Teaching Engineering-Focused STEM Curriculum: PCK Needed for Teachers
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.
KeywordsEngineering design Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) STEM Teacher education
- American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- Blackley, S., & Howell, J. (2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 102–112.Google Scholar
- Budynas, R. G., & Nisbett, J. K. (2011). Shigley’s mechanical engineering design (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Business Roundtable. (2005). Tapping America’s potential: The education for innovation initiative. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
- Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- Custer, R. L., & Daugherty, J. (2009). Professional development for teachers of engineering: Research and related activities. The Bridge, 39(3), 18–24.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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/.
- Householder, D. L., & Hailey, C. E. (Eds.). (2012). Incorporating engineering design challenges into STEM courses. Retrieved from ERIC database (ED537386).Google Scholar
- International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2003). Advancing excellence in technological literacy: Student assessment, professional development, and program standards. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
- International Technology and Engineering Educators Association. (2007). Standards for technological literacy: Content for the study of technology (3rd ed.). Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Morrison, J., & Bartlett, R. (2009). STEM as curriculum: An experiential approach. Education Week, 23, 28–31.Google Scholar
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- National Research Council. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290.
- Pitt, J. (2009). Blurring the boundaries: STEM education and education for sustainable development. Design and Technology Education, 14(1), 37–48.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- 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