Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Teachers’ Incorporation of Epistemic Practices in K-8 Engineering and Their Views About the Nature of Engineering Knowledge

  • Article
  • Published:
Science & Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper reports about a study that examines changes in teachers’ incorporation of epistemic practices in their design of engineering lessons and compares them to their views about the nature of engineering knowledge across 100 hours of professional development. Nineteen K-8 teachers in the USA, who were new to teaching engineering as part of a shift in science learning standards, participated. We focused on four areas of engineering practice and epistemology, namely the orientation of engineering toward solutions, the role of context in defining engineering design specifications, the role and nature of data and evidence, and the interdisciplinary nature of science and engineering. Comparisons of changes in teachers’ incorporation of epistemic practices show some reflection of changes in their views about the nature of engineering knowledge. Comparisons suggest that they were able to design instruction with appropriate epistemic practices while not necessarily understanding related features of the nature of engineering.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AAAS. (1993). Project 2061: Benchmarks for science literacy. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F. (2013). Teaching with and about nature of science, and science teacher knowledge domains. Science & Education, 22(9), 2087–2107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). The influence of history of science courses on students’ views of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(10), 1057–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N. G. (2000). Influence of a reflective explicit activity-based approach on elementary teachers’ conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(4), 295–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akerson, V. L., Pongsanon, K., Rogers, M. A. P., Carter, I., & Galindo, E. (2017). Exploring the use of lesson study to develop elementary preservice teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for teaching nature of science. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 15(2), 293–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allianz für einen klimaneutralen Wohngebäudebestand (2016). https://www.energieeffizient-wohnen.de/wpcontent/uploads/2016/11/Allianz-klimaneutraler-Wohngebaeudebestand-Portraet.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

  • Author 1 et al. (2019)

  • Author 1 et al. (2020)

  • Ball, D.L., Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Towards a practice based theory of professional education. In: Darling-Hammond L., Sykes G., (Eds). Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice. Jossey-Bass; p. 3–32.

  • Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Malzahn, K. A., Plumley, C. L., Gordon, E. M., & Hayes, M. L. (2018). Report of the 2018 NSSME+. Horizon Research, Inc. http://www.horizon-research.com. Accessed 2 Mar 2021.

  • Barger, M., Gilbert, R., Poth, R., & Little, R. (2006, June). Essential elementary examples of elementary engineering in elementary education. Paper presented at the annual American Society for Engineering Education Conference & Exposition, Chicago, IL.

  • Bartos, S. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2014). Teachers’ knowledge structures for nature of science and scientific inquiry: Conceptions and classroom practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51(9), 1150–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berland, L. K., Schwarz, C. V., Krist, C., Kenyon, L., Lo, A. S., & Reiser, B. J. (2016). Epistemologies in practice: Making scientific practices meaningful for students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(7), 1082–1112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blaikie, N., & Priest, J. (2019). Designing social research: The logic of anticipation. John Wiley & Sons.

  • Brunner, J. L. (2019). Teachers’ use of educative features in guides for nature of science read-alouds. Science & Education, 28(3), 413–437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bybee, R. W. (2011). Scientific and engineering practices in K-12 classrooms: Understanding a framework for K-12 science education. Science and Children, 49(4), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capobianco, B. M., & Rupp, M. (2014). STEM teachers’ planned and enacted attempts at implementing engineering design-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 258–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capps, D. K., & Crawford, B. A. (2013). Inquiry-based instruction and teaching about nature of science: Are they happening? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24(3), 497–526.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castro, F. G., Kellison, J. G., Boyd, S. J., & Kopak, A. (2010). A methodology for conducting integrative mixed methods research and data analyses. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 4(4), 342–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chabalengula, V. M., & Mumba, F. (2017). Engineering design skills coverage in K-12 engineering program curriculum materials in the USA. International Journal of Science Education, 39(16), 2209–2225.

  • Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 6(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106065006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, A. M., Pintrich, P. R., Vekiri, I., & Harrison, D. (2004). Changes in epistemological beliefs in elementary science students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(2), 186–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, B. A. (2007). Learning to teach science as inquiry in the rough and tumble of practice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(4), 613–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creamer, E. G. (2018). An introduction to fully integrated mixed methods research. Sage Publications.

  • Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative & quantitative approaches. Sage Publications.

  • Creswell, J.W., (2002). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage Publications.

  • Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505.

    Google Scholar 

  • del Mar Aragón-Méndez, M., Acevedo-Díaz, J. A., & García-Carmona, A. (2019). Prospective biology teachers’ understanding of the nature of science through an analysis of the historical case of Semmelweis and childbed fever. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(3), 525–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deniz, H. (2011). Examination of changes in prospective elementary teachers’ epistemological beliefs in science and exploration of factors meditating that change. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 20(6), 750–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doudna JA & Mali P (2016). CRISPR-Cas: A laboratory manual.

  • Duschl, R. A., & Grandy, R. (2013). Two views about explicitly teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 22(9), 2109–2139.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, A. D. (2002). Characterizing fifth grade students’ epistemological beliefs in science. In P. R. Pintrich (Ed.), Personal epistemology: The psychology of beliefs about knowledge and knowing (pp. 347–364). Lawrence Erlbaum associates.

  • Erduran, S., Dagher, Z. R., & McDonald, C. V. (2019). Contributions of the family resemblance approach to nature of science in science education. Science & Education, 28(3), 311–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erduran, S., & Kaya, E. (2018). Drawing nature of science in pre-service science teacher education: Epistemic insight through visual representations. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1133–1149.

  • Fishman, B. J., & Davis, E. A. (2006). Teacher learning research and the learning sciences. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 535–550). Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foddy, W.H. (1993). Constructing questions for interviews and questionnaires. New York Cambridge University Press.

  • Gess-Newsome, J. (2002). The use and impact of explicit instruction about the nature of science and science inquiry in an elementary science methods course. Science & Education, 11(1), 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunert, J., Doolittle, P., and Adams, S. G. (2015). Reaching out to the masses: Building literacy about engineering amongst non-engineering students. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.

  • Grunert, J., & Adams, D. S. (2016). Increasing engineering literacy among non-engineering students. ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings.

  • Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M. & Namey, E. E. (2012). Themes and codes. In G. Guest, K.M. MacQueen, & E.E. Namey, (Eds.) Applied thematic analysis (pp. 49–78). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483384436.n3

  • Guzey, S. S., Moore, T. J., Harwell, M., & Moreno, M. (2016). STEM integration in middle school life science: Student learning and attitudes. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(4), 550–560.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holbrook, J., & Rannikmäe, M. (2007). Nature of science education for enhancing scientific literacy. International Journal of Science Education, 29(11), 1347–1362.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 (J-PEER), 1(2), 31–39.

  • Hynes, M., Portsmore, M., Dare, E., Milto, E., Rogers, C., Hammer, D., and Carberry, A. (2011). Infusing engineering design into high school STEM courses. Report for National Center for Engineering and Technology Education, NSF.

  • Hynes, M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers’ understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 22(3), 345–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2020). Standards for technological and engineering literacy: The role of technology and engineering in STEM education. https://www.iteea.org/STEL.aspx. Accessed 1 May 2021.

  • Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science, 337(6096), 816–821. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1225829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karisan, D., & Zeidler, D. L. (2017). Contextualization of nature of science within the socioscientific issues framework: A review of research. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 5(2), 139–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khishfe, R., Alshaya, F. S., BouJaoude, S., Mansour, N., & Alrudiyan, K. I. (2017). Students’ understandings of nature of science and their arguments in the context of four socio-scientific issues. International Journal of Science Education, 39(3), 299–334.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kötter, M., & Hammann, M. (2017). Controversy as a blind spot in teaching nature of science. Science & Education, 26(5), 451–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leden, L., Hansson, L., Redfors, A., & Ideland, M. (2015). Teachers’ ways of talking about nature of science and its teaching. Science & Education, 24(9), 1141–1172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lederman, N. G., & Lederman, J. S. (2014). Research on teaching and learning of nature of science. In N. G. Lederman & S. K. Abell (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (II (pp. 600–620). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Corwin Press.

  • Luft, J. A. (2001). Changing inquiry practices and beliefs: The impact of an inquiry-based professional development programme on beginning and experienced secondary science teachers. International Journal of Science Education, 23(5), 517–534.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, G. J. (2008a). Inquiry, activity, and epistemic practice. In R. Duschl & R. Grandy (Eds.), Teaching scientific inquiry: Recommendations for research and implementation (pp. 99–117, 288–291). Sense.

  • Kelly, G. J., & Cunningham, C. M. (2019). Epistemic tools in engineering design for K-12 education. Science Education, 103(4), 1080–1111. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kite, V., Park, S., McCance, K., & Seung, E. (2021). Secondary science teachers’ understandings of the epistemic nature of science practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(3), 243–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krupczak, J., & Blake, J. (2014). Distinguishing engineering and technological literacy. In G. Bassett, J. Blake, A. Carberry, J. Gravander, W. Grimson, J. Krupczak Jr., M. Mina, D. Riley (Eds.), Philosophical perspectives on engineering and technology literacy, I. (pp. 2–3). Original Writing Ltd.

  • MacQueen, K. M., & Guest, G. (2008). An introduction to team-based qualitative research. In G. Guest & K. M. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research (pp. 3–19). AltaMira Press.

  • Mansour, N. (2009). Science teachers’ beliefs and practices: Issues, implications and research agenda. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 4(1), 25–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margot, K. C., & Kettler, T. (2019). Teachers’ perception of STEM integration and education: A systematic literature review. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • McComas, W. F., Almazroa, H., & Clough, M. P. (1998). The nature of science in science education: An introduction. Science & Education, 7(6), 511–532.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., Huberman, A.M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.

  • Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Namey, E., Guest, G., Thairu, L., & Johnson, L. (2008). Data reduction techniques for large qualitative data sets. In G. Guest, & K. MacQueen (Eds.), Handbook for team-based qualitative research, (pp. 137–161). Rowman & Littlefield.

  • National Academy of Engineering (NAE) (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving the public understanding of engineering, committee on public understanding of engineering messages. National Academies Press.

  • National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Building capacity for teaching engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25612.

  • National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press.

  • National Research Council, (1996), National science education standards. National Academy Press.

  • NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. The National Academy Press.

  • Park, W., Wu, J. Y., & Erduran, S. (2020). The nature of STEM disciplines in the science education standards documents from the USA Korea and Taiwan. Science & Education, 29(4), 899–927.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, G. (2017). National academies piece on integrated STEM. The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 224–226.

  • Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207308221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, C. M., Reid, J. W., & Gardner, G. E. (2020). S + T + M = E as a convergent model for the nature of STEM. Science & Education, 29, 881–898.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rose, M. A., Carter, V., Brown, J., & Shumway, S. (2017). Status of elementary teacher development: Preparing elementary teachers to deliver technology and engineering experiences. Journal of Technology Education, 28(2), 2–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russ, R. S. (2014). Epistemology of science vs. epistemology for science. Science Education, 98(3), 388–396.

  • Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, R. S., & Lederman, N. G. (2002). “It’s the nature of the beast”: The influence of knowledge and intentions on learning and teaching nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(3), 205–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schyfter, P. (2013). Propellers and promoters: Emerging engineering knowledge in aeronautics and synthetic biology. Engineering Studies, 5(1), 6–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silk, E.M., and C. Schunn. (2008). Core concepts in engineering as a basis for understanding and improving K-12 engineering education in the United States. Paper presented at the National Academy of Engineering/National Research Council workshop on K–12 Engineering Education, Washington, D.C.

  • Smith, C. L., Maclin, D., Houghton, C., & Hennessey, M. G. (2000). Sixth-grade students' epistemologies of science: The impact of school science experiences on epistemological development. Cognition and Instruction, 18(3), 349–422.

  • Strimel, G.J., Huffman, T., Grubbs, M, Gurganus, J., Sabbare, A., & Bartholomew, S. (2021). Framework for P-12 engineering learning. American Society for Engineering Education. https://p12framework.asee.org/. Accessed 15 May 2021.

