Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Supporting Elementary Teachers' Collective Inquiry into the “E” in STEM

Examining Students’ Engineering Design Work

  • SI: Nature of STEM
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the USA context of the Next Generation Science Standards, elementary teachers face challenges in implementing engineering practices in their teaching due their lack of experience and training in engineering design. The paper reports about a multiple case study that examined one professional development approach to improve teachers’ understanding and implementation of the STEM discipline of engineering. Two teams of elementary teachers analyzed their students’ written work and assessments during facilitated professional learning community sessions with a science/engineering education researcher after their first implementation of an engineering design unit. The results indicated that the teachers noticed students’ understandings and misconceptions about the work of engineers, the disciplinary language for a specific engineering unit, the operational mechanism of a design, and engineering epistemic practices (i.e., envisioning design proposals, making evidence-based decisions, evaluating solutions based on criteria). From this collaborative, focused analysis of student work for the engineering challenge, the teacher teams constructed their understanding of students’ thinking and generated recommendations for pedagogical changes in their own STEM teaching practice for engineering design. The findings from this study have implications for forms of professional development that sustain teacher learning about the STEM discipline of engineering design.

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

  • Adedokun, O. A., & Burgess, W. D. (2012). Analysis of paired dichotomous data: A gentle introduction to the McNemar test in SPSS. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 8, 125–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1989). Science for all Americans: a Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. Project 2061. Washington, DC: AAAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Archer, L. B. (1965). Systematic method for designers. London: Council of Industrial Design.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3–31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    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. (2003). Engineering philosophy. Delft: DUP Satellite Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Mena, I. B. (2011). Elementary school teachers’ attempts at integrating engineering design: transformation or assimilation? Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, BC.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M. (2008). Elementary teacher professional development in engineering: lessons learned from Engineering is Elementary. Paper presented at the National Academy of engineering annual meeting, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.eie.org/sites/default/files/downloads/EiE/ResearchPublications/cunningham_2008_nae.pdf. Accessed 14 December 2018.

  • Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 39(3), 11–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2017). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 197–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101, 486–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2007). Engineering is Elementary: children’s changing understandings of science and engineering. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education annual Conference & Exposition, Honolulu, HI. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/1470. Accessed 2 July 2019.

  • Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2006). Elementary teachers’ understandings of engineering and technology. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. Chicago, IL: American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Daugherty, J. L., & Custer, R. L. (2012). Secondary level engineering professional development: content, pedagogy, and challenges. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(1), 51–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daugherty, M. K., Carter, V., & Swagerty, L. (2014). Elementary STEM education: the future for technology and engineering education? Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 49(1), 45–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Department of Education and Skills. (2004). Design and technology: the national curriculum for England key stages 1–4. London: The Department for Education and Skills.

    Google Scholar 

  • Education Scotland. (2019). Curriculum for excellence benchmarks. Retrieved from https://education.gov.scot/improvement/learning-resources/Curriculum%20for%20Excellence%20Benchmarks. Accessed 2 July 2019.

  • EiE. (n.d.). The EiE curriculum. Retrieved from http://eie.org/eie-curriculum. Accessed 30 July 2018.

  • Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119–161). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, T. L. J. (2012). Engineering design as research. In M. Mora, O. Gelman, A. Steenkamp, & M. Raisinghani (Eds.), Research methodologies, innovations and philosophies in software systems engineering and information systems (pp. 389–402). Hershey: IGI Global.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Figueiredo, A. (2008). Toward an epistemology of engineering. Paper presentation at workshop on Philosophy and Engineering, The Royal Academy of Engineering, London. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1314224. Accessed 16 March 2020.

  • Fosnot, C. T., & Perry, R. S. (2005). Constructivism: a psychological theory of learning. In C. T. Fosnot (Ed.), Constructivism: theory, perspectives, and practice (pp. 9–38). New York: Teachers College Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Groves, J. E., Abts, L. R., & Goldberg, G. L. (2014). Using an engineering design process portfolio scoring rubric to structure online high school engineering education. Paper presentation at the 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN.

  • Hammack, R., & Ivey, T. (2017). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of engineering and engineering design. Journal of Research in STEM Education, 3(1/2), 48–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, M. (2011). Supporting the T and the E in STEM: 2004-2010. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 17–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hertel, J. D., Cunningham, C. M., Kelly, G. J., & Lachapelle, C. L. (2016). The roles of engineering notebooks in shaping elementary engineering student discourse and practice. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/27014. Accessed 23 August 2018.

  • Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L. C., & Phillip, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children’s mathematical thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(2), 169–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 7(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). The status and nature of K-12 engineering education in the United States. The Bridge, 39(3), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, G. M., & Colton, A. B. (2005). Looking at student work. Educational Leadership, 5(62), 23–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langer, G. M., Colton, A. B., & Goff, L. (2003). Collaborative analysis of student work: improving teaching and learning. Alexandria: ASCD.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leden, L., Hansson, L., & Redfors, A. (2017). From black and white to shades of grey: a longitudinal study of teachers’ perspectives on teaching sociocultural and subjective aspects of science. Science & Education, 26, 483–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, A. (2009). Neglect of engineering education. Tech Directions, 69(4), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linder, C. J. (1993). A challenge to conceptual change. Science Education, 77, 293–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003). Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 185–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, M., Wendell, K. B., & O’Connell, B. P. (2014). Student videos as a tool for elementary teacher development in teaching engineering: what do teachers notice? Proceedings of the 121st American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference. Washington, DC: American Society for Engineering Education.

  • Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, K. F. (2011). Situation awareness in teaching: what educators can learn from video-based research in other fields. In M. G. Sherin, V. R. Jacobs, & R. A. Phillip (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 51–65). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (n.d.). Education demographic and geographic statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/Programs/Edge/ACSDashboard/ Accessed 11 January 2020.

  • National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, D. C: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • National School Reform Faculty (NSRF). (2015). Student work analysis protocol. Retrieved from https://www.nsrfharmony.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/StudentWorkAnalysis_0.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2018.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: for states by states (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: Achieve Inc. on behalf of the 26 states and partners.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Pirtle, Z. T. G. (2007). The philosophy of science and epistemology of engineering. Paper presentation at workshop on Philosophy and Engineering, Delft University of Technology, the Netherlands. Retrieved from http://philengtech.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/wpe2007abstracts.pdf. Accessed 16 March 2020.

  • Rowland, G. (1992). What do instructional designers actually do? An initial investigation of expert practice. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 5(2), 65–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1948). Knowing how and knowing that. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 46(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sabers, D. S., Cushing, K. S., & Berliner, D. C. (1991). Differences among teachers in a task characterized by simultaneity, multidimensionality, and immediacy. American Educational Research Journal, 28(1), 63–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professional think in action. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • School Reform Initiative (SRI). (n.d.). Protocols. Retrieved from https://www.schoolreforminitiative.org/protocols/ Accessed 30 July 2018.

  • Sherin, M. G., Jacobs, V. R., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Mathematics teacher noticing: seeing through teachers’ eyes. New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spillane, J. (2004). Standards deviation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steup, M. (2018 Edition). Epistemology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2180/entried/epistemology/ accessed 16 march 2020.

  • Stohlmann, M., Moore, T. J., & Roehrig, G. H. (2012). Considerations for teaching integrated STEM education. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 2(1), 28–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, J., McCormick, M., Wendell, K. B., Spencer, K., Milto, E., Portsmore, M., & Hammer, D. (2018). Data-based conjectures for supporting responsive teaching in engineering design with elementary teachers. Science Education, 102, 548–570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Wright, C. G., & Paugh, P. C. (2014). Supporting children’s engineering discourse and decision-making with multimedia engineering notebook tools. Paper presented at the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, IN. Retrieved from https://peer.asee.org/23078. Accessed 2 July 2019.

  • Williams, P. J. (2011). STEM education: Proceed with caution. Design and Technology Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 26–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaşar, Ṣ., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpiur, 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 

  • Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was funded by the van Beuren Charitable Foundation.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Salve Regina University, 100 Ochre Point Avenue, Newport, RI, 02840, USA

    Elaine Silva Mangiante & Kaitlin A. Gabriele-Black

Authors
  1. Elaine Silva Mangiante
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kaitlin A. Gabriele-Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine Silva Mangiante.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mangiante, E.S., Gabriele-Black, K.A. Supporting Elementary Teachers' Collective Inquiry into the “E” in STEM. Sci & Educ 29, 1007–1034 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00123-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00123-9

Search

Navigation