Secondary level engineering professional development: content, pedagogy, and challenges

Article

Abstract

The design of this study was a multiple case study conducted to examine the knowledge, pedagogical principles, and challenges involved in providing engineering-oriented professional development for teachers at the secondary school level. A set of criteria was used to identify five representative projects for analysis in the US. A variety of tools and processes were used to gather data including on-site observations, interviews, focus groups and document reviews. Results of the study indicate that engineering professional development tends to be based on work focused on curriculum development and implementation. Given the distinct design orientation of engineering, it is not surprising that the focus of engineering-oriented professional development tends to concentrate on engaging activities, with a primary focus on process rather than content. A key outcome of this study was an observed lack of a clearly formulated and articulated conceptual foundation for secondary level engineering. Regarding pedagogy, the researchers identified a heavy emphasis on modeling and applied learning. At the same time, the researchers observed a lack of emphasis on reflection and analysis of the pedagogical processes and techniques used to shape teachers’ ability to teach engineering to their students. The findings of the study also include concerns raised by teachers as they engage in engineering professional development. These include concerns about technical knowledge, particularly with the use of specialized software applications and other tools, as well as with practical issues such as time, resources, and availability of appropriate curriculum.

Keywords

K-12 engineering education Teacher professional development 

References

  1. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology, Inc. (ABET). (2000). Criteria for accrediting engineering programs, http://www.abet.org/.
  2. Adey, P. (2004). The professional development of teachers: Practice and theory. Dordrecht, Holland: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  3. Akerson, V. L. (2009). Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers’ views of nature of science and teaching practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(10), 1090–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–388.Google Scholar
  6. Buczynski, S., & Hansen, C. B. (2010). Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Childress, V., & Rhodes, C. (2008). Engineering student outcomes for grades 9–12. The Technology Teacher, 5(7), 5–12.Google Scholar
  8. Childress, V., & Sanders, M. (2007). Core engineering concepts foundational for the study of technology in grades 6–12. In R. Custer (Ed.), Professional development for engineering and technology: A national symposium, February 2007. Retrieved September 03, 2008, http://www.conferences.ilstu.edu/NSA/homepage.html.
  9. Crockett, M. D., Chen, C., Namikawa, T., & Zilimu, J. (2009). Exploring discourse-based assessment practice and its role in mathematics professional development. Professional Development in Education, 35(4), 677–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Custer, R. L., & Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Professional development for teachers of engineering: Research and related activities. The Bridge: Linking Engineering and Society, 39(3), 18–31.Google Scholar
  11. Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J. L., & Meyer, J. P. (under review). Formulating a concept base for secondary level engineering: A review and synthesis. Journal of Technology Education.Google Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., & Baratz-Snowden, J. (Eds.). (2005). A good teacher in every classroom: Preparing the highly qualified teachers our children deserve. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Daugherty, J. L. (2009). Engineering professional development design for secondary school teachers: A multiple case study. Journal of Technology Education, 21(1), 5–19.Google Scholar
  14. Dearing, B. M., & Daugherty, M. K. (2004). Delivering engineering content in technology education. The Technology Teacher, 64(3), 8–11.Google Scholar
  15. Desimone, L., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ebert, E. K., & Crippen, K. J. (2010). Applying a cognitive-affective model of conceptual change to professional development. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 21(3), 371–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans, L. (2002). What is teacher development? Oxford Review of Education, 28(1), 123–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gerring, J. (2007). Case study research: Principles and practices. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  23. Goldschmidt, P., & Phelps, G. (2010). Does teacher professional development affect content and pedagogical knowledge: How much and for how long? Economics of Education Review, 29, 432–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gordon, S. P. (2004). Professional development for school improvement: Empowering learning communities. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar
  25. Guskey, T. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 748–750.Google Scholar
  26. Hacker, M., de Vries, M., & Rossouw, A. (2009). CCETE project: Concepts and contexts in engineering and technology education. Retrieved November 11, 2009, from http://www.hofstra.edu/pdf/Academics/Colleges/SOEAHS/ctl/CTL_Edu_Initiatives_CCETE_revised.pdf.
  27. Harris, K. S., & Rogers, G. E. (2008). Secondary engineering competencies: A Delphi study of engineering faculty. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 45(1), 5–25.Google Scholar
  28. International Technology Education Association. (2000/2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston, VA.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, A., & Moreland, J. (2004). Enhancing practicing primary school teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge in technology. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kazemi, E., Lesseig, K., Mumme, J., Carroll, C., & Kelley-Petersen, M. (2009). Conceptualizing the work of leading mathematical tasks in professional development. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(4), 364–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kipperman, D. (2009). Teaching through technology concepts: Strengthening the position of technology education in the curriculum. In Proceedings of the 22nd pupils attitudes toward technology (PATT) conference, international conference on design and technology education research, Delft, Netherlands, (pp. 279–283).Google Scholar
  33. Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37–54.Google Scholar
  34. Lewis, T., Petrina, S., & Hill, A. M. (1998). Problem posing: Adding a creative increment to technological problem solving. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 36(1), 5–35.Google Scholar
  35. Lieberman, A. (1994). Teacher development commitment and challenge. In P. P. Grimmett & J. Neufiled (Eds.), Teacher development and the struggle for authenticity: Professional growth and restructuring in the context of change. New York: Teachers College.Google Scholar
  36. Loucks-Horsley, S. (1999). Effective professional development for teachers of mathematics. In Eisenhower National Clearinghouse, Ideas that work: Mathematics professional development. Columbus, OH: Eisenhower National Clearinghouse.Google Scholar
  37. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., & Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.Google Scholar
  38. Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K., & Hewson, P. (1996). Principles of effective professional development for mathematics and science education: A synthesis of standards. National Institute for Science Education Brief, 1(1), 1–6.Google Scholar
  39. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. G. (1989). Designing qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Design Education, 13(2), 117–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McLaughlin, M. W. (2002). Sites and sources of teachers’ learning. In C. Sugrue & C. Day (Eds.), Developing teachers and teaching practice: International research perspectives (pp. 95–115). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  42. National Research Council. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  43. Oliveira, A. (2010). Developing elementary teachers’ understanding of the discourse structure of inquiry-based science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 8(2), 247–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2007). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Peressini, D., Borko, H., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., & Willis, C. (2004). A conceptual framework for learning to teach secondary mathematics: A situative perspective. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 67–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rittle-Johnson, B. (2006). Promoting transfer: The effects of direct instruction and self-explanation. Child Development, 77(1), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rohaan, E. J., Toconis, R., & Jochems, W. M. G. (2007). Examining teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge with a multiple choice test. In Proceedings of the 18th pupils attitudes toward technology (PATT) conference, international conference on design and technology education research, Glascow, Scotland, (pp. 129–136).Google Scholar
  49. Sanders, M. (2001). New paradigm or old wine? The status of technology education practice in the United States. Journal of Technology Education, 12(2), 35–55.Google Scholar
  50. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  51. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  52. Stake, R. E. (2006). Multiple case study analysis. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  53. Welch, M. (1999). Analyzing the tacit strategies of novice designers. Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wicklein, R. C. (2006). Five good reasons for engineering design as the focus for technology education. The Technology Teacher, 65(7), 25–29.Google Scholar
  55. Williams, P. J. (2000). Design: The only methodology of technology? Journal of Technology Education, 11(2), 48–60.Google Scholar
  56. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Purdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA
  2. 2.Illinois State UniversityNormalUSA

Personalised recommendations