Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Investigating Elementary Teachers’ Tensions and Mitigating Strategies Related to Integrating Engineering Design-Based Science Instruction

  • Published:
Research in Science Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The adoption of engineering design-based science teaching requires elementary teachers to modify their current science pedagogy, often resulting in tensions or hard choices they must make in their teaching practice. The purpose of this study is to identify, compare, and characterize the tensions faced by 45 grade 3 and grade 4 elementary teachers over the course of 2 years within the context of a large-scale math-science partnership aimed at improving student learning of science through design and what mitigating strategies they employed to relieve these pressures. Data were gathered using semi-structured interviews prior to and after implementation. Transcripts of these interviews were analyzed using open coding. Findings indicate that within 1 year, teachers’ challenges shifted from conceptual and pedagogical in quality to more multifaceted and cultural, reflecting the nature of engineering design and emphasizing teachers’ changing roles to facilitate student small group interactions. Mitigating strategies were related to the type of tensions described by teachers, the majority of which became apparent through teachers’ repeated enactments of engineering design. Despite facing tensions, teacher participants expressed purposeful intentions to continue using engineering design to teach science. Implications included unearthing engineering design-based science teaching as a reflective teaching approach deeply connected to the nature of engineering that promotes the development of student-centered teaching practices. Ways of connecting these findings with professional development and teacher preparation are discussed.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abel, S., & Lederman, N. (2007). Handbook on research in science education. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J. P., Kaczmarczyk, S., Picton, P., & Demian, P. (2007). Improving problem solving and encouraging creativity in engineering undergraduates. Development, 3, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Kaczmarczyk, S., Picton, P., & Demian, P. (2010). Problem solving and creativity in engineering: Conclusions of a three-year project involving reusable learning objects and robots. Engineering Education, 5(2), 4–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmed, S., Wallace, K. M., & Blessing, L. T. (2003). Understanding the differences between how novice and experienced designers approach design tasks. Research in Engineering Design, 14(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Kilgore, D., & McKenna, A. (2008a). Characterizing design learning: A mixed-methods study of engineering designers’ use of language. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atman, C. J., Yasuhara, K., Adams, R. S., Barker, T. J., Turns, J., & Rhone, E. (2008b). Breadth in problem scoping: A comparison of freshman and senior engineering students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 24(2), 234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger, Y. M., & Cahill, C. S. (2013). Teaching design in middle-school: Instructors’ concerns and scaffolding strategies. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 22(2), 171–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bethke Wendell, K., & Rogers, C. (2013). Engineering design-based science, science content performance, and science attitudes in elementary school. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 513–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braaten, M., & Sheth, M. (2017). Tensions teaching science for equity: Lessons learned from the case of Ms. Dawson. Science Education, 101(1), 134–164.

    Article  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. (1988). An ethnographic perspective on engineering design. Design Studies, 9(3), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bucciarelli, L. L. (2002). Between thought and object in engineering design. Design Studies, 23(3), 219–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M. (2011). Exploring a science teacher’s uncertainty with integrating engineering design: An action research study. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22(7), 645–660.

  • Capobianco, B. M., Nyquist, C., & Tyrie, N. (2013). Shedding light on engineering design. Science and Children, 50(5), 58.

  • 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.

  • Capobianco, B. M., & Lehman, J. (2018) Examining and Characterizing Elementary School Teachers' Engineering Design-based Instructional Practices and Their Impact on Students’ Science Achievement Paper presented at 2018 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition , Salt Lake City, Utah. https://peer.asee.org/30465.

  • 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.

  • Carson, R., & Campbell, P. B. (2007). Museum of science: Engineering is elementary; exploring the impact of EiE on participating teachers. Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc.

  • Colburn, A. (2000). An inquiry primer. Science Scope, 23(6), 42–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, M. M., Caballero, M. D., Ebert-May, D., Fata-Hartley, C. L., Jardeleza, S. E., Krajcik, J. S., Laverty, J. T., Matz, R. L., Posey, L. A., & Underwood, S. M. (2015). Challenge faculty to transform STEM learning. Science, 350(6258), 281-282.

  • Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2017). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

  • Crismond, D. P., & Adams, R. S. (2012). The informed design teaching and learning matrix. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(4), 738–797.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2004). Expertise in design: An overview. Design Studies, 25(5), 427–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N. (2006). Designerly ways of knowing (pp. 1–13). London: Springer Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., & Cross, A. C. (1995). Observations of teamwork and social processes in design. Design Studies, 16(2), 143–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crotty, E. A., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., Glancy, A. W., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Moore, T. J. (2017). Approaches to integrating engineering in STEM units and student achievement gains. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7(2), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. (2008). Elementary teacher professional development in engineering: Lessons learning from Engineering is Elementary. Pittsburgh, PA: Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 30(3), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Hester, K. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. Honolulu, HI: Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., & Petish, D. A. (2001). Developing expertise in science teaching and in science teacher education. Seattle, WA: Proceedings of the American Educational Research Association Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A., Petish, D., & Smithey, J. (2006). Challenges new science teachers face. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 607–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorst, K., & Cross, N. (2001). Creativity in the design process: Co-evolution of problem–solution. Design Studies, 22(5), 425–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. A., Rynearson, A., Yoon, S. Y., & Diefes-Dux, H. (2016). Two elementary schools’ developing potential for sustainability of engineering education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(3), 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, D., Diefes-dux, H., & Gentry, M. (2011). Professional development through engineering academies: An examination of elementary teachers’ recognition and understanding of engineering. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(3), 520–539.

    Article  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 

  • Eder, W. E., & Hosnedl, S. (2010). Introduction to design engineering: Systematic creativity and management. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Book  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 

  • Faikhamta, C., & Clarke, A. (2013). A self-study of a Thai teacher educator developing a better understanding of PCK for teaching about teaching science. Research in Science Education, 43(3), 955–979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, A., Altrichter, H., Posch, P., & Somekh, B. (2018). Teachers investigate their work: An introduction to action research across the professions. London, UK: Routledge.

  • Fitzgerald, E. M., & Cunningham, C. M. (2013). Bridging engineering. Atlanta, GA: Proceedings of the 120th American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ford, M. J. (2015). Educational implications of choosing “practice” to describe science in the Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 99(6), 1041–1048.

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulp, S. L. (2002), December). 2000 national survey of mathematics and science education: Status of elementary school teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioka, O. (2009). Teacher or examiner? The tensions between formative and summative assessment in the case of science coursework. Research in Science Education, 39(4), 411–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregorcic, B., Etkina, E., & Planinsic, G. (2018). A new way of using the interactive whiteboard in a high school physics classroom: A case study. Research in Science Education, 48(2), 465–489.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., & Moore, T. (2014). Development of an instrument to assess attitudes toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 271–279.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guzey, S. S., Harwell, M., Moreno, M., Peralta, Y., & Moore, T. J. (2017). The impact of design-based STEM integration curricula on student achievement in engineering, science, and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 26(2), 207–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hallyn, F. (Ed.). (2013). Metaphor and analogy in the sciences. Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammack, R., & Ivey, T. (2017). Examining elementary teachers’ engineering self-efficacy and engineering teacher efficacy. School Science and Mathematics, 117(1–2), 52–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herbst, P. G. (2003). Using novel tasks in teaching mathematics: Three tensions affecting the work of the teacher. American Educational Research Journal, 40(1), 197–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hester, K., & Cunningham, C. (2007). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. Honolulu, HI: Proceedings from the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hill, R. B. (2006). New perspectives: Technology teacher education and engineering design. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 43(3), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design, 13(2), 65–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, M. C., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. E. (2011). Elementary teachers’ views about teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1(2), 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3), 345–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irzik, G., & Nola, R. (2014). New directions for nature of science research. In International handbook of research in history, philosophy and science teaching (999–1021). Springer, Dordrecht,

  • Johnson, A. W., Wendell, K. B., & Watkins, J. (2017). Examining experienced teachers’ noticing of and responses to students’ engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7(1), 2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karatas, F. O. (2009). First-year engineering students’ views of the nature of engineering. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing (402453).

  • Karatas, F. O., Micklos, A., & Bodner, G. M. (2011). Sixth-grade students’ views of the nature of engineering and images of engineers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(2), 123–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in the K-12 education. Understanding the states and improving the prospects (Vol. 16). Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

  • Krajcik, J. (2015). Three-dimensional instruction. The Science Teacher, 82(8), 50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2007). Engineering is Elementary: Children’s changing understandings of science and engineering. Honolulu, HI: Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B., & Dorst, K. (2013). Design expertise. London, UK: Routledge.