  • Tarmo, A. (2016). Pre-service science teachers’ epistemological beliefs and teaching reforms in Tanzania. Cogent Education, 3(1), https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2016.1178457

  • Tsai, C. C. (2006). Teachers’ scientific epistemological views: The coherence with instruction and students’ views. Science Education, 91(2), 222–243. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, K. B., Swenson, J. E., & Dalvi, T. S. (2019). Epistemological framing and novice elementary teachers’ approaches to learning and teaching engineering design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(7), 956–982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weston, C., Gandell, T., Beauchamp, J., McAlpine, L., Wiseman, C., & Beauchamp, C. (2001). Analyzing interview data: The development and evolution of a coding system. Qualitative Sociology, 24(3), 381–400.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Illinois State University, Normal, IL, USA

    Allison Antink-Meyer

  2. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA, USA

    Anna Maria Arias

Authors
  1. Allison Antink-Meyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Maria Arias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allison Antink-Meyer.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

VNOEK Questionnaire Items.

  1. 1)

    A small community has a water filtration system that was designed 50 years ago. A group of individuals volunteer to propose a new design for the system. Identify the types of information the volunteers will need in order to propose a new design.

  2. 2)

    Describe the types of activities they might complete in order to propose a new design.

  3. 3)

    Do you think that their work and ideas will be different than the original designers, 50 years ago? Why or why not?

  4. 4)

    Explain whether you consider their work engineering and why.

  5. 5)

    Two different groups of engineers are working at two different companies: Eager Engineers Inc., and Acme Engineering. One group, Eager Engineers Inc., is working on a project to design a type of material similar to concrete that will be able to harden under water. The goal of the project is to create a material that will start out as a thick liquid but that will be able to harden in order to anchor bridges and stabilize pipes. Do you consider this engineering? Why or why not?

  6. 6)

    The other group, Acme Engineering, is working on a project to design a way to pour the concrete-type material into the location where it is needed under water. Do you consider this engineering? Why or why not?

  7. 7)

    Do you think that the design process for the Acme Engineering project and the Eager Engineers project will be identical? Explain your answer and provide an example if you can.

  8. 8)

    Eager Engineers and Acme Engineers are working together to design a new bridge structure that will connect two roads on either side of a lake. There are 2 engineers from each company working on the bridge design; 4 engineers total. Do you think they will have identical ideas for the project? Please explain your answer.

  9. 9)

    Do you think that the community and society where the bridge will be built will affect their design? If yes, how? If not, why not? Do you think the community will affect the design of the concrete-type material that will hold the bridge in place? Why or why not?

  10. 10)

    Do you think that the community and society where the bridge will be built will be affected by the design? If yes, how? If not, why not? Do you think the community will be affected by the design of the concrete-type material that will hold the bridge in place? Why or why not?

  11. 11)

    If the engineers have more than one idea, how will they decide which idea to use? Explain your answer.

  12. 12)

    What is an engineering model? What is the purpose of an engineering model? What information is used in order to create an engineering model?

  13. 13)

    How do science and technology relate to engineering? Provide an example to explain your answer.

Appendix 2. Engineering Reflection Prompts

Define engineering. Provide an example to explain your definition if you can.

Students have observed that the community garden space next to their school floods each time it rains and that the plants in the garden appear less healthy than those in a nearby garden in a different location that does not flood. They collect information about the layout and location of the garden as well as the plants that grow there. They create a proposal for their principal about how the garden should be changed in order to improve the health of the plants given the resources that the school has available. Do you consider this more science or more engineering experience? Why?

Students have observed that the lunch line flows so slowly that some students do not have enough time to eat all of their lunch. They collect information about time and the number of students who move through the line each day and make observations about the line locations where students stand the longest. They create a proposal for their principal about how the lunch line should be changed in order to improve the flow rate of the line which takes into account the number of students in the lunch room at one time, the amount of time that is available, and the layout of the serving stations. Do you consider this more science or more engineering? Why?

Two engineers are working at different institutions on projects to develop a new type of prosthetic hand. The goal of the project is to create a prosthetic that has articulated joints, that can be easily controlled by the patient, and that is made with cost-effective materials so that it is affordable. To what extent do you think they will develop identical designs? Explain why.

How are engineering, society, and culture related to one another?

What is a model in engineering? How do engineers develop models and what purpose do they serve? How do engineers decide if a design is a good one?

How is engineering design different than scientific inquiry and mathematical problem solving?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Antink-Meyer, A., Arias, A.M. Teachers’ Incorporation of Epistemic Practices in K-8 Engineering and Their Views About the Nature of Engineering Knowledge. Sci & Educ 31, 357–382 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00265-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-021-00265-4

Search

Navigation