Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting informed engineering practices in the elementary classroom: examining teachers’ approaches to scaffolding

  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Engineering design is being increasingly included in elementary education, typically to provide students with opportunities to apply science and mathematics concepts while developing their engineering practices. An important question is how to prepare teachers who can help students develop more informed engineering practices during classroom design tasks. In this multiple case study, we examine the engineering instruction of upper elementary (grades 3–5) teachers in the context of a professional development project. We analyze how those teachers provided scaffolding for a set of engineering design practices across 12 design lessons. We found that teachers provided substantial scaffolding for practices related to organizing the design process and attending to constraints when making design choices. However, with a couple notable exceptions, teachers provided minimal scaffolding for problem framing practices such as defining requirements and developing testing procedures. The professional development emphasized scaffolding strategies for problem framing practices, and so we explore reasons why they were so rarely implemented. We consider strengths and limitations of the pedagogical model that teachers employed, as well as a need to clarify practice-related outcomes for engineering instruction. We discuss implications and recommendations for elementary engineering instruction and teacher education.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • American Society for Engineering Education. (2020). Framework for P-12 engineering learning: A defined and cohesive educational foundation for P-12 engineering. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/1-100-1153-1

  • Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., Guzey, S. S., Akarsu, M., Johnston, A., & Moore, T. J. (2020). Examining teacher talk moves in an engineering design-based science curricular unit. Research in Science Education, 50, 469–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2007.tb00945.x

    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.

  • Berland, L., Steingut, R., & Ko, P. (2014). High school student perceptions of the utility of the engineering design process: Creating opportunities to engage in engineering practices and apply math and science content. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(6), 705–720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-014-9498-4

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Bers, M. U., & Portsmore, M. (2005). Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 14(1), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-005-2734-1

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, F. P. (2010). The design of design: Essays from a computer scientist. Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. (1994). Designing engineers. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high-leverage practices through engineering design-based science instruction. Science Education, 102(2), 342–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21325

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., & Rupp, M. (2014). STEM teachers’ planned and enacted attempts at implementing engineering design-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12078

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cormas, P. C., & Barufaldi, J. P. (2011). The effective research-based characteristics of professional development of the National Science Foundation’s GK-12 program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(3), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9228-1

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb01127.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2000). Engineering design methods: Strategies for product design (3rd ed.). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2001). Designerly ways of knowing: Design discipline versus design science. Design Issues, 17(3), 49–55. https://doi.org/10.1162/074793601750357196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014a). Precollege engineering education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (Vol. II, pp. 747–758). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014b). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, C. (2019). Improvable models as scaffolds for promoting productive disciplinary engagement in an engineering design activity. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 394–417. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2014). In-service teacher professional development in engineering education: Early years. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in precollege settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 233–257). Purdue University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., & Brown, D. (2012). Engineering design: Representation and reasoning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • English, L. D. (2019). Learning while designing in a fourth-grade integrated STEM problem. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(5), 1011–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ertmer, P. A., & Glazewski, K. D. (2019). Scaffolding in PBL environments: Structuring and problematizing relevant task features. In M. Moallem, W. Hung, & N. Dabbagh (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Problem‐Based Learning (pp. 321–342). Wiley Blackwell.

  • Fan, S. C., & Yu, K. C. (2017). How an integrative STEM curriculum can benefit students in engineering design practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(1), 107–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20040

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Frezza, S., Nordquest, D., & Moodey, R. (2013). Knowledge-generation epistemology and the foundations of engineering. In 2013 IEEE frontiers in education conference (FIE) (pp. 818–824). IEEE.

  • Gale, J., Koval, J., Ryan, M., Usselman, M., & Wind, S. (2018). Implementing NGSS engineering disciplinary core ideas in middle school science classrooms: Results from the field. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S. (2011). Fixation and commitment while designing and its measurement. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(2), 108–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, B., MacDonald, D., & Gentilini, S. (2007). Using talking and drawing to design: Elementary children collaborating with university industrial design students. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.21061/jte.v19i1.a.2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., & Aranda, M. (2017). Student participation in engineering practices and discourse: An exploratory case study. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 585–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., Tank, K., Wang, H. H., Roehrig, G., & Moore, T. (2014). A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114(3), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, J. D., Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). The roles of engineering notebooks in shaping elementary engineering student discourse and practice. International Journal of Science Education, 39(9), 1194–1217.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2006). Goals and strategies of a problembased learning faciliatator. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 1(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, A. C., Akarsu, M., Moore, T. J., & Guzey, S. S. (2019). Engineering as the integrator: A case study of one middle school science teacher’s talk. Journal of Engineering Education, 108(3), 418–440. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20286

  • Jonassen, D. H., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00885.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.896254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kawasaki, J., & Sandoval, W. A. (2019). The role of teacher framing in producing coherent NGSS-aligned teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 30(8), 906–922. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1657765

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., Capobianco, B. M., & Kaluf, K. J. (2015). Concurrent think-aloud protocols to assess elementary design students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(4), 521–540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9291-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, T. R., & Sung, E. (2017). Sketching by design: Teaching sketching to young learners. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 27(3), 363–386.

    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  ADS  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y., Schoenfeld, A. H., Andrea, A., Graesser, A. C., Benson, L. C., English, L. D., & Duschl, R. A. (2019). Design and design thinking in STEM education. Journal for STEM Education Research, 2, 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-019-00020-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, J., Lajoie, S. P., & Wiseman, J. (2010). Scaffolding problem-based learning with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5(3), 283–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, Y. (2015). Design fixation and cooperative learning in elementary engineering design project: A case study. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 8(1), 133–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maeng, J. L., Whitworth, B. A., Gonczi, A. L., Navy, S. L., & Wheeler, L. B. (2017). Elementary science teachers’ integration of engineering design into science instruction: Results from a randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Science Education, 39(11), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1340688

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Maiorca, C., & Mohr-Schroeder, M. J. (2020). Elementary preservice teachers’ integration of engineering into STEM lesson plans. School Science and Mathematics, 120(7), 402–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manz, E., & Suárez, E. (2018). Supporting teachers to negotiate uncertainty for science, students, and teaching. Science Education, 102(4), 771–795. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21343

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Mawson, B. (2003). Beyond ‘the design process’: An alternative pedagogy for technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 13(2), 117–128. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024186814591

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M. E., & Hammer, D. (2016). Stable beginnings in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 6(1), 45–54. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFadden, J., & Roehrig, G. (2019). Engineering design in the elementary science classroom: Supporting student discourse during an engineering design challenge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 29(2), 231–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., Huberman, M. A., & Saldaña, J. (2020). Qualitative data analysis: A Methods sourcebook (4th ed.). Sage Publications.

    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, 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21199

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Museum of Science Boston. (2007). Engineering is elementary. Museum of Science.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadelson, L. S., Pfiester, J., Callahan, J., & Pyke, P. (2015). Who is doing the engineering, the student or the teacher? The development and use of a rubric to categorize level of design for the elementary classroom. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Changing the conversation: messages for improving public understanding of engineering. National Academies Press.

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2020). Building capacity for teaching engineering in K-12 education. National Academies Press.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Newberry, B. (2013). Engineered artifacts. In D. P. Michelfelder, N. McCarthy, & E. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and engineering: Reflections on practice, principles and process (pp. 165–176). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Newstetter, W. C., & McCracken, W. M. (2001). Novice conceptions of design: Implications for the design of learning environments. In C. Eastman, M. McCracken, & W. Newstetter (Eds.), Design knowing and learning: Cognition in design education (pp. 63–77). Amsterdam: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008043868-9/50004-8

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

  • Park, W., Wu, J. Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA, Korea and Taiwan. Science & Education, 29(4), 899–927. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00139-1

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). 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

  • Pleasants, J., Olson, J. K., & De La Cruz, I. (2020). Accuracy of elementary teachers’ representations of the projects and processes of engineering: results of a professional development program. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(4), 362–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1709295

  • Puntambekar, S., & Hübscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puntambekar, S., & Kolodner, J. L. (2005). Toward implementing distributed scaffolding: Helping students learn science from design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42(2), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20048

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Purzer, S., & Quintana-Cifuentes, J. P. (2019). Integrating engineering in K-12 science education: Spelling out the pedagogical, epistemological, and methodological arguments. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 1(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-019-0010-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purzer, Ş, Quintana-Cifuentes, J., & Menekse, M. (2022). The honeycomb of engineering framework: Philosophy of engineering guiding precollege engineering education. Journal of Engineering Education, 111(1), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanisms of structuring and problematizing student work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford University Press.

  • Savasci, F., & Berlin, D. F. (2012). Science teacher beliefs and classroom practice related to constructivism in different school settings. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(1), 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-011-9262-z

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203843000

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smit, J., van Eerde, H., & Bakker, A. (2013). A conceptualization of whole-class scaffolding. British Educational Research Journal, 39, 817–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for Mathematical Thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in Reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312033002455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 213–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00052-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Svarovsky, G. N. (2011). Exploring complex engineering learning over time with epistemic network analysis. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 1(2), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5703/1288284314638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Kirschner, P. A., & Clark, R. E. (2007). Why minimally guided teaching techniques do not work: A reply to commentaries. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 115–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tekkumru-Kisa, M., Schunn, C., Stein, M. K., & Reynolds, B. (2017). Change in thinking demands for students across the phases of a science task: An exploratory study. Research in Science Education, 49(3), 859–883. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-017-9645-z

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, S., Collins, A., Metzgar, V., Joeston, M., & Shepherd, V. (2002). Exploring graduate-level scientists’ participation in sustained K-12 teaching collaboration. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 254–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17884.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trevelyan, J. (2010). Reconstructing engineering from practice. Engineering Studies, 2(3), 175–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/19378629.2010.520135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ullman, D. G., Wood, S., & Craig, D. (1990). The importance of drawing in the mechanical design process. Computers & Graphics, 14(2), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0097-8493(90)90037-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010). Scaffolding in teacher–student interaction: A decade of research. Educational Psychology Review, 22(3), 271–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J., Spencer, K., & Hammer, D. (2014). Examining young students’ problem scoping in engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 43–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, M., Barlex, D., & Lim, H. S. (2000). Sketching: Friend or foe to the novice designer? International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 10(2), 125–148. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008991319644

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., & Lee, H. S. (2010). Elementary students’ learning of materials science practices through instruction based on engineering design tasks. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 19(6), 580–601.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Swenson, J. E., & Dalvi, T. S. (2019). Epistemological framing and novice elementary teachers’ approaches to learning and teaching engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 956–982. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21541

    Article  ADS  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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler, L. B., Navy, S. L., Maeng, J. L., & Whitworth, B. A. (2019). Development and validation of the classroom observation protocol for engineering design (COPED). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1285–1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21557

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

  • Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1440446. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Oklahoma, 121 Collings Hall, Norman, OK, 73019, USA

    Jacob Pleasants & Kristyn Sartin

Authors
  1. Jacob Pleasants
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristyn Sartin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob Pleasants.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Ethical approval

This research work received approval and was conducted in full compliance of the Institutional Review Board of the university at which the study took place. All participants gave their informed consent to all research activities.

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

Pleasants, J., Sartin, K. Supporting informed engineering practices in the elementary classroom: examining teachers’ approaches to scaffolding. Int J Technol Des Educ 34, 531–562 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09839-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-023-09839-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation