Integrating engineering into Delaware's K-5 classrooms: a study of pedagogical and curricular resources
Date
2017
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
University of Delaware
Abstract
This study examines the personal and curricular resources available to Delaware’s elementary teachers during a time of innovative curriculum change, i.e., their knowledge, goals and beliefs regarding elementary engineering curriculum and the pedagogical support to teach two Science and Engineering Practices provided by science teaching materials. Delaware was at the forefront of K-12 STEM movement, first to adopt statewide elementary curriculum materials to complement existing science units, and one of the first to adopt the new science standards—Next Generation Science Standards. What supports were available to teachers as they adapted and adopted this new curriculum? To investigate this question, I examined (1) teachers’ beliefs about engineering and the engineering curriculum, and (2) the pedagogical supports available to teachers in selected science and engineering curriculum. ☐ Teachers’ knowledge, goals, and beliefs regarding Delaware’s adoption of new elementary engineering curriculum were surveyed using an adapted version of the Design, Engineering, and Technology Survey (Hong, Purser, & Gardella, 2011; Yaser, Baker, Carpius, Krauss, & Roberts, 2006). Also, three open ended questions sought to reveal deeper understanding of teacher knowledge and understanding of engineering; their concerns about personal and systemic resources related to the new curriculum, its logistics, and feasibility; and their beliefs about the potential positive impact presented by the engineering education initiative. Teacher concerns were analyzed using the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (Hall & Hord, 2010). Lay understandings of engineering were analyzed by contrasting naïve representations of engineering with three key characteristics of engineering adapted from an earlier study (Capobianco Diefes-Dux, Mena, & Weller, 2011). ☐ Survey findings for teachers who had attended training and those who have not yet attended professional development in the new curriculum were compared with few notable differences. Almost all elementary teacher respondents were familiar with engineering and able to define it using one or more key characteristics. They valued the inclusion of engineering in the elementary curriculum; however trained and untrained teachers reported they were not confident about teaching it and were unaware of the new standards related to engineering. Teachers saw potential advantages or benefits of the new curriculum as helping improve science and math understanding, an opportunity to increase vocational awareness, and engaging students and motivating them to learn. Most teachers saw similar barriers to implementation-- lack of teacher knowledge, lack of time to learn about engineering and how to teach engineering, and lack of administrative support. Almost all were open to additional in-service training to learn more about this new curriculum. ☐ Three fifth grade science units were examined for evidence of teacher pedagogical support in teaching two Science and Engineering Practices (SEP) advocated by the Next Generation Science Standards. An analytic framework was developed based upon two NGSS SEPs: Asking questions, defining problems and Engaging in argument from evidence. Findings revealed that the kits varied greatly in their pedagogical approaches to the two SEPs and differences might be explained by each kit’s underlying orientations to the teaching-learning process. ☐ Findings from these investigations have implications for the design of professional development and for engineering curricula. They highlight the importance of considering teacher beliefs about curriculum implementation and subject matter, as well as the importance of creating curriculum materials that focus teacher attention toward student thinking and the language rich science and engineering practices. Recommendations also include ongoing professional development to allow teachers time to try out and revise pedagogical routines that support the SEPs studied here.
Description
Keywords
Education, Elementary engineering, Pedagogical change, Stem education, Teacher beliefs