The purpose of this study was to document the effect of a course designed to help teachers integrate Design, Engineering, and Technology (DET) into their curriculum. Since research supports the importance of understanding teachers’ perceptions of a new curriculum before implementation, we felt that we needed to know more about how the course was changing teachers perceptions as well as actions and knowledge about their current practice. Consequently, we used four analytical themes (Reflections on Practice, Changes in Practice, Intentions to Change Practice, and Change in Knowledge) to examine the likelihood that what teachers encountered in the course would transfer to their classrooms. Three graduate students allowed us to gather data over a semester to develop in-depth cases. The teachers were Alice, an elementary teacher; Denise, who taught at a Science Center; and Dana, a high school chemistry teacher. Alice intended to change, or changed things, such as teaching the design process explicitly, learning the science behind engineering concepts, developing activities for young children, using everyday contexts, and planning a model building unit. Denise changed her practice by attending to gender, integrating the design process and tinkering into lessons, and adding technology discussions. She helped the museum staff examine their program activities. Her unit indicated greater awareness of the time needed for hands-on exploration and discussion. Dana exhibited the most changes. She had students write about science and technology to determine prior knowledge. They designed labs as well as the lab instruments e.g. calorimeter. As department chair, she helped other science teachers incorporate DET into instruction. In creating her unit, she used the design process and her evaluation (including a delayed post test) which indicated that the students had learned everything intended.
[1]
R. Thomas Wright.
Technology Education: Essential for a Balanced Education
,
1999
.
[2]
Gary Benenson,et al.
The unrealized potential of everyday technology as a context for learning
,
2001
.
[3]
Thomas J. Dormody,et al.
Some Factors Predicting the Adoption of Technology Education in New Mexico Public Schools.
,
2000
.
[4]
Robert D. Sherwood,et al.
Problem-Based Macro Contexts in Science Instruction: Design Issues and Applications
,
1998
.
[5]
Campbell J. McRobbie,et al.
Implications of Missed Opportunities for Learning and Assessment in Design and Technology Education
,
2002
.
[6]
Fernando Cajas.
The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy
,
2001
.
[7]
Kenneth Tobin,et al.
Design, technology, and science: Sites for learning, resistance, and social reproduction in urban schools
,
2001
.
[8]
Wolff-Michael Roth,et al.
Learning science through technological design
,
2001
.
[9]
L. Schauble,et al.
Building Functional Models: Designing an Elbow
,
1997
.
[10]
Alister Jones,et al.
Teachers' perceptions of technology education: Implications for curriculum innovation
,
1992
.