Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Using Card Sort Epistemic Network Analysis to Explore Preservice Teachers’ Ideas About the Nature of Engineering

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Due to the substantial emphasis on engineering in K-12 science education efforts in the USA, it is important for teachers to develop a deeper understanding of the nature of engineering (NOE) and the relationship between engineering and science. A deep understanding is characterized not only by the presence or absence of ideas but also by the interconnections among the ideas. There are few ways to measure the interconnections among the ideas associated with a deep understanding of NOE. The present proof-of-concept study addresses this need by providing a preliminary testing of card sort epistemic network analysis (cENA) and network models’ potential to extend what can be learned about how preservice teachers conceptualize NOE. To test the potential of cENA, we used cENA with 52 preservice elementary teachers enrolled in a course emphasizing science and engineering practices. Our findings indicated a shift within the participant community’s epistemic frame for NOE toward more expert-like views of NOE, including some emphasis on the application of science in engineering. The findings from this study suggest cENA may be a productive and fruitful methodology for capturing changes in students’ understandings of NOE. cENA has the potential to guide science teacher educators’ approaches in designing evidence-based learning experiences and interventions to improve learners’ depth of understanding about NOE. Rigorous validation of cENA is now warranted.

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
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 1057–1095.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allert, B. I., Atkinson, D. L., Groll, E. A., & Hirleman, E. D. (2007). Making the case for global engineering: Building foreign language collaborations for designing, implementing, and assessing programs. Online Journal for Global Engineering Education, 2(2), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. R. (1981). Cognitive skills and their acquisition. Hillsdale: Earlbaum.

  • Antink-Meyer, A., & Meyer, D. Z. (2016). Science teachers’ misconceptions in science and engineering distinctions: Reflections on modern research examples. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27(6), 625–647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Society for Engineering Education. (2020). Framework for P-12 engineering learning: A defined and cohesive educational foundation for P-12 engineering. American Society for Engineering Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, D., & Tanner, K. (2003). Approaches to cell biology teaching: Mapping the journey—Concept maps as signposts of developing knowledge structures. Cell Biology Education, 2(3), 133–136. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.03-07-0033

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banse, G., & Grunwald, A. (2009). Coherence and diversity in the engineering sciences. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 155–184). Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bissonnette, S., Combs, E., Nagami, P., Byers, V., Fernandez, J., Le, D., Realin, J., Woodham, S., Smith, J., & Tanner, K. (2017). Using the biology card sorting task to measure changes in conceptual expertise during postsecondary biology education. CBE Life Science Education, 16, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-09-0273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borda, E. J., Burgess, D. J., Plog, C. J., DeKalb, N. C., & Luce, M. M. (2009). Concept maps as tools for assessing students’ epistemologies of science. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 13(2), 160–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G. and Freeman, L.C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.

  • Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1165821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. (2005). Centrality and network flow. Social Networks, 27(1), 55–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S., & Everett, M. (2006). A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks, 28(4), 466–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. SAGE Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J. D., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (1999). How people learn: Mind, brain, experience, and school. National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlone, H. B., Mercier, A. K., & Metzger, S. R. (2021). The production of epistemic culture and agency during a first-grade engineering design unit in an urban emergent school. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 11(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1295

  • Chalmers, A. F. (2013). What is this thing called science? (4th ed.). Hackett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, D., Burlingame, E., Bush, S., & Scott, G. (2020). Exploring faculty and student frameworks for engineering knowledge using an online card sorting platform. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 10(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v10i1.11336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2019). Collective reasoning in elementary engineering education. In E. Mando (Ed.), Deeper learning, dialogic learning, and critical thinking: Research-based strategies for the classroom (pp. 339–355). Routledge.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2006). Elementary teachers’ understanding of engineering and technology. In Proceedings of American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition, pp. 113. ASEE.

  • de Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. (1986). Cognitive structures of good and poor novice problem solvers in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 279–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • diSessa, A. A. (1988). Knowledge in pieces. In G. Forman & P. B. Pufall (Eds.), Constructivism in the computer age (pp. 49–70). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deniz, H., Kaya, E., Yesilyurt, E., Trabia, M. (2020) The influence of an engineering design experience on elementary teachers’ nature of engineering views. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 635–656. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09518-4

  • Elo, S., & Kyngas, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62, 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ergün, A., & Kiyici, G. (2019). The effect of design based science education applications of science teacher candidates on their perceptions of engineering education and engineer. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction, 9(4), 1031–1062. https://doi.org/10.14527/pegegog.2019.033

  • Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Extending centrality. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.). Models and methods in social network analysis, 35(1), 57–76.

  • Gardner, G. E., Lohr, M. E., Bartos, S., & Reid, J. W. (2018). Comparing individual and group-negotiated conceptual knowledge structures in an introductory biology course for majors. Journal of Biological Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.2018.1469537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grunspan, D., Wiggins, B., Goodreau, S. (2014). Understanding classrooms through social network analysis: A primer for social network analysis in education research. CBE-Life Science Education, 13(2), https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13-08-0162

  • Hammack, R., & Ivey, T. (2017). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of engineering and engineering design. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 3, 48–68. https://doi.org/10.51355/jstem.2017.29

  • Hartman, B. D. (2016). Aspects of the nature of engineering for K-12 science education : A Delphi study [Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University]. Retrieved from https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/graduate_thesis_or_dissertations/t148fk693

  • Houkes, W. (2009). The nature of technological knowledge. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of technology and engineering sciences (pp. 309–350). Elsevier Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association [ITEA}. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karatas, F. Ö., & Bodner, G. M. (2009). Toward a technologically literate society: Elementary school teachers’ views of the nature of engineering [Paper presentation]. American Society or Engineering Education, Austin, TX. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-5658

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karataş, F. Ö., Bodner, G. M., & Unal, S. (2016). First-year engineering students’ views of the nature of engineering: Implications for engineering programmes. European Journal of Engineering Education, 41, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/03043797.2014.1001821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J., & Cunningham, C. M. (2019). Epistemic tools in engineering design for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(4), 1080–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendig, C. E. (2015). What is proof of concept research and how does it generate epistemic and ethical categories for future scientific practice? Science and Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9654-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, M., & Cunningham, C. (2004). Draw an engineer test (DAET): Development of a tool to investigate students’ ideas about engineers and engineering [Paper presentation]. American Society for Engineering Education, Salt Lake City, UT. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2-12831

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krieter, F. E., Julius, R. W., Tanner, K. D., Bush, S. D., & Scott, G. E. (2016). Thinking like a chemist: Development of a chemistry card-sorting task to probe conceptual expertise. Journal of Chemical Education, 93, 811–820. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.5b00992

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroes, P. (2012). Technical artefacts: Creations of mind and matter: A philosophy of engineering design. Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lajoie, S. (2003). Transitions and trajectories for studies of expertise. Educational Researcher, 32, 21–25. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032008021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larkin, J. H., McDermott, J., Simon, D. P., & Simon, H. A. (1980). Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems. Science, 208, 1335–1342. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4450.1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Nouri, N. (2016). The nature of science and the Next Generation Science Standards: Analysis and critique. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 27, 555–576. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9474-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., & Burgin, S. R. (2020). A critique of “STEM” education. Science & Education, 29, 805–829. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00138-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martine, G., & Rugg, G. (2005). That site looks 88.46% familiar: Quantifying similarity of Web page design. Expert Systems, 22, 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0394.2005.00302.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mitcham, C. (1994). Thinking through technology: The path between engineering and philosophy. University of Chicago Press

  • Mitcham, C., & Schatzberg, E. (2009). Defining technology and the engineering sciences. In A. Meijers (Ed.), Philosophy of Technology and Engineering Sciences (pp. 27–63). Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-college Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069

  • Mulvey, B, Parrish, J., Reid, J., Papa, J., & Peters-Burton, E. (2021). Making connections: using individual epistemic network analysis to extend the value of nature of science assessment. Science & Education, 30, 527–555.

  • National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12187

  • National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press.

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

  • National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. National Academies Press.

