Middle Childhood Education: Engineering Concepts, Practices, and Trajectories

  • Cathy P. Lachapelle
  • Christine M. Cunningham
  • Martha E. Davis
Reference work entry
First Online:
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

This chapter discusses the important features of age-appropriate engineering education for school-age children. It lays out core concepts and practices for engaging children, articulating eight design parameters that include narrative context; goals, constraints, and requirements; engineering design processes and epistemic practices; exploring materials and methods; application of science and mathematics; analysis of data for planning and redesign; collaboration; and agency. It considers three bands: ages 7–8 (beginning readers), ages 9–10 (middle childhood), and ages 11–12 (preadolescents). This chapter extends the trajectory presented in chapter “Engineering Concepts, Practices, and Trajectories for Early Childhood Education” (Cunningham et al. In English LD, Moore TJ (eds) Early engineering learning. Springer, New York, in press). For each design parameter of engineering education, the chapter describes what engineering activity looks like for each age band, drawing on the authors’ experience with curriculum design, evaluation, and observation and research in classrooms.

Keywords

Engineering education Learning trajectories Elementary school 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Barron, B. J. S., Schwartz, D. L., Vye, N. J., Moore, A., Petrosino, A., Zech, L., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 7, 271–311.Google Scholar
  2. Blumenfeld, P. C., Kempler, T. M., & Krajcik, J. S. (2006). Motivation and cognitive engagement in learning environments. In The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 475–488). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, J. D., Barron, B., Pea, R. D., Meltzoff, A., Kuhl, P., Bell, P., et al. (2006). Foundations and opportunities for an interdisciplinary science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 19–34). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brophy, S. P., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45(9), 971–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burke, R. J. (2007). Women and minorities in STEM: A primer. In R. J. Burke & M. C. Mattis (Eds.), Women and minorities in science, technology, engineering and mathematics: Upping the numbers (pp. 3–27). Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buxton, C. A. (2010). Social problem solving through science: An approach to critical, place-based, science teaching and learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(1), 120–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cajas, F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, A. (2006). Cognitive apprenticeship. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Committee on Integrated STEM Education, National Academy of Engineering, & National Research Council. (2014). STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  11. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common core state standards for mathematics. Common Core State Standards Initiative.Google Scholar
  12. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC.Google Scholar
  13. Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Precollege engineering education. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  14. Cunningham, C. M., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2011). Research and evaluation results for the engineering is elementary project: An executive summary of the first six years. Boston: Museum of Science.Google Scholar
  15. Cunningham, C. M., & Lachapelle, C. P. (2014). Designing engineering experiences to engage all students. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 117–140). Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., & Davis, M. E. (in press). Engineering concepts, practices, and trajectories for early childhood education. In L. D. English & T. J. Moore (Eds.), Early engineering learning. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Department for Education (2014). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Department for Education. Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/335504/EYFS_framework_from_1_September_2014__with_clarification_note.pdf.
  18. Diefes-Dux, H. A. (2014). In-service teacher professional development in engineering education: Early years. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 233–258). Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Duschl, R. A. (2008). Science education in three-part harmony: Balancing conceptual, epistemic, and social learning goals. Review of Research in Education, 32(1), 268–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a Community of Learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Greeno, J. G. (2006). Learning in activity. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 79–96). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Gruber, H. E., & Vonèche, J. J. (Eds.). (1977). The essential Piaget. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  23. Hill, A. M., & Anning, A. (2001). Primary teachers’ and students’ understanding of school situated design in Canada and England. Research in Science Education, 31(1), 117–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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 (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Honey, M., & Pearson, G. (2014). In H. Schweingruber (Ed.), STEM integration in K-12 education: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  26. Immordino-Yang, M. H. (2015). Emotions, learning, and the brain: Exploring the educational implications of affective neuroscience (Vol. 1). New York: W. W. Norton & Co.Google Scholar
  27. International Technology Education Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology. Reston: ITEA.Google Scholar
  28. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. A. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kelly, G.J. (2008). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.). Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117; 288–291). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Klassen, S. (2007). The application of historical narrative in science learning: The Atlantic cable story. Science & Education, 16(3–5), 335–352.Google Scholar
  32. Kolodner, J. L. (2002). Facilitating the learning of design practices: Lessons learned from an inquiry into science education. Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 119–170.Google Scholar
  33. Kolodner, J. L. (2006). Case-based reasoning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 225–242). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2004). Promoting deep science learning through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning by design™ classrooms. In N. M. Seel & S. Dijkstra (Eds.), Curriculum, plans, and processes in instructional design: International perspectives (pp. 89–89). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  35. Krajcik, J. S., & Blumenfeld, P. C. (2006). Project-based learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 317–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2014). Engineering in elementary schools. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 61–88). Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Lachapelle, C. P., Cunningham, C. M., Jocz, J., Kay, A. E., Phadnis, P., Wertheimer, J., & Arteaga, R. (2011). Engineering is elementary: An evaluation of years 4 through 6 field testing. Boston: Museum of Science.Google Scholar
  38. Lachapelle, C. P., Phadnis, P., Jocz, J., & Cunningham, C. M. (2012). The impact of engineering curriculum units on students’ interest in engineering and science. Presented at the NARST Annual International Conference, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  39. Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding of engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. National Academy of Engineering [NAE]. Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education. (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  42. National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2010). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. NAEYC. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/psmath.pdf.
  43. National Research Council [NRC]. (2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K-8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  44. National Research Council [NRC]. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13158.
  45. National Research Council [NRC]. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  46. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nextgenscience.org/.
  47. Oh, Y., Lachapelle, C. P., Shams, M. F., Hertel, J. D., & Cunningham, C. M. (2016). Evaluating the efficacy of engineering is elementary for student learning of engineering and science concepts. Presented at the AERA Annual Meeting, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  48. Palincsar, A. S. (2005). 12 social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (p. 285). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Pearson, G., & Young, A. T. (Eds.). (2002). Technically speaking: Why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roth, W.-M., & Lee, Y.-J. (2007). “Vygotsky’s neglected legacy”: Cultural-historical activity theory. Review of Educational Research, 77(2), 186–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sawyer, R. K. (2006a). Educating for innovation. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 1(1), 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sawyer, R. K. (2006b). Introduction: The new science of learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 1–16). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Solomon, J., & Hall, S. (1996). An inquiry into progression in primary technology: A role for teaching. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 6(3), 263–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Wendell, K., Kendall, A., Portsmore, M., Wright, C. G., Jarvin, L., & Rogers, C. (2014). Embedding elementary school science instruction in engineering design problem solving. In S. Purzer, J. Strobel, & M. E. Cardella (Eds.), Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy, and practices (pp. 143–162). Lafayette: Purdue University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, E. O. (2002). The power of story. American Educator, 26(1), 8–11.Google Scholar
  59. Zubrowski, B. (2002). Integrating science into design technology projects: Using a standard model in the design process. Journal of Technology Education, 13(2), 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cathy P. Lachapelle
    • 1
  • Christine M. Cunningham
    • 1
  • Martha E. Davis
    • 1
  1. 1.Museum of ScienceBostonUSA

Section editors and affiliations

  • John Williams
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationCurtin UniversityPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations