Abstract
One of the challenges currently facing elementary science teacher educators is how best to prepare preservice teachers for the demands of a science curriculum that includes engineering. Teachers are expected to follow the curriculum mandated by their state department of education (US) or provincial ministry of education (Canada), and in the near future, science curriculum in the United States is likely to be tied to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, Achieve, Inc. 2013a, b), which delineates crosscutting concepts, disciplinary core ideas, and scientific and engineering practices. Because science and engineering are highly interconnected, learning about science inquiry can enhance learning about engineering design and technology, and vice versa (National Research Council. A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2012. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165). Many engineering activities lead naturally to science inquiry as questions arise during the design process, so engaging in engineering activities during science methods courses offers preservice teachers the opportunity to develop an understanding of both science and engineering practices. Preservice teachers’ beliefs about science, technology, and engineering will influence how they teach their future students. Including technology and engineering design in elementary science methods courses creates opportunities for preservice teachers to discover that technology is not simply computers and cell phones and to learn about scientific phenomena in the context of an engineering problem. Incorporating engineering activities in science methods courses allows teacher educators to emphasize engineering, technology, and science applications. Preservice teachers can learn how to apply design skills in contexts that mirror how engineers and scientists solve problems and answer questions, while they think critically, construct explanations, communicate information, and engage in reasoned argument DiBiase (Science Activities, 38(1), 11–16, 2001).
Fusing engineering education with other subjects, such as mathematics and science, is an essential first step in promoting preservice teachers’ potential to implement engineering education.(Hudson et al. 2009, p. 165)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Achieve, Inc. (2013a). Next generation science standards: Vol. 1. The standards. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Achieve, Inc. (2013b). Next generation science standards: Vol. 2. Appendixes. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Aiken, F. (1991). The nature of science. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Aikenhead, G. S., & Ryan, A. G. (1992). The development of a new instrument: “Views on science-technology-society” (VOSTS). Science Education, 76(5), 477–491.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans. New York: Oxford University Press. Available at http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/sfaatoc.htm
Bencze, J. L. (2010). Promoting student-led science and technology projects in elementary teacher education: Entry into core pedagogical practices through technological design. International Journal of Technological Design Education, 20, 43–62. doi:10.1007/s10798-008-9063-7.
Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 20–30. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00111.x.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P-12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387. doi:10.1002/j.2168-9830.2008.tb00985.x.
Bybee, R. W. (1998). Bridging science and technology. The Science Teacher, 65(6), 38–42.
Capobianco, B. (2012, January). Investigating essential features for successful implementation of an elementary science methods course on engineering. Paper presented at the annual meeting for the Association of Science Teacher Education, Clearwater. Retrieved from https://stemedhub.org/resources/680
Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic image of the scientist: The draw-a-scientist test. Science Education, 67(2), 255–265.
Charette, R. N. (2013). The STEM crisis is a myth. IEEE Spectrum, 50(9), 44–59. doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2013.6587189.
Constantinou, C., Hadjilouca, R., & Papadouris, N. (2010). Students’ epistemological awareness concerning the distinction between science and technology. International Journal of Science Education, 32(2), 143–172. doi:10.1080/09500690903229296.
Council of Ministers of Education Canada. (1997). The common framework of science learning outcomes K to 12. Retrieved from http://publications.cmec.ca/science/framework/
Culver, D. E. (2012). A qualitative assessment of preservice elementary teachers’ formative perceptions regarding engineering and K-12 engineering education. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/etd (Paper 12888).
Cunningham, C. M., Lachapelle, C. P., & Lindgren-Streicher, A. (2005, June). Assessing elementary school students’ conceptions of engineering and technology. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference, Portland.
DiBiase, W. J. (2001). Constructing a cotton-ball catapult: An interdisciplinary STS learning experience. Science Activities, 38(1), 11–16.
Diefes-Dux, H. A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2011). Work in progress: Interpreting elementary students advanced conceptions of engineering from the Draw-an-Engineer Test. Frontiers in Education Conference, F3J-1-F3J-2.
Engineers Canada. (2015). Engineering labour market in Canada: Projections to 2025. Retrieved from http://www.engineerscanada.ca/sites/default/files/Labour-Market-2015-e.pdf
Holbrook, J., & Rannikmae, M. (2009). The meaning of scientific literacy. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4, 275–288.
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, 1(2), 31–39. doi:10.5703/1288284314639.
Hudson, P., English, L. D., & Dawes, L. (2009). Analysing preservice teachers’ potential for implementing engineering education in the middle school. Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 15(3), 165–174.
International Technology Education Association (ITEA). (2009). The overlooked STEM imperatives: Technology and engineering. Reston: Author.
Kelley, T. R. (2012). Voices from the past: Messages for a STEM future. Journal of Technology Studies, 38(1), 34–42.
Kinniburgh, L., & Shaw, E. (2007). Building reading fluency in elementary science through readers’ theatre. Science Activities, 44, 16–22.
Museum of Science, Boston. (2013). Why teach engineering to children? Retrieved from http://www.eie.org/sites/default/files/engineering_for_children.pdf
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy. Committee on the Study of Teacher Preparation Programs in the United States, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Retrieved from http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13165
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2007). The Ontario curriculum, grades 1–8: Science and technology. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008a). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Science. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008b). The Ontario curriculum, grades 11 and 12: Science. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009a). The Ontario curriculum, grades 9 and 10: Technological education. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Ontario Ministry of Education. (2009b). The Ontario curriculum, grades 11 and 12: Technological education. Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
Petroski, H. (2003). Engineering: Early education. American Scientist, 91, 206–209.
Redmond, A., Thomas, J., High, K., Scott, M., Jordan, P., & Dockers, J. (2011). Enriching science and math through engineering. School Science and Mathematics, 111(8), 399–408.
Rose, L. C., Gallup, A. M., Dugger, W. E., & Starkweather, K. N. (2004). The second installment of the ITEA/Gallup poll and what it reveals as to how Americans think about technology. Technology Teacher, 64(1), S1–S12.
Sargent, J. F., Jr. (2013). The U.S. science and engineering workforce: Recent, current, and projected employment, wages, and unemployment. Congressional Research Service report no. R43061. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf
Sullivan, J. F. (2006). Broadening engineering’s participation – A call for K-16 engineering education. The Bridge, 36(2), 17–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tippett, C.D. (2016). Teaching Engineering Design in Elementary Science Methods Classes. In: Annetta, L., Minogue, J. (eds) Connecting Science and Engineering Education Practices in Meaningful Ways. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 44. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16399-4_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16399-4_12
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-16398-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-16399-4
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)