Secondary level engineering professional development: content, pedagogy, and challenges

The design of this study was a multiple case study conducted to examine the knowledge, pedagogical principles, and challenges involved in providing engineering-oriented professional development for teachers at the secondary school level. A set of criteria was used to identify five representative projects for analysis in the US. A variety of tools and processes were used to gather data including on-site observations, interviews, focus groups and document reviews. Results of the study indicate that engineering professional development tends to be based on work focused on curriculum development and implementation. Given the distinct design orientation of engineering, it is not surprising that the focus of engineering-oriented professional development tends to concentrate on engaging activities, with a primary focus on process rather than content. A key outcome of this study was an observed lack of a clearly formulated and articulated conceptual foundation for secondary level engineering. Regarding pedagogy, the researchers identified a heavy emphasis on modeling and applied learning. At the same time, the researchers observed a lack of emphasis on reflection and analysis of the pedagogical processes and techniques used to shape teachers’ ability to teach engineering to their students. The findings of the study also include concerns raised by teachers as they engage in engineering professional development. These include concerns about technical knowledge, particularly with the use of specialized software applications and other tools, as well as with practical issues such as time, resources, and availability of appropriate curriculum.

[1]  Stephen P. Gordon,et al.  Professional Development for School Improvement: Empowering Learning Communities , 2003 .

[2]  P. John Williams,et al.  Design: The Only Methodology of Technology? , 2000 .

[3]  S. Loucks-Horsley Principles of Effective Professional Development for Mathematics and Science Education: A Synthesis of Standards , 1996 .

[4]  Judy Moreland,et al.  Enhancing Practicing Primary School Teachers' Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Technology , 2004 .

[5]  Jenny L. Daugherty Engineering Professional Development Design for Secondary School Teachers: A Multiple Case Study , 2009 .

[6]  Michele D. Crockett,et al.  Exploring discourse‐based assessment practice and its role in mathematics professional development , 2009 .

[7]  George E. Rogers,et al.  Secondary Engineering Competencies: A Delphi Study of Engineering Faculty , 2008 .

[8]  Meredith D. Gall,et al.  Educational Research: An Introduction , 1965 .

[9]  Jenny L. Daugherty,et al.  Formulating a Concept Base for Secondary Level Engineering: A Review and Synthesis , 2009 .

[10]  H. Borko,et al.  A Conceptual Framework for Learning to Teach Secondary Mathematics: A Situative Perspective , 2004 .

[11]  Robert E. Stake,et al.  Multiple Case Study Analysis , 2005 .

[12]  J. S. Oliver,et al.  Revisiting the Conceptualisation of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): PCK as a Conceptual Tool to Understand Teachers as Professionals , 2008 .

[13]  Geoffrey Phelps,et al.  Does teacher professional development affect content and pedagogical knowledge: How much and for how long? , 2010 .

[14]  Theodore Lewis,et al.  Coming to Terms with Engineering Design as Content , 2005 .

[15]  Christopher Day,et al.  Developing teachers and teaching practice : international research perspectives , 2002 .

[16]  Laura M. Desimone,et al.  What Makes Professional Development Effective? Results From a National Sample of Teachers , 2001 .

[17]  Barry Fishman,et al.  Linking Teacher and Student Learning to Improve Professional Development in Systemic Reform. , 2003 .

[18]  Kent J. Crippen,et al.  Applying a Cognitive-Affective Model of Conceptual Change to Professional Development , 2010 .

[19]  J. Gerring Case Study Research: Principles and Practices , 2006 .

[20]  Sandy Buczynski,et al.  Impact of professional development on teacher practice: Uncovering connections , 2010 .

[21]  Brent Mawson,et al.  Beyond `The Design Process': An Alternative Pedagogy for Technology Education , 2003 .

[22]  Jennifer I. Berne,et al.  Chapter 6 : Teacher Learning and the Acquisition of Professional Knowledge: An Examination of Research on Contemporary Professlonal Development , 1999 .

[23]  Kristin Lesseig,et al.  Conceptualizing the Work of Leading Mathematical Tasks in Professional Development , 2009 .

[24]  L. Katehi,et al.  Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. , 2009 .

[25]  Theresa A. Cullen,et al.  Fostering a community of practice through a professional development program to improve elementary teachers' views of nature of science and teaching practice , 2009 .

[26]  L. Darling-Hammond,et al.  A Good Teacher in Every Classroom: Preparing the Highly Qualified Teachers Our Children Deserve , 2005 .

[27]  Sean Brophy,et al.  Advancing Engineering Education in P‐12 Classrooms , 2008 .

[28]  B. Rittle-Johnson,et al.  Promoting transfer: effects of self-explanation and direct instruction. , 2006, Child development.

[29]  James P. Spillane,et al.  Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and On-the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary School Teachers' Practice , 2010, The Elementary School Journal.

[30]  Alandeom W. Oliveira DEVELOPING ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCOURSE STRUCTURE OF INQUIRY-BASED SCIENCE CLASSROOMS , 2010 .

[31]  R. Stake The art of case study research , 1995 .

[32]  Thomas R. Guskey,et al.  What Makes Professional Development Effective? , 2003 .

[33]  Robert C. Wicklein Five Good Reasons for Engineering as the Focus for Technology Education , 2006 .

[34]  Laura M. Desimone,et al.  Effects of Professional Development on Teachers’ Instruction: Results from a Three-year Longitudinal Study , 2002 .

[35]  Marie Kraska,et al.  Factors Affecting Master Sergeants' Completion of Community College of the Air Force AAS Degree Requirements. , 1999 .

[36]  Catherine C. Marshall,et al.  Designing Qualitative Research , 1996 .

[37]  S. Loucks-Horsley Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics , 1997 .

[38]  P. Adey The Professional Development of Teachers: Practice and Theory , 2004 .

[39]  Ann L. Brown,et al.  How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. , 1999 .

[40]  Malcolm Welch,et al.  Analyzing the Tacit Strategies of Novice Designers , 1999 .

[41]  Linda Evans,et al.  What is Teacher Development? , 2002 .

[42]  L. Shulman Those Who Understand: Knowledge Growth in Teaching , 1986 .

[43]  M. Mclaughlin,et al.  Sites and sources of teachers’ learning , 2002 .

[44]  W. Dugger Standards for Technological Literacy. Content for the Study of Technology. , 2000 .

[45]  H. Borko Professional Development and Teacher Learning: Mapping the Terrain , 2004 .

[46]  M. Fullan The New Meaning of Educational Change , 1990 .

[47]  J. Daugherty,et al.  Professional Development for Teachers of Engineering: Research and Related Activities , 2009 .

[48]  T. Lewis,et al.  Problem Posing--Adding a Creative Increment to Technological Problem Solving. , 1998 .

[49]  Bradley M. Dearing,et al.  Delivering Engineering Content in Technology Education: Can the Technology Education Profession Deliver on the Promise of Technological Literacy for All While Preparing the Secondary School Student for Engineering Education? , 2004 .

[50]  M. Sanders New Paradigm or Old Wine? The Status of Technology Education Practice in the United States , 2001 .

[51]  Vincent W. Childress,et al.  Engineering Student Outcomes for Grades 9 -12 , 2008 .