    Book  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(1), 65–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., & Strobel, J. (2010). Teachers’ concerns on integrating engineering into elementary classrooms. Denver, CO: Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, O., Adamson, K., Maerten-Rivera, J., Lewis, S., Thorton, C., & LeRoy, K. (2008). Teachers’ perspectives on a professional development intervention to improve science instruction among English language learners. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19(1), 41–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lehman, J., Kim, W., & Harris, C. (2014). Collaborations in a community of practice working to integrate engineering design in elementary science education. Journal of STEM Education, 15(3).

  • Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: Bases for accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43(3), 255–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litzinger, T., Lattuca, L. R., Hadgraft, R., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, W., Carr, R. L., & Strobel, J. (2009). Extending teacher professional development through an online learning community: A case study. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange (JETDE), 2(1), 7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Louden, W., Wallace, J., & Groves, R. (2001). Spinning a web (case) around professional standards: Capturing the complexity of science teaching. Research in Science Education, 31(2), 227–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T., Baker Peacock, S., Ko, P., & Rudolph, J. J. (2015). Changes in teachers’ adaptive expertise in an engineering professional development course. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(2), 4.

    Article  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 levels of design for the elementary classroom. Journal of Technology Education, 26(2), 22–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Next Generation Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., & Beitz, W. (2013). Engineering design: A systematic approach. London, UK: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker, C., Abel, Y., & Denisova, E. (2015). Urban elementary STEM initiative. School Science and Mathematics, 115(6), 292–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paugh, P., Wendell, K., & Wright, C. (2018). Elementary engineering as a synergistic site for disciplinary and linguistic learning in an urban classroom. Literacy Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, 67(1), 261–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, P. J., Jones, B. L., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E., & Perkins, M. (2017). Computing and engineering in elementary school: The effect of year-long training on elementary teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about teaching computing and engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(1), 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig, G. H., Johnson, C. C., Moore, T. J., & Bryan, L. A. (2015). Integrated STEM education. In STEM road map (pp. 35–50). London, UK: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. (2004). The wisdom of practice: Essays on teaching, learning, and learning to teach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stillman, J., & Anderson, L. (2011). To follow, reject, or flip the script: Managing instructional tension in an era of high-stakes accountability. Language Arts, 89(1), 22–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramaniam, K. (2013). Examining the content of preservice teachers’ reflections of early field experiences. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 1851–1872.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., & Strobel, J. (2013). Elementary Engineering Education (EEE) adoption and expertise development framework: An inductive and deductive study. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 3(1), 4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, J., Hagenah, S., Kang, H., Stroupe, D., Windschitl, M., & Colley, C. (2016). Rigor and responsiveness in classroom activity. Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tippins, D. J., Nichols, S. E., & Dana, T. M. (1999). Exploring novice and experienced elementary teachers’ science teaching and learning referents through videocases. Research in Science Education, 29(3), 331–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J., Verloop, N., & de Vos, W. (1998). Developing science teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 673–695.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Driel, J., Beijaard, D., & Verloop, N. (2001). Professional development and reform in science education: The role of teachers’ practical knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(2), 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, W. S., Moore, T. J., Guzey, S. S., & Sorge, B. H. (2018). Frameworks to develop integrated STEM curricula. K-12 STEM Education, 4(2), 331–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, D. L. (2015). Engineering professional development: Elementary teachers’ self-efficacy and sources of self-efficacy. Retrieved from PDXScholar (2237).

  • Wendell, K. B. (2014). Design practices of preservice elementary teachers in an integrated engineering and literature experience. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(2), 4.

    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  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 

  • Windschitl, M. (2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M. A., & Stroupe, D. (2017). The three-story challenge: Implications of the Next Generation Science Standards for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(3), 251–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878–903.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wood, W. H. (2004). Decision-based design: A vehicle for curriculum integration. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 433–439.

    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(3), 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. The authors would like to thank the teachers who participated in this study, the reviewers for their insightful comments, and the editors for their constructive feedback.

Funding

The material is based upon the work supported by the National Science Foundation under the Grant No. 0962840.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Science Education, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA

    Jeffrey Radloff & Brenda M. Capobianco

Authors
  1. Jeffrey Radloff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brenda M. Capobianco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey Radloff.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Radloff, J., Capobianco, B. Investigating Elementary Teachers’ Tensions and Mitigating Strategies Related to Integrating Engineering Design-Based Science Instruction. Res Sci Educ 51 (Suppl 1), 213–232 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9844-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9844-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation