View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Representation of Science and Engineering Practices and Design Skills in Engineering Design-Integrated Science Units Developed by Pre-Service Teachers

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Representation of Science and Engineering Practices and Design Skills in Engineering Design-Integrated Science Units Developed by Pre-Service Teachers
Language: English
Authors: Mumba, Frackson, Rutt, Alexis, Chabalengula, Vivien Mweene
Source: International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. Feb 2023 21(2):439-461.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2023
Sponsoring Agency: National Science Foundation (NSF)
Contract Number: DUE1439858
EEC1636443
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Higher Education
Postsecondary Education
Secondary Education
Descriptors: Science Education, Preservice Teacher Education, Preservice Teachers, Engineering Education, Design, Science Instruction, Secondary School Teachers, Science Teachers, Instructional Materials, Teacher Developed Materials, Skill Development, Teaching Methods, Integrated Curriculum, Units of Study
DOI: 10.1007/s10763-022-10266-6
ISSN: 1571-0068
1573-1774
Abstract: The current US science education reforms call for integrating engineering design in science instruction requires teachers to develop and teach engineering design-integrated science (EDIS) lessons. However, very few teachers have received training in engineering and how to integrate engineering design into science lessons. In response to this challenge, our teacher education program has been training secondary pre-service science teachers in engineering design and how to develop EDIS instructional materials. Thus, this study reports on the representation of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in the EDIS instructional units developed by participant pre-service teachers, in aggregate and by science discipline and by different sections within the units. Results show that all science and engineering practices and design skills were included in the units. However, engineering practices and design skills were covered more than science practices in the EDIS instructional units. Pre-service teachers did not treat engineering design as an add-on or culminating activity. Instead, they planned the units to teach science through engineering design process, which was consistent to the model of our intervention, and the Next Generation Science Standards. We conclude that instruction on engineering design process and how to integrate it in science instruction through intensive professional development activities can enhance pre-service science teachers' abilities to develop EDIS instructional units, even for science subjects like life science.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2023
Accession Number: EJ1361917
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHkLi8lfPlHTnUjGaIZwN0nAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCWAHs2sglwmndx85QIBEICBmyvH5l27x2-im8lxCeAQx5jMz61ANEIPpgisu9B6hVNOA9-TpUGb_x0ni-resrwA4iKfRwNTYLV7yvQ8xa2Xcer9olNuIfQo_aKjUqJPCD6ZeJe0GA3OG2Wy18UgXD0hKf_4u0E50JwtwKZIpQp0khnyXSlLvmb_qpIsoWbKsYekvXRN7FpfvqJfDtgSL0lHxroOlfaC-BtjQZw_
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0161234713;[3d0g]01feb.23;2023Jan12.05:54;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0161234713-1">Representation of Science and Engineering Practices and Design Skills in Engineering Design-Integrated Science Units Developed by Pre-service Teachers </title> <p>The current US science education reforms call for integrating engineering design in science instruction requires teachers to develop and teach engineering design-integrated science (EDIS) lessons. However, very few teachers have received training in engineering and how to integrate engineering design into science lessons. In response to this challenge, our teacher education program has been training secondary pre-service science teachers in engineering design and how to develop EDIS instructional materials. Thus, this study reports on the representation of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in the EDIS instructional units developed by participant pre-service teachers, in aggregate and by science discipline and by different sections within the units. Results show that all science and engineering practices and design skills were included in the units. However, engineering practices and design skills were covered more than science practices in the EDIS instructional units. Pre-service teachers did not treat engineering design as an add-on or culminating activity. Instead, they planned the units to teach science through engineering design process, which was consistent to the model of our intervention, and the Next Generation Science Standards. We conclude that instruction on engineering design process and how to integrate it in science instruction through intensive professional development activities can enhance pre-service science teachers' abilities to develop EDIS instructional units, even for science subjects like life science.</p> <p>Keywords: Engineering design; Science; Practices; Pre-service teachers; Units</p> <p>Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-022-10266-6.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The current United States <emph>Framework for K-12 Science Education</emph> (National Research Council [NRC], [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref1">18</reflink>]) and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) (NGSS Lead States, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>]) emphasize teaching science using engineering design process. While many science teachers are positive about the integration of engineering in science teaching, very few feel confident about how to integrate engineering design into science lessons (Yasar et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref3">26</reflink>]). As such, training in engineering design was highlighted by teachers as the most necessary professional development for them to be prepared to integrate engineering in their science classrooms (Haag & Megowan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref4">12</reflink>]). Given that only 14% of high school science teachers and 7% of middle school science teachers have taken a college course in engineering (Banilower et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref5">1</reflink>]), this remains an area of concern as many teachers across the nation are expected to teach both science and engineering design. In attempts to help science teachers integrate engineering practices and design skills effectively, science education researchers and teacher educators are focusing on how to prepare teachers to integrate engineering, often in the form of engineering practices and design skills, into their science instruction (e.g., Guzey et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref6">11</reflink>]). Similarly, many engineering education programs, funded by federal government agencies, foundations, and private companies, in the USA, have developed engineering design curricular materials for K-12 science classrooms such as Engineering is Elementary (EiE), Project Lead the Way, Try engineering, Learning by Design (LbD), and TeachEngineering.</p> <p>While there are numerous Web-based curriculum resources related to engineering integration, research has highlighted several shortcomings of many of these resources, including: most lessons having very few engineering design practices (Peterman et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref7">20</reflink>]); many science teachers failing to interpret and integrate engineering practices and design skills or encourage engineering habits of mind, partly due to unique contexts of each classroom that make creating a one-size-fits-all curricular model difficult (e.g., Guzey, Moore, & Harwell, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref8">10</reflink>]); teachers failing to integrate STEM knowledge and skills (Stohlman et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref9">23</reflink>]); and, above all, teachers struggling to implement the curriculum materials with fidelity in the absence of professional development or other support systems for teachers (Katehi et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]). A possible response to the above shortcomings is to train teachers to develop their own engineering design-integrated science (EDIS) curriculum materials. Not only does teacher-designed curriculum allow teachers to consider what is most effective in their immediate contexts and ensure greater ownership and implementation success (Guzey et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref11">10</reflink>]; Huizinga et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref12">14</reflink>]), but also positively influence teachers' professional growth (Clandinin & Connelly, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref13">4</reflink>]). This line of teacher support is critical given that the quality of engineering design-based curriculum units and the type of integration (i.e., the extent to which engineering is integrated into science instruction) are associated with student achievement (Guzey et al., [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref14">9</reflink>]). It is not surprising, then, that Cunningham and Carlsen ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>]) highlighted teachers' curriculum planning as a key aspect to be studied when considering engineering for science teachers.</p> <p>To date, most studies that have investigated teacher-designed curriculum materials relating to the integration of science and engineering design vary in focus including but not limited to: <emph>where/when</emph> engineering design is integrated during science lessons; the extent to which curriculum units <emph>provided learning opportunities</emph> in science and engineering concepts/tasks; how teachers <emph>implemented/enacted</emph> the engineering-integrated science curriculum units; what teachers <emph>focused on the most</emph>—science or engineering practices; and how teachers <emph>interpreted</emph> the science and engineering practices.</p> <p>With respect to <emph>when/where</emph> in the teacher-developed curriculum, engineering practices and design skills are integrated, several studies have found that some teachers see engineering as an add-on or culminating activity (e.g., Crotty et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref16">6</reflink>]), as a way to apply science content rather than as a vehicle to learn it (e.g., Maeng et al., [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref17">17</reflink>]), and some teachers struggle to teach STEM subjects as fully integrated (e.g., Dare et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref18">8</reflink>]). For example, Crotty et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]) reported that teachers tended to integrate engineering design into their lessons in one of three ways: a <emph>culminating project</emph> approach, where teachers introduced engineering at the conclusion of the unit as a project or design challenge; an <emph>implicit</emph> approach, where teachers introduced a design challenge at the beginning of the unit and used it as a frame and culminating project for the unit, but did not integrate engineering tasks consistently throughout the unit; or an <emph>explicit</emph> approach, where the design challenge was introduced at the beginning of the unit and engineering was integrated consistently as a foundational component of the unit throughout. Crotty and colleagues also reported that the implicit approach was most popular among teachers, followed by the culminating project approach. In both cases, teachers struggled to integrate engineering ideas and practices throughout their units, including them as bookends to the larger unit. Similarly, Maeng et al. ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref20">17</reflink>]) found that elementary teachers implementing their own engineering-integrated science lessons tended to use engineering design as a way to apply science knowledge already learned, rather than integrating it as a vehicle for science learning.</p> <p>Studies that investigated the extent to which teacher-designed units <emph>provided learning opportunities</emph> for science conceptual growth and engineering design skills, consistently revealed that teachers often struggle to maintain a focus on science (and often math) concepts when integrating engineering design into their lessons, nudging their curriculum more toward an engineering design lesson rather than an EDIS lesson. For example, Capobianco and Rupp ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref21">3</reflink>])'s review of interdisciplinary units of 23 fifth- and sixth-grade STEM teachers revealed that most teacher-developed units failed to integrate key science concepts into the design tasks. Similarly, Guzey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref22">10</reflink>]) analyzed teacher-designed STEM-integrated units using their researcher-created STEM Integration Curriculum Assessment Tool (STEM-ICA) and found that many teachers focused more on integrating engineering tasks than science content.</p> <p>While the studies described above provide important results related to supporting teachers in developing their own engineering design-integrated curriculum, more research is needed to determine how science teacher educators can best support teachers' development of EDIS curriculum materials. Only few studies (e.g., Capobianco & Rupp, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]; Guzey et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref24">10</reflink>]) focused specifically on the teacher-designed curriculum as a unit of analysis. Additionally, studies have not holistically investigated how teachers integrated specific NGSS science and engineering practices (SEPs), as well as engineering design skills into their teacher-designed curricular units. Yet, the NGSS call specifically for student engagement with the SEPs and engineering design skills during science instruction (NRC, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref25">18</reflink>]). Thus, it is important to examine how teachers are developing curricular units that provide opportunities for students to engage with science and engineering practices, as well as engineering design skills. Another missing puzzle piece in the literature is that very few studies, if any, have specifically examined EDIS instructional units developed by pre-service science teachers. This is critical given the large number of new science teachers entering the teaching profession each year. Hynes ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref26">13</reflink>]) also highlighted that determining pre-service teachers' competencies in engineering design is a much-needed area for research. Despite a strong emphasis on ensuring that teachers develop their own EDIS curriculum units (e.g., Guzey et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref27">10</reflink>]), little is known about the extent to which the EDIS instructional materials developed by pre-service science teachers address the science and engineering practices and engineering design skills. Yet, the success of engineering design integration in science instruction in schools will largely depend on pre-service science teachers' abilities to plan and teach EDIS lessons. Teachers' experiences through curriculum development offers them opportunities to analyze their teaching, reflect on their practices, and organize their materials focusing on student thinking and learning (Voogt et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref28">25</reflink>]). As such, one of the main essential components of effective integration of engineering design in science instruction is the design of instructional materials that make explicit links to science and engineering learning outcomes. For example, the NGSS emphasize the need for science and engineering design learning outcomes to be explicit, interconnected, and scaffolded across the curriculum. Given their lack of exposure to engineering, many science teachers may not be able to develop EDIS instructional materials that are consistent with the current science education reforms. Guzey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref29">10</reflink>]) also asserted that integrating engineering design in science curriculum is not a new approach but designing instructional materials for integrated engineering design science lessons is new for many teachers.</p> <p>In response to these challenges stated above, our teacher education program has been training secondary pre-service science teachers in engineering design and how to integrate it into science teaching. Therefore, the purpose of this paper was to report on the representation of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in the EDIS instructional units developed by secondary pre-service science teachers, in aggregate and by science discipline and by different sections within the units. The research questions guiding this study were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref30">1</reflink>) What is the overall coverage of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in EDIS instructional units developed by secondary pre-service science teachers? (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref31">2</reflink>) What is the coverage of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in EDIS instructional units by science discipline areas (i.e., life science, physical science, and earth science units)? (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref32">3</reflink>) What is the coverage of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in EDIS instructional unit sections (i.e., objectives, activities, or assessment sections)?</p> <p>We believe our present study adds to the research base on teachers as curriculum makers (Clandinin & Connelly, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref33">4</reflink>]) by examining the EDIS instructional units pre-service science teachers developed in our teacher education program. Additionally, our study is significant because as the requirement for integrating engineering practices and design in science curriculum continues to increase in many states, there is need to know which practices and design skills can be integrated with ease or difficulty among pre-service teachers. This knowledge is essential as it would inform science teacher educators on which practices and engineering design skills should be emphasized in teacher education programs. Furthermore, an understanding of pre-service teachers' competencies in developing science and engineering design-integrated lessons would be helpful in furthering the development of robust engineering education programs for pre-service science teachers. We also believe the findings have the potential to contribute to better teaching and learning of science and engineering design in schools.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-3">Context and Intervention</hd> <p>This study was conducted in our one-year graduate secondary science teacher education program in which 51 participant pre-service teachers were enrolled between 2016 and 2020 academic years. The pre-service teachers had degrees in chemistry, physics, earth science, biology, or engineering. Only two pre-service teachers had degrees in engineering. None of the pre-service teachers had formal training in curriculum development and school teaching experience before enrolling in our teacher education program.</p> <p>After completing their training in our teacher education program, pre-service teachers are awarded a master's degree in teaching, and they are licensed to teach science to grades 6–12 students. During the teacher education program, pre-service teachers are required to complete two science teaching methods courses, one in the fall semester and the other one in the spring semester. In the fall semester, prior to the study, pre-service teachers were enrolled in the first science teaching methods course that addressed the following topics: the rationale for science teaching in schools, the nature of science, laboratory safety, science inquiry skills, conceptual change, misconceptions in science, constructivism theory, inquiry instruction, technology integration in science teaching, and how to assess student learning. Pre-service teachers also learned how to teach science using the following instructional models: guided instructional practice, inquiry, predict–observe–explain (POE), 5E learning cycle, stations, demonstrations, discrepant events, target inquiry labs, argumentation, and case-based learning. In spring semester, the participant pre-service teachers were enrolled in the second science methods course, where they learned about project-based and problem-based instructional approaches, the NGSS, engineering design process, how to develop engineering design-integrated science unit plans, and effective practices for teaching and assessing student learning in EDIS lessons. The instruction on the engineering design and how to integrate engineering design in science teaching was done by four instructors: two engineering professors, one engineering education professor, and one science education professor. The intervention was aimed at increasing pre-service teachers': understanding how the NGSS are organized; understanding and applying disciplinary core ideas, cross-cutting concepts, and science and engineering practices; understanding and applying engineering design process; developing an understanding of similarities and differences between engineering design and scientific method; developing EDIS instructional units and activities; developing teacher guide manuals for EDIS instruction; and creating a collection of EDIS teaching and learning resources.</p> <p>We used the informed engineering design model (Fig. 1) (Burghardt & Hacker, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>]) to teach engineering design process in our intervention. This model was presented to participant pre-service teachers at the beginning and guided the activities throughout the intervention. As shown in Fig. 1, the inner wheel of the model includes the following elements: identifying the design challenge, identifying specifications/constraints, developing knowledge, ideating solutions, building prototypes, testing, and evaluating designs and refining designs. Additional elements of engineering design lie outside the wheel—systems thinking, creativity, collaboration, and optimization tradeoffs.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1 Engineering Design Instructional Model (Burghardt & Hacker, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref35">2</reflink>])</p> <p>The intervention was conducted through presentations, activities, and EDIS instructional materials development. First, pre-service teachers learned about the structure and composition of the NGSS standards and how to read them. Second, they learned about the principles of engineering, the role of engineering in society, and prominent engineers in the United States. Then, pre-service teachers were engaged in hands-on EDIS activities and critically evaluated them from the student and teacher perspectives. Pre-service teachers were also introduced to Engineering Teaching Kits (ETKs) and other online resources (e.g., teachengineering.org). The ETKs are designed for use in middle and high school science classrooms with the purpose of teaching engineering design and science to students through real-world design challenges. Pre-service teachers were engaged in two of the ETKs activities where they were challenged (a) to build a solar-powered car using the materials that were provided (Schnittka & Richards, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref36">21</reflink>]) and (b) to build a facility for conserving energy to keep the penguins warm (Schnittka & Bell, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref37">22</reflink>]). In the solar-powered car activity, pre-service teachers learned about solar energy, energy transformation, engineering design process, and NGSS practices by responding to the design challenge. Pre-service teachers defined the challenge, developed knowledge, defined the problem, ideated solutions, built prototypes, tested and evaluated the prototypes, and revised their prototypes. Pre-service teachers then presented their design cars, the design process, energy transformation processes, and their reflections on the design process to the class. In the penguin facility design activity, pre-service teachers learned about the design process, different forms of energy, and energy transformations.</p> <p>Third, pre-service teachers learned about the similarities and differences between scientific method and engineering design process through activities that illustrated both processes. Specific examples were provided during the discussion. For example, in the solar-powered car activity pre-service teachers were asked to identify the science and engineering practices that applied to engineering design process and scientific method or both. Pre-service teachers learned how the engineering design process is similar to, but different from the scientific method, as this is an area that is essential for teachers to understand for effective integration of engineering design into science classrooms. The similarities between engineering design and scientific method processes emphasized during the intervention include: the cyclical (iterative) nature; the identification of a problem or question; the need for background research; the need to make observations; the need to conduct a test; data collection; and the need to communicate the findings. When highlighting the differences between the two processes, the focus was on the purpose(s) of each process: For example, engineers use the engineering design process to design solutions for real-world problems and often build prototypes, while scientists use the scientific method to discover information about the natural world and often answer investigative questions. By explicitly discussing these similarities and differences, pre-service teachers were able to decipher how science and engineering design processes are related as well as their unique differences.</p> <p>Fourth, pre-service teachers were engaged in a resource collection assignment that was designed for them to create a collection of digital and non-digital engineering design resources they would use to teach EDIS lessons in middle or high school classrooms. Specifically, each pre-service teacher was required to identify at least ten engineering design resources or activities, and each resource was expected to address one or more science concepts or skills. For each resource, pre-service teachers were asked to provide the following information: title; science concepts/topics the engineering design resource was addressing; brief description of how the resource can be used to teach science concepts and engineering design in science classrooms; science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, and crosscutting concepts the resource was addressing; and modification(s) they would make for the resource to effectively address the identified science concepts and engineering design elements.</p> <p>Fifth, pre-service teachers were involved in analyzing the extent to which Web-based (e.g., <ulink href="http://www.teachengineering.org">www.teachengineering.org</ulink>) and commercially prepared EDIS activities (e.g., Project Lead the Way) were representing the engineering design process, science and engineering practices, and engineering design skills stipulated in the NGSS document. The goal for this activity was for pre-service teachers to learn how to identify science concepts, science and engineering practices, and engineering design skills in the activities prepared by others before they started developing their own units and activities.</p> <p>Sixth, pre-service teachers were engaged in developing teacher-guide manuals on how to create EDIS units. The EDIS teacher-guide manuals were accompanied by illustrative EDIS units in their science disciplines. The creation of these artifacts demonstrated their knowledge of the engineering design process and skills for developing EDIS instructional materials. Seventh, during their student teaching semester, each pre-service teacher was required to develop and implement at least one EDIS instructional unit in school (see example in Appendix A). Some participants developed more than one EDIS units. Participant pre-service teachers were provided with templates that had broad sections of the EDIS instructional unit. Therefore, in this study, we are reporting on the representation of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in the EDIS instructional units the pre-service teachers created and taught in schools during their student teaching. We believe these EDIS instructional units represented their understanding of engineering design integration in science instruction because they developed them on their own.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-4">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0161234713-5">Design</hd> <p>We used a conversion mixed method design in which the qualitative data from the EDIS instructional units were converted to quantitative data (Tashakkori & Teddlie, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref38">24</reflink>]). This design has been used in STEM curriculum analysis (e.g., Guzey et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>]). Likewise, this design enabled us to investigate the EDIS instructional units qualitatively and determined the representation of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills EDIS instructional units quantitatively. Additionally, this design allowed the EDIS instructional units to be ranked by looking at the extent to which science and engineering practices and engineering design skills were represented in each instructional unit. Our analysis was in no way intended as a judgment of the value or quality of the EDIS instructional units developed pre-service teachers. Instead, we did the analysis only to determine the extent to which science and engineering practices and engineering design skills were represented in the EDIS instructional units.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-6">Data Sources and Analysis</hd> <p>Data sources were 56 EDIS instructional units that were developed by 51 pre-service science teachers in our science teacher education between 2016 and 2020 academic years. As shown in Table 1, the EDIS instructional units were on different topics in different science disciplines (i.e., life science, physical science, and earth science). We use these terms because science disciplines in NGSS are identified as life science, physical science, and earth science. The life science units are comprised of biology topics, and physical science units are comprised of chemistry and physics topics. The units of analysis in each curriculum unit were learning <emph>objectives, activities</emph>, and <emph>assessments</emph> sections. Table 1 shows the EDIS curriculum units, science focus, and units of analysis.</p> <p>Table 1 EDIS instructional units developed by pre-service science teachers</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p><bold>EDIS units developed by Pre-service Teachers</bold></p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Number of Instructional Units</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p><bold>Units of Analysis</bold></p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Objectives</p></th><th align="left"><p>Activities</p></th><th align="left"><p>Assessments</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><bold>Engineering design-integrated Life Science Units (Topics)</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Ecosystem Dynamics (Unit 2), Biomes (Unit 8), Genetically Modified Organisms (Unit 11), Biological Macromolecules (Unit 12), Carbon Cycle and Bio recycling (Unit 13), Biodomes (Unit 14), Cardiac System (Unit 16), Energy Plus Homes (Unit 19), Ecology (Unit 21), Groundwater Pollution (Unit 22), Eutrophication (Unit 23), Biomimicry (Unit 24), Plants and Photosynthesis (Unit 25), Biodiversity and Bycatch (Unit 26), Cleaning Oil Spills (Unit 27), Classification Systems (Unit 31), Photosynthesis and population growth (Unit 34), Photosynthesis (Unit 37), Proteins as antibodies (Unit 38), CellZ membranes (Unit 39), Photosynthesis (Unit 40, Air Pollution (Unit 41), Plants: Seed dispersal (Unit 45), Cell division: Tools to remove Cancer (Unit 47); Osmosis and Membrane Transport (Unit 48), Disease Outbreak/Quarantining Slime Molds (Unit 49), Cell Transport Across Cell Membrane (Unit 52), Ecosystems: Interactions, Energy, and Dynamics (Unit 53), Human Tissues (Unit 55)</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>100</p></td><td align="left"><p>240</p></td><td align="left"><p>161</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><bold>Engineering design-integrated Physical Science Units</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Conservation of Energy (Unit 1), Buoyancy/Pressure and Materials Properties (Unit 4, Bridges & Forces (Unit 5), Renewable Energy and Electrochemistry (Unit 6), Hydroelectric Sources (Unit 7), Acids-Bases and chemical Reactions (Unit 10), Exothermic Chemical Reactions (Unit 15), Gibbs Free energy, Reaction Rates (Unit 17), Solubility, Concentrations & Stoichiometry (Unit 18), Energy: Designing an energy-efficient house (Unit 20), Kinematics (Unit 29), Circuits (Unit 33), Projectile motion and conservation of energy (Unit 35), Reactions and Interactions (Unit 42), Designing a Miracle Drug: Osmosis, Diffusion and Water Chemistry (Unit 43), Heat Transfer (Unit 44), States of Matter: Creating Slime (Unit 46), Projectile Motion (Unit 51), Heat Energy: Developing a Calorimeter (Unit 54), The Periodic Table (Unit 56)</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>85</p></td><td align="left"><p>141</p></td><td align="left"><p>97</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="5"><p><bold>Engineering Design-Integrated Earth Science Units</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Spill Stoppers (Unit 3), Pollution (Unit 9), Renewable Energy-Wind Turbines (Unit 28), Earthquakes and Seismic Wave (Unit 30), Coastline Conservation (Unit 32), Soaking up Storm water (Unit 36), Water Source Pollution (Unit 50)</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p></td><td align="left"><p>35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Total</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>56</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>160</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>436</bold></p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>293</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Numbering of curriculum units was based on the order they were analyzed</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-7">Analysis Framework</hd> <p>The K-12 science education framework developed by the National Research Council ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>]) was used as the analysis framework. It outlines the science and engineering practices and engineering design skills with specific indicator phrases or words for each practice and design skill (