Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: a look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge

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

Abstract

This paper reports on research investigating six middle school teachers without engineering degrees as they taught an engineering unit on the engineering design process. Videotaped classroom sessions and teacher interviews were analyzed to understand the subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge the teachers used and developed as they introduced the eight steps of the engineering design process (from content standards for the state of Massachusetts, USA). The teachers demonstrated wide-ranging knowledge of the engineering design process, and this paper describes two of the steps the teachers showed a more sophisticated understanding—constructing a prototype and redesigning. Examples from the teachers illustrate strengths that can be built upon as well as some areas for further development.

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

References

  • Ball, D. L. (1990). The mathematical understandings that prospective teachers bring to teacher education. The Elementary School Journal, 90(4), 449–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L. (2000). Bridging practices: Intertwining content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 241–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, AB: CMESG/GCEDM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berliner, D. C. (1994). Expertise the wonder of exemplary performances. In J. N. Mangieri & C. C. Block (Eds.), Creating powerful thinking in teachers and students. Fort Worth, TX: Rinehart & Winston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and Improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H., Peressini, D., Romagnano, L., Knuth, E., Willis-Yorker, C., Wooley, C., et al. (2000). Teacher education does matter: A situated view of learning to teach secondary mathematics. Educational Psychologist, 35(3), 193–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Glaser, R., & Rees, E. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 1, pp. 1–75). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cross, N., & Roozenburg, N. (1993). Modelling the design process in engineering and in architecture. Journal of Engineering Design, 3(4), 325–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Darling-Hammond, L., Berry, B., & Thoreson, A. (2001). Does teacher certification matter? Evaluating the evidence. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(1), 57–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E. A. (2003). Knowledge integration in science teaching: analyzing teachers' knowledge development. Research in Science Education, 34, 21–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., & Little, P. (2004). Engineering Design: A Project-Based Introduction. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (1999). Pedagogical content knowledge: An introduction and orientation. In J. Gess-Newsome (Ed.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct and its implications for science education. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Technology Education Association. (2002). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (2nd ed.). Reston: International Technology Education Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M. (1986). Knowing, doing, and teaching multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 3(4), 305–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 29–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, B. (1997). How designers think: The design process demystified (3rd ed.). Boston: Architectural Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In J. Gess-Newsome & N. G. Lederman (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge: The construct an its implications for science education (Vol. 6, pp. 95–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

  • Massachusetts DOE. (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Massachusetts.

  • McAdoo, M. (1998). Companies steer new K-12 courses. IEEE Spectrum, 35, 27–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, R. (2004). Issues of learning and knowledge in technology education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 14, 21–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKenna, A., & Agogino, A. (1998). A web-based instructional module for teaching middle school students engineering design with simple machines. Journal of Engineering Education, 87(4), 437–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council (Ed.). (2005). National science education standards. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Education. (2007). Foundation for the Atlantic Canada Technology Education Curriculum. From http://www.ed.gov.nl.ca/edu/sp/foundations/tech_edu/te_found_nf-lab_full.pdf. Retrieved 29 Nov 2007.

  • Peterson, P. L. (1988). Teachers' and students' cognitional knowledge for classroom teaching and learning. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 5–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale, survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who can understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veal, W. R., Tippins, D. J., & Bell, J. (1998, April). The Evolution of Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Prospective Secondary Physics Teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, San Diego, CA.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Engineering Education and Outreach, Tufts University, 474 Boston Ave, Medford, MA, 02155, USA

    Morgan M. Hynes

Authors
  1. Morgan M. Hynes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Morgan M. Hynes.

Appendix

Appendix

Pre-Interview

Educational background

  • Please describe your educational background including your undergraduate and graduate studies.

  • Please describe the science courses you took in college. How did you do in these courses?

  • Please describe the math courses you took in college. How did you do in these courses?

  • Please describe any engineering courses you took in college OR any courses that may have involved engineering-like projects or experiences. How did you do in these courses or experiences?

Experiences

  • Please describe any experiences related to math, science, or engineering you have had in your life. This may include construction projects, summer jobs, previous professions, etc.

  • Are you tech savvy? For example, do you use computers often, do you set up your own household electronics, do you understand mechanical gadgets and how they work?

Mid-Interview

Review the topics/concepts covered in the previous lessons

  • What did you feel were the most important concepts for the students to come away understanding from lesson x?

  • If you were not using LEGO for the spatula design challenge, what material(s) would you choose to use instead, and why?

  • What made the strongest design so strong?

  • Do you believe the students understand what makes for a strong spatula? If you were going to teach this lesson again, what would you do the same and what would you do different?

  • Was there anything that surprised you while teaching these concepts?

  • Did you develop any strategies or methods for teaching these concepts that you didn’t have before? Did you develop new PCK? Did you develop new SMK?

Review a teaching incidence or situation with the teacher

  • How did you know to say that? Describe the subject matter knowledge you called upon in this situation.

  • Why did you say x, y, and z? Would you have said something different to another student?

  • Why did you choose that real-world example?

  • What was the outcome of this situation? Were you satisfied with the outcome? What do you believe the student learned in this situation? What did you learn from this interaction? What knowledge do you think may have helped you create a more successful outcome?

  • Did you take any new pedagogical content knowledge away from this interaction?

Final interview

Review the important topics/concepts covered in the curriculum and subject matter knowledge development

  • What topics do you believe you taught well? Why? Did you already know the concepts before the training?

  • What topics did you not teach as well? Why?

  • What were some of the challenges in teaching these concepts to your students?

  • What SMK did you learn or reinforce for yourself?

Pedagogical content knowledge used and developed

  • What did you learn about your students regarding their understanding of engineering, math or science (emphasis on engineering and engineering design process)?

  • What strategies did you use to teach this unit? Were there strategies that were different from your math or science classroom teaching?

  • What were some of the challenges of teaching this curriculum?

  • What did the students struggle with in this curriculum? What specific concepts or ideas did the students struggle with?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hynes, M.M. Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: a look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. Int J Technol Des Educ 22, 345–360 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9142-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9142-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation