Advertisement

Teaching Engineering-Focused STEM Curriculum: PCK Needed for Teachers

  • Szu-Chun FanEmail author
  • Kuang-Chao Yu
Chapter
First Online:

Abstract

The core value of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education is to provide the balanced opportunities of hands-on and minds-on learning. Engineering design is recognized as a core approach for implementing engineering-focused STEM curricula. This raises a need for science and technology teachers to develop pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) for teaching engineering-focused STEM curricula. This chapter consists of four sections. First, to form the theoretical foundation of engineering-focused STEM curricula, literature related to STEM education is reviewed. Second, design modules for engineering-focused STEM curriculum are discussed. Third, the PCK needed for science and technology teachers to teach engineering-focused STEM curricula are discussed. Fourth, a summary of issues and misconceptions of teaching engineering-focused STEM curricula are discussed, which provides useful guidelines on how to teach the curriculum.

Keywords

Engineering design Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) STEM Teacher education 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Aranda, M. L., Lie, R., Selcen Guzey, S., Makarsu, M., Johnston, A., & Moore, T. J. (2018). Examining teacher talk in an engineering design-based science curricular unit. Research in Science Education, 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-018-9697-8.
  3. Asunda, P. A. (2012). Standards for technological literacy and STEM education delivery through career and technical education programs. Journal of Technology Education, 23(2), 44–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atman, C. J., Adams, R. S., Cardella, M. E., Turns, J., Mosborg, S., & Saleem, J. (2007). Engineering design processes: A comparison of students and expert practitioners. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(4), 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Berlin, D. F., & White, A. L. (2012). A longitudinal look at attitudes and perceptions related to the integration of mathematics, science, and technology education. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 20–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, R. Q., III, Reed, P. A., Ritz, J. M., Lin, C. Y., Hsiung, S., & Frazier, W. (2004). Stem initiatives: Stimulating students to improve science and mathematics achievement. Technology Teacher, 64(4), 23–30.Google Scholar
  7. Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102–112.Google Scholar
  8. Budynas, R. G., & Nisbett, J. K. (2011). Shigley’s mechanical engineering design (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  9. Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  10. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K-12 STEM standards of the 50 U.S. states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(3), 539–564.Google Scholar
  12. Custer, R. L., & Daugherty, J. (2009). Professional development for teachers of engineering: Research and related activities. The Bridge, 39(3), 18–24.Google Scholar
  13. De Miranda, M. A. (2017). Pedagogical content knowledge for technology education. In M. J. de Vries (Ed.), Handbook of technology education (pp. 685–698). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gess-Newsome, J., & Carlson J. (2013). The PCK summit consensus model and definition of pedagogical content knowledge. In the symposium Reports from the Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK) Summit, ESERA Conference, September 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Helmes, J. V., & Stokes, L. (2013). A meeting of minds around pedagogical content knowledge: Designing an international PCK summit for professional, community, and field development. Retrieved from https://inverness-research.org/2014/09/22/ab_rpt_pck-summit/.
  17. Herschbach, D. R. (2011). The STEM initiative: Constraints and challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(1), 96–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Householder, D. L., & Hailey, C. E. (Eds.). (2012). Incorporating engineering design challenges into STEM courses. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED537386).Google Scholar
  19. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  20. International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, A. W., Wendell, K. B., & Watkins, J. (2017). Examining experienced teachers’ noticing of and responses to students’ engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 7(1), 25–35.  https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kelley, T. R. (2010). Staking the claim for the ‘T’ in STEM. Journal of Technology Studies, 36(1), 2–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kertil, M., & Gurel, C. (2016). Mathematical modeling: A bridge to STEM education. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 4(1), 44–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lantz Jr., H. B. (2009). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education what form? What function? Retrieved from https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/1/docs/jep/STEMEducationArticle.pdf.
  25. Lewis, T. (2005). Coming to terms with engineering design as content. Journal of Technology Education, 16(2), 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Love, T. S., & Wells, J. G. (2018). Examining correlations between preparation experiences of US technology and engineering educators and their teaching of science content and practices. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(2), 395–416.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-017-9395-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MacMath, S. L. (2011). Teaching and learning in an integrated curriculum setting: A case study of classroom practices (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  28. Magnusson, S., Krajcik, J., & Borko, H. (1999). Nature, sources, and development of pedagogical content knowledge for science teaching. In N. G. Lederman & J. Gess-Newsome (Eds.), Examining pedagogical content knowledge (pp. 95–132). Boston, MA: Kluwer/Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Mentzer, N. (2011). High school engineering and technology education integration through design challenges. Journal of STEM Teacher Education, 48(2), 103–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merrill, C., Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2009). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 48–64.Google Scholar
  31. Morrison, J., & Bartlett, R. (2009). STEM as curriculum: An experiential approach. Education Week, 23, 28–31.Google Scholar
  32. National Research Council. (1996). From analysis to action: Undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/9128.
  33. National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K–12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/12635.
  34. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/13158.
  35. National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.  https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
  36. Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualization of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38, 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pinelli, T., & Haynie, W., III. (2010). A case for the nationwide inclusion of engineering in the K-12 curriculum via technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries: STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education, 14(1), 37–48.Google Scholar
  39. Reimers, J. E., Farmer, C. L., & Klein-Gardner, S. S. (2015). An introduction to the standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 5(1), 40–60.  https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Saorín, J. L., Melián-Díaz, D., Bonnet, A., Carbonell Carrera, C., Meier, C., & De La Torre-Cantero, J. (2017). Makerspace teaching-learning environment to enhance creative competence in engineering students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 188–198.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.01.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sorenson, B. (2010). Alaska S.T.E.M.: Education and the economy—Report on the need for improved science, technology, engineering and mathematics education in Alaska. Juneau, AK: Juneau Economic Development Council. Retrieved from http://www.jedc.org/forms/STEMEducationJEDCFinal.pdf.
  44. Taylor, B. (2016). Evaluating the benefit of the Maker movement in K-12 STEM education. Electronic International Journal of Education, Arts, and Science, 2(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
  45. Thomasian, J. (2011). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math agenda: An update of state actions. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. Retrieved from https://classic.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1112STEMGUIDE.PDF.
  46. Toulmin, C. N., & Groome, M. (2007). Building a science, technology, engineering, and math agenda. Washington, DC: National Governors Association. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED496324).Google Scholar
  47. van Dijk, E. M., & Kattmann, U. (2007). A research model for the study of science teachers’ PCK and improving teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 885–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wells, J. G. (2013). Integrative STEM education at Virginia Tech: Graduate preparation for tomorrow’s leaders. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 72(5), 28–35.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial Technology EducationNational Kaohsiung Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan
  2. 2.Department of Technology Application and Human Resource DevelopmentNational Taiwan Normal UniversityKaohsiungTaiwan

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options