Shifts in elementary teachers' pedagogical reasoning: Studying teacher learning in an online graduate program in engineering education

Abstract

Background Elementary educators are increasingly asked to teach engineering design, motivating study of how they learn to teach this discipline. In particular, there is a need to examine how teachers reason about pedagogical situations and dilemmas in engineering—how they draw on their disciplinary understandings, attention to students' thinking, and pedagogical practices to support students' learning. Purpose/Hypothesis The purpose of our qualitative study was to examine elementary teachers' pedagogical reasoning in an online graduate program. We asked: What stances do teachers take toward learning and teaching engineering design? How do these stances shift over the course of the program? Design/Method We identified two teachers, Alma and Margaret, who exhibited productive shifts in their pedagogical reasoning during the program. Drawing on interviews and videos of their teaching, we developed case studies characterizing their stances toward teaching and learning engineering. Results Alma shifted in her reasoning about teaching the design process, from treating it as linear, discrete steps to recognizing the dynamic, overlapping nature of design practices. Similarly, Margaret shifted in how she reasoned about failure and iteration, recognizing the need to help students analyze unexpected design performances to learn from and iterate on their designs. For both teachers, these shifts were dynamic and nonlinear, reflecting both context‐sensitivity and growing stability in their reasoning. Conclusions Engineering teacher educators should provide opportunities for teachers to reason about the specific pedagogical dilemmas in engineering and consider how teachers integrate disciplinary understandings with attention to students' reasoning and actions and pedagogical practices.

Characterizing engineering outreach educators' talk moves: An exploratory framework

“…Integrating this research with studies of engineering norms that emphasize reflective, collaborative decision‐making (Crismond & Adams, 2012; Tonso, 2006; Wendell et al, 2017), we see educator talk moves as tools that position learners as iterative co‐developers of knowledge (Calabrese Barton & Tan, 2010; Gutiérrez & Rogoff, 2003). This aligns with claims that supporting students' agentive, collaborative engineering design necessitates teaching moves grounded in eliciting, noticing, and responding to students' unique design ideas and artifacts (Watkins et al, 2020; Watkins & Portsmore, 2021).…”

Examining interactions between dominant discourses and engineering educational concepts in teachers' pedagogical reasoning

“…Our original goal in the broader research project was to examine shifts in teachers' pedagogical responsiveness in engineering during the program (Watkins et al, 2021). However, we found in our teaching and initial analyses that these shifts were often entangled with other aspects of teachers' pedagogical reasoning, such as when they positioned their students based on institutional labels of ability (ability hierarchy) or when they framed educational problems as solely the responsibility of individual students or families (individual blame).…”

“…In addition, given the historical structures of school institutions and how these structures have (re)produced educational inequalities (Apple, 1982), the use of concepts in engineering education will be shaped by the sociopolitical contexts of K–12 schooling. For example, in our prior work, we observed how a teacher used the engineering design process to control how and when students could engage in engineering activities, restricting their agency and opportunities to learn (Watkins et al, 2021). Similarly, Wright et al (2018) highlight how collaborative engineering design tasks amplified the risks of entrenched, racialized classroom management practices for African American students, constraining their access to the learning objectives.…”

Assessing the state of technology education in primary schools: a systematic review of the last 2 decades

“…This chapter discussed teachers' personal factors based on eight selected articles, addressing the second part of the second research question (Table 6). Four articles included a TPD on technology education and reported the results on teachers' factors (Deniz et al, 2020;Stein et al, 2000Stein et al, , 2007Watkins et al, 2021). Deniz et al (2020) examined the changes in teachers' engineering views after a 3-day TPD.…”

“…Teachers' nature of engineering views (NOE) was improved after the TPD, and above all NOE aspects, their views regarding engineering design processes were more informed. Watkins et al (2021) studied the reasoning of two teachers about teaching engineering design processes following a teacher education program. Changes in the teachers' reasoning reflected both context sensitivity and growing stability.…”