sadler, T. D., Burgin, S., McKinney, L., & Ponjuan, L. (2010). Learning science through research apprenticeships: A critical review of the literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47, 235–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., Lederman, N. G., & Crawford, B. A. (2004). Developing views of nature of science in an authentic context: An explicit approach to bridging the gap between nature of science and scientific inquiry. Science Education, 88, 610–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simons, H., Kushner, S., Jones, K., & James, D. (2003). From evidence-based practice to practice-based evidence: The idea of situated generalisation. Research Papers in Education, 18(4), 347–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. P., III, diSessa, A. A., & Roschelle, J. (1993–1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3, 115–163.

  • Stolk, J., & Aguilar, R. G. (2016). The infinity project. Retrieved from https://www.smu.edu/Lyle/Institutes/CaruthInstitute/K-12Programs/InfinityProject.

  • Walter, A., & Elgar, M. A. (2011). Signals for damage control: Web decorations in Argiope keyserlingi (Araneae: Araneidae). Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 65, 1909–1915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H. (1986). Can the history of science help science educators anticipate students’ misconceptions? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 23, 581–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wandersee, J. H., Mintzes, J. J., & Novak, J. D. (1994). Research on alternative conceptions in science. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 177–210). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaşar, Ş., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., Krause, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Development of a survey to assess K-12 teachers’ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Teaching and Learning, Illinois State University, Campus Box 5330, Normal, IL, 61790, USA

    Allison Antink-Meyer

  2. Illinois College, Jacksonville, IL, USA

    Daniel Z. Meyer

Authors
  1. Allison Antink-Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Z. Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allison Antink-Meyer.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antink-Meyer, A., Meyer, D.Z. Science Teachers’ Misconceptions in Science and Engineering Distinctions: Reflections on Modern Research Examples. J Sci Teacher Educ 27, 625–647 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9478-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9478-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation