Critical Issues in Engineering Education
Post by Natasha Wilkerson
December 28, 2021
Did you know that most state science standards now include engineering? But does engineering actually support science learning? Are teachers prepared to teach engineering effectively?
This isn’t our typical STEM activity blog post, but I am excited to share some of what I am learning in graduate school! I am working on my Ph.D. in Curriculum & Instruction with an emphasis in engineering education, and I have been curious about the critical issues of this field. So I decided to take a closer look at the current research related to the following questions:
What is the point of K-12 engineering education?
What is the engineering design process?
Do engineering design challenges improve science learning?
How do students feel about engineering?
Are teachers prepared to implement engineering?
Read on for what I found!
What is the point of K-12 engineering education?
When the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released in 2013, they emphasized the critical role of engineering in science learning (NGSS Lead States, 2013). In fact, they placed engineering practices at the level of scientific inquiry. The result has generally involved doing engineering design challenges that involve testing prototypes to solve a context-specific problem (Moore et al., 2014).
However, some argue that this approach promotes a piecemeal approach to engineering that creates misconceptions and does not utilize the full potential of engineering learning (Cunningham & Carlsen, 2014).
Instead, some propose teaching engineering as a separate discipline. Some highlights:
Moore et al. developed a framework that includes 12 key indicators that define engineering literacy for K-12 students (2014).
Cunningham and Kelly conducted an in-depth review of the field of professional engineering and identified 16 epistemic practices for K-12 education (2017).
Pleasants and Olson proposed nine key features of the nature of engineering to guide K-12 engineering education (2019).
To read more about the learning goals of engineering as a separate discipline, check out our blog post Understanding a Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning.
Whether part of science or as a separate field, the point of K-12 engineering is still actively under debate. And this uncertainty is causing mixed messages for schools and teachers.
What is the engineering design process and does it support learning?
An additional challenge to defining learning outcomes is the wide range of the engineering discipline. Professional engineering fields include mechanical, aerospace, chemical, and industrial engineering, to name a few, each with a unique set of knowledge. How can teachers possibly cover content from all these fields?
Instead, K-12 instruction typically focuses on more general engineering practices connected to the design process, where students attempt to design a solution to solve an open-ended problem (Martin et al., 2015). Capobianco et al. define these practices as part of an iterative and systematic process that requires five phases to solve an open-ended problem (2013). These steps include identifying the problem, developing a plan, creating and testing a prototype, gathering feedback, and improving the design. The authors emphasize integrating science concepts throughout this process. For example, teachers can prompt students to use science concepts to explain test results.
More recently, Capobianco et al. investigated the implementation of these design phases in elementary science classes (2018). The study found that teachers allocated varying amounts of time for each phase including a significant amount of time on the planning phase compared to problem scoping. The researchers also noted critical moments in the design process where teachers had the opportunity to gain insight into student thinking and deepen their understanding of concepts.
However, some researchers have criticized using a step-by-step process in engineering design as it may contribute to an over-emphasis on building a product instead of focusing on engineering practices (Pleasants et al., 2021).
For our view on the engineering design process, click here!
Do engineering design challenges improve science learning?
Due to the increase in engineering in the science classroom, studies have investigated the effectiveness of engineering instruction to increase science learning. For example, Capobianco et al. examined engineering design activities in a 4th-grade science classroom (2021). If engineering instruction was implemented with high fidelity, performance on science and engineering concepts improved.
However, another study revealed that about half of engineering design activities in elementary science classrooms lacked connections to science (Pleasants et al., 2021). Only 11% of engineering activities had deep ties to science concepts. Researchers pointed to the need for more high-quality engineering activities to promote science learning outcomes.
In a study of 2,530 elementary students, Crotty et al. investigated strategies to promote engineering learning during integrated STEM classrooms (2017). The study suggested that an engineering lesson at the beginning to frame the unit and at the end as an application project results in more significant learning outcomes than classrooms that only used engineering as a culminating project. Another study found similar results during an informal engineering program where participants who engaged in an engineering activity scored higher on a posttest on related content knowledge compared to a control group (Moreno et al., 2016).
While these studies show promise for the potential for engineering to improve science learning, the question remains whether engineering design is better than scientific inquiry. Further study is needed on how engineering impacts student outcomes across grade levels in both engineering and science learning.
How do students feel about engineering?
Headlines are calling attention to the lack of engineers and scientists, and researchers are investigating whether engineering curriculum can change students' attitudes towards STEM careers to potentially increase interest and persistence in STEM pathways. Here are some of the latest studies investigating this topic.
Ciftci et al. used the STEM Attitude Scale and STEM Career Interest Survey and found that a positive correlation between students' attitudes towards engineering fields and interest in engineering careers for middle school students (2020).
Thomas et al. modified a previous tool to develop the Draw-an-Engineer Test to gain insight into students' conceptions of who engineers are and what they do (2020). The assessment tool involves students drawing engineers, adding speech bubbles on what they are saying, and adding additional context on what the engineer is doing.
Utley et al. used the Draw-an-Engineer Test to study elementary students completing a single engineering unit (2020). Researchers found significant gains in general knowledge of engineering after completing the unit; however, the Draw-an-Engineer test results indicated a small effect of the engineering instruction on influencing ideas on the work of an engineer and how engineers use mathematics.
Other studies have found similarly mixed results of the impact of engineering instruction on students' attitudes towards engineering. For example, a large-scale quantitative study of 1,167 students found that enrollment in informal STEM clubs improved students' attitudes towards STEM fields, regardless of gender (Ozis et al., 2018). However, Guzey et al. found that while students engaging in engineering instruction developed an increased interest in science and engineering, subsequent years of engineering instruction did not further increase this interest (2019).
Are teachers prepared to teach engineering?
A significant area of research is around effectively preparing teachers for engineering instruction. As noted earlier, the engineering design process involves students taking unique approaches to an open-ended problem, which requires deep content knowledge from the teacher. Are teachers prepared? Here is some of the latest studies in this area.
Increased instructional and planning time demands were a significant barrier to engineering instruction along with challenges in guiding students towards authentic design solutions (Radloff et al., 2019).
Effective engineering instruction requires risk-taking in learning new pedagogy and implementing instruction (Radloff et al., 2019).
Researchers found huge variability in implementing design activities (Capobianco et al., 2021).
Interviews with teachers revealed apprehension in teaching engineering and difficulty implementing more open-ended design challenges (Capobianco et al., 2021).
Classroom observations revealed critical elements missing from engineering instruction, including lack of iterative design and limited time on researching and planning (Wheeler et al., 2019).
Teachers need training programs that model effective teaching strategies to develop familiarity with engineering practices (Cunningham & Carlsen, 2014).
Teachers who received design-focused professional development effectively utilized key moments of the design process to elicit student thinking (Capobianco et al., 2018).
Summary of Findings
Following a surge of popularity of engineering in K-12 education, researchers are scrambling to catch up and establish research-based pedagogy, developmentally appropriate content goals, and effective professional development.
Continued research on K-12 engineering is critical for effectively implementing meaningful educational experiences. However, a significant challenge is a lack of consensus around K-12 engineering education learning goals. Some scholars and educators advocate for engineering as a way to promote science learning. Others call for engineering as a separate discipline where all students should have the opportunity to develop engineering practices.
In defining engineering education, scholars have attempted to translate professional engineering into key concepts and practices for K-12. The practices were translated into an engineering design process central to most of the described design activities. However, some critics worried about an overemphasis on the final engineering product, and researchers should emphasize the role of an instructor during a design activity to avoid a tendency towards "activitymania."
More work is needed to determine the impact of engineering-based science instruction versus traditional scientific inquiry instruction on promoting science learning. Studies show the significant challenges in preparing teachers to teach engineering effectively. So is it worth the effort to add engineering to science classrooms?
Another important note is that some studies found an increased interest in engineering, but newer assessment tools did not find similar gains in understanding engineering. More research is needed to determine if students' increased interest is based on accurate conceptions of engineering. The concern is that students are getting excited about engineering without really understanding what it means
Overall, the emerging field of pre-college engineering education is an exciting area for research and development. However, much work is to be done in order to promote meaningful educational experiences that align with goals for students and allow educators and policymakers to make research-based decisions on the future of engineering education.
What does this mean for teachers and schools?
The field of K-12 engineering education is still evolving, and this means we need to all have a voice in ensuring the best for our students! Instead of chasing the latest fad in education, we need to stop and consider what the goals of education are and the most effective way to get there. Where does engineering fit in K-12? This is a question we need to carefully consider!
References
Capobianco, B. M., Nyquist, C. & Tyrie, N. (2013). Shedding light on engineering design. Science and Children, 50(5), 58-64.
Capobianco, B. M., DeLisi, J., & Radloff, J. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers' enactment of high-leverage practices through engineering design-based science instruction. Science Education, 102(2), 342–376. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21325
Capobianco, B. M., Radloff, J., & Lehman, J. D. (2021). Elementary science teachers' sense-making with learning to implement engineering design and its impact on students' science achievement. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(1), 39–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1789267
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5
Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5
Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. Y. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21271
Ciftci, A., Topcu, M. S., & Erdogan, I. (2020). Gender gap and career choices in STEM education: Turkey sample. International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(3), 53–66.
Crotty, E. A., Guzey, S. S., Roehrig, G. H., Glancy, A. W., Ring-Whalen, E. A., & Moore, T. J. (2017). Approaches to integrating engineering in STEM units and student achievement gains. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1148
Guzey, S. S., Ring-Whalen, E. A., Harwell, M., & Peralta, Y. (2019). Life STEM: A case study of life science learning through engineering design. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 17(1), 23–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-017-9860-0
Martin, T., Baker Peacock, S., Ko, P., & Rudolph, J. J. (2015). Changes in teachers' adaptive expertise in an engineering professional development course. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1050
Moreno, N. P., Tharp, B. Z., Vogt, G., Newell, A. D., & Burnett, C. A. (2016). Preparing students for middle school through after-school STEM activities. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(6), 889–897. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9643-3
Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann, M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1069
Ozis, F., Pektas, A. O., Akca, M., & DeVoss, D. (2018). How to shape attitudes toward STEM careers: the search for the most impactful extracurricular clubs. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 8(1), Article 3. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1192
Pleasants, J., & Olson, J. K. (2019). What is engineering? Elaborating the nature of engineering for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(1), 145–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21483
Pleasants, J., Tank, K.M., & Olson, J.K. (2021) Conceptual connections between science and engineering in elementary teachers' unit plans. IJ STEM Ed, 8(16), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-021-00274-3
Radloff, J., Capobianco, B., & Dooley, A. (2019). Elementary teachers' positive and practical risk-taking when teaching science through engineering design. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 9(2), 4. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1208
Thomas, J., Hawley, L.R., DeVore-Wedding, B. (2020). Expanded understanding of student conceptions of engineers: Validation of the modified draw-an-engineer test (mDAET) scoring rubric. School Science and Mathematics. 120(7), 391– 401. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12434
Utley, J., & Gossen, D., & Ivey, T. (2020, May). Influencing elementary students' perceptions about the work of an engineer [Conference presentation]. 2019 ASEE Midwest Section Conference, Wichita, KS, United States. https://peer.asee.org/33928
Wheeler, L. B., Navy, S. L., Maeng, J. L., & Whitworth, B. A. (2019). Development and validation of the Classroom Observation Protocol for Engineering Design (COPED). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1285–1305. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21557