  • Schnegg, M., & Bernard, H. (1996). Words as actors: A method for doing semantic network analysis. Field Methods, 8(2), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X960080020601

  • Shaffer, D. W., Hatfield, D., Svarovsky, G. N., Nash, P., Nulty, A., Bagley, E., Frank, K., Rupp, A., & Mislevy, R. (2009). Epistemic network analysis: A prototype for 21st century assessment of learning. International Journal of Learning and Media, 1, 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1162/ijlm.2009.0013

  • Shaffer, D. W., Collier, W., & Ruis, A. R. (2016). A tutorial on epistemic network analysis Analyzing the structure of connections in cognitive social and interaction data. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3, 9–45. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.33.3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2004). Epistemic frames and islands of expertise: Learning from infusion experiences. In Embracing Diversity in the Learning Sciences: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (p. 474). Psychology Press.

  • Park, W., Wu, J., & Erduran, S. (2020). The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA, Korea and Taiwan. Science & Education, 29, 899–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00139-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters-Burton, E. E. (2013a). Modeling relationships among aspects of the nature of science: Representing co-occurrences with epistemic network analysis. Paper presented at the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Annual Conference.

  • Peters-Burton, E. (2013b). Student work products as a teaching tool for nature of science pedagogical knowledge: A professional development project with in-service secondary science teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 29, 156–166.

  • Peters-Burton, E., Parrish, J., & Mulvey, B. K. (2019). Extending the utility of the views of nature of science assessment through epistemic network analysis. Science & Education, 28, 1027–1053.

  • Pleasants, J. (2020). Inquiring into the nature of STEM problems: Implications for pre-college education. Science & Education, 29(4), 831–855. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00135-5

  • Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019a). Refining an instrument and studying elementary teachers’ understanding of the scope of engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1207

  • Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019b). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483

  • Proven By Users [UX Testing & Research Tools]. (2021). Card Sorting. Retrieved from https://provenbyusers.com/provenbyusers-cardsort.php

  • Rosenberg, A. (2000). Philosophy of science. Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, J., Reid, J., Dyer, E., Koehler, M., Fischer, C., & McKenna, T. (2020). Idle chatter or compelling conversation? The potential of the social media-based #NGSSchat network for supporting science education reform efforts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57, 1322–1355.

  • Tala, S. (2009). Unified view of science and technology for education: Technoscience and technoscience education. Science & Education, 18, 275–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-008-9145-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tawbush, R., Stanley, S., Campbell, T., & Webb, M. (2020). International comparison of K-12 STEM teaching practices. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 115–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teddlie, C., & Tashakkori, A. (2009). Foundations of mixed methods research: Integrating quantitative and qualitative approaches in the social and behavioral sciences. Sage.

  • Vincenti, W. (1990). What engineers know and how they know it. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J., Portsmore, M., & Swanson, R. D. (2021). Shifts in elementary teachers’ pedagogical reasoning: Studying teacher learning in an online graduate program in engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 110(1), 252–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. (2017). Reflective decision-making in elementary students’ engineering design. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(3), 356–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, S. C., & Romney, A. K. (1988). Systematic data collection, (Vol. 10). Sage Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412986069

  • Whitworth, B., & Wheeler, L. (2017). Is it engineering or not? The Science Teacher. https://doi.org/10.2505/4/tst17_084_05_25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., Liu, Q., & Cai, Z. (2019). Exploring primary school teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in online collaborative discourse: An epistemic network analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50, 3437–3455. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12751

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biological Sciences, University of Northern Colorado, 501 20th Street, Greeley, CO, 80634, USA

    Jennifer C. Parrish

  2. Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, USA

    Jacob Pleasants

  3. Department of Biological Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA

    Joshua W. Reid

  4. School of Teaching, Learning and Curriculum Development, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

    Bridget K. Mulvey & Abigail Recker

  5. College of Education and Human Development, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Erin E. Peters-Burton

Authors
  1. Jennifer C. Parrish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jacob Pleasants
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua W. Reid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bridget K. Mulvey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Erin E. Peters-Burton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Abigail Recker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the paper. JCP directed the investigation and project administration; JWR, JCP, and EPB directed the methodology; JWR, JCP, JP, AR, and BKM analyzed and interpreted data; JCP and JP drafted the original manuscript; all authors made substantial revisions. JCP acted as the corresponding author. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer C. Parrish.

Ethics declarations

Competing Interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Parrish, J.C., Pleasants, J., Reid, J.W. et al. Using Card Sort Epistemic Network Analysis to Explore Preservice Teachers’ Ideas About the Nature of Engineering. Sci & Educ 33, 301–326 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00395-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-022-00395-3

Search

Navigation