Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high‐leverage practices through engineering design‐based science instruction

Abstract

In an effort to document teachers' enactments of new reform in science teaching, valid and scalable measures of science teaching using engineering design are needed. This study describes the development and testing of an approach for documenting and characterizing elementary science teachers' multiday enactments of engineering design-based science teaching. Using the tenets of ambitious teaching, we explore how Grade 4 teachers utilized elements of high-leverage practices in an effort to teach science using engineering design. Data included 33 hours of classroom observations, semistructured interviews, and teacher reflections. Using lesson event, classroom organization, and instructional codes analogous to the literature on the engineering design process, we generated and analyzed classroom event maps, noting trends across multiple and individual teacher classrooms. Results indicated percentages of time spent on different phases within the design process among multiple classrooms as well as consistency across individual cases that demonstrate teachers' capacity to enact ambitious teaching practices through engineering design-based science instruction. Implications suggest that our approach provides a useful method to not only document and characterize engineering design-based science teaching practices but also reveals complexities of leveraging student thinking through ambitious engineering teaching practices.

Elementary Teachers’ Positive and Practical Risk-Taking When Teaching Science Through Engineering Design

“…Teaching science using engineering design represents a novel, innovative method of science instruction that requires teachers to alter their current teaching methods (Capobianco, Delisi, & Radloff, 2018;Cunningham, 2008). Consequently, elementary teachers are repeatedly found to be resistant to, and unfamiliar or uncomfortable with, adopting design-based science instruction (Hammack & Ivey, 2017;Hsu, Purzer, & Cardella, 2011;Lee & Strobel, 2010;Liu, Carr, & Strobel, 2009), and instruction has been found to differ between classrooms (Capobianco, 2011;Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009).…”

“…Approximately 6 to 8 hours of classroom observations were conducted for each teacher implementing an engineering design task (total ,40 hours). Observations entailed the use of an observation protocol designed to address engineering practices as depicted in the NGSS (Capobianco, Delisi, & Radloff, 2018). The focus of this protocol was on the teacher, specifically his/her instructional practices exhibited during a given lesson or series of lessons.…”

The challenges of alignment for the Next Generation Science Standards

“…Many studies that have attempted to judge alignment against NGSS look to each dimension separately or select only one dimension as a referent. Capobianco, DeLisi, and Radloff (), for example, study alignment of an elementary engineering design unit to NGSS by comparing each unit against each of the three dimensions. Similarly, the Seeds of Science/Roots of Reading materials created prior to the release of NGSS by Lawrence Hall of Science with NSF funding (Cervetti, Barber, Dorph, Pearson, & Goldschmidt, ) are now being reviewed to NGSS, with each grade level unit compared against all three dimensions to note whether it is given some, moderate, or major focus in the unit (Lawrence Hall of Science, ).…”

Recognition and Positional Identity in an Elementary Professional Learning Community: A Case Study

“…Despite the increase in research focusing on the support of elementary teachers' facilitation of engineering design activities (Capobianco, DeLisi, & Radloff, 2018;Johnson, Wendell, & Watkins, 2017;King & English, 2016;Watkins et al, 2018), research dedicated to the development of teacher professional identities, especially those from historically marginalized communities, has yet to be extensively examined within engineering education. Previous research on models of professional learning within engineering education has mainly focused on the development of teachers' pedagogical content knowledge and understandings of engineering (Duncan, Diefes-Dux, & Gentry, 2011;Hsu, Cardella, & Purzer, 2010;Sun & Strobel, 2014;Yoon, Kong, Diefes-Dux, & Strobel, 2018), as well as on changes in teachers' attitudes towards engineering (Hsu, Purzer, & Cardella, 2011;Yoon, Diefes-Dux, & Strobel, 2013).…”