Addressing critical cross-cultural issues in elementary STEM education research and practice: a critical review essay of Engineering in Elementary STEM Education.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Addressing critical cross-cultural issues in elementary STEM education research and practice: a critical review essay of Engineering in Elementary STEM Education.
Authors: Rodriguez, Alberto J.1 (AUTHOR) rodri193@purdue.edu, Shim, Soo Won1 (AUTHOR)
Source: Cultural Studies of Science Education. Mar2021, Vol. 16 Issue 1, p1-17. 17p.
Subject Terms: *STEM education, *Education research, *Elementary education, *Engineering education, *Curriculum planning
Geographic Terms: New York (State)
Abstract (English): The book, Engineering in Elementary STEM Education: Curriculum Design, Instruction, Learning, and Assessment, written by Cunningham (Engineering in elementary STEM education: curriculum design, instruction, learning, and assessment, Teachers College Press, New York, 2018), highlights examples of engineering curriculum and pedagogy that Cunningham and her team have developed for the last 15 years. Additionally, she contends that engineering education has the potential to provide underrepresented students with opportunities to experience authentic and relevant STEM education, as well as to help them understand their strengths and abilities as future scientists or engineers. Given the popularity of this book and of the Engineering is Elementary (EiE) curriculum on which it is based, we conducted a critical review essay to more closely examine Cunningham's claims. Using sociotransformative constructivism, as a theoretical framework, we found Cunningham's book and supporting EiE curriculum to be rich resources of well-intended concepts and activities for integrating engineering practices in the science classroom. However, the EiE curriculum—like many other curriculum materials in the field—fall short of meeting their equity and diversity goals. In this essay, we argue that some of the EiE curriculum highlighted in Cunningham's book seem to unintentionally promote colonized thinking, romanticized notions of engineering as a pure human endeavor; and culturally and socially unauthentic scenarios. Our goal is to generate reflection and transformative discussions so that we can elevate this and similar types of popular curriculum. To this end, we also offer suggestions for making STEM curriculum more culturally and socially relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Abstract (Spanish): Resumen ejecutivo: El libro, Ingeniería en la Educación Primaria de STEM: Diseño Curricular, Instrucción, Aprendizaje y Evaluación, escrito por Christine Cunningham (2018), destaca ejemplos de planes de estudios de ingeniería y pedagogía que Cunningham y sus colegas han desarrollado durante los últimos 15 años. Cunningham también sostiene que la educación en ingeniería tiene el potencial de proporcionar a los estudiantes marginalizados oportunidades para explorar una educación STEM auténtica y relevante, así como ayudarlos a comprender sus fortalezas y habilidades como futuros científicos o ingenieros. Dada la popularidad de este libro y del plan de estudios de Ingeniería es Elemental (EiE) en el que se basa, realizamos un ensayo de revisión crítico para examinar más de cerca las afirmaciones de Cunningham. Utilizando el constructivismo sociotransformativo, como marco teórico (Rodríguez, 2015a, b; 1998), proponemos que el libro de Cunningham y el plan de estudios EiE que lo apoya son recursos valiosos de conceptos y actividades para integrar con buenas intenciones las prácticas de ingeniería en el aula de ciencias. Sin embargo, los dos--el libro y el plan de estudios EiE--como muchos otros materiales curriculares en el campo, no cumplen con sus objetivos de equidad y diversidad. Por ejemplo, a pesar de que Cunningham alienta a los maestros y estudiantes a adoptar el "fracaso" como un aspecto normal y valioso en el proceso de diseño de ingeniería, su enfoque trivializa las demandas emocionales asociadas con el fracaso al proporcionar a los maestros ejemplos poco prácticos o "alegres" (exageradamente positivos) sobre cómo abordar el problema y los desafíos que ellos y sus estudiantes podrían enfrentar (Loterro-Perdue, 2015; Rodríguez, 2017). Del mismo modo, el plan de estudios EiE incluye imágenes de estudiantes culturalmente diversos, principalmente como "personajes coloridos" a través de sus libros de cuentos y hojas de actividades. Esto se hace sin tratar directamente de aumentar el conocimiento cultural y la conciencia de los estudiantes sobre la gran cantidad de problemas sociales que obstruyen la participación de mujeres y otras personas marginalizadas en STEM (Tolbert et al, 2018). Una vez más, este enfoque trivializa la complejidad de abordar los problemas de equidad y diversidad en las escuelas de hoy. Por lo tanto, aquí proporcionamos algunas sugerencias para evitar estos y otros escollos que se encuentran comúnmente cuando se busca hacer que el plan de estudios sea más culturalmente inclusivo y verdaderamente conectado con la vida de los estudiantes. En resumen, argumentamos que parte del currículo EiE destacado en el libro de Cunningham parece promover involuntariamente el pensamiento colonizado, las nociones románticas de la ingeniería como un esfuerzo humano puro; y escenarios cultural y socialmente poco auténticos. Nuestro objetivo es generar reflexión y discusiones transformadoras para que podamos elevar este y otros tipos similares de currículo popular. Con este fin, también ofrecemos sugerencias para hacer que el plan de estudios (currículo) STEM sea más relevante cultural y socialmente. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Cultural Studies of Science Education is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:The book, Engineering in Elementary STEM Education: Curriculum Design, Instruction, Learning, and Assessment, written by Cunningham (Engineering in elementary STEM education: curriculum design, instruction, learning, and assessment, Teachers College Press, New York, 2018), highlights examples of engineering curriculum and pedagogy that Cunningham and her team have developed for the last 15 years. Additionally, she contends that engineering education has the potential to provide underrepresented students with opportunities to experience authentic and relevant STEM education, as well as to help them understand their strengths and abilities as future scientists or engineers. Given the popularity of this book and of the Engineering is Elementary (EiE) curriculum on which it is based, we conducted a critical review essay to more closely examine Cunningham's claims. Using sociotransformative constructivism, as a theoretical framework, we found Cunningham's book and supporting EiE curriculum to be rich resources of well-intended concepts and activities for integrating engineering practices in the science classroom. However, the EiE curriculum—like many other curriculum materials in the field—fall short of meeting their equity and diversity goals. In this essay, we argue that some of the EiE curriculum highlighted in Cunningham's book seem to unintentionally promote colonized thinking, romanticized notions of engineering as a pure human endeavor; and culturally and socially unauthentic scenarios. Our goal is to generate reflection and transformative discussions so that we can elevate this and similar types of popular curriculum. To this end, we also offer suggestions for making STEM curriculum more culturally and socially relevant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:18711502
DOI:10.1007/s11422-020-09993-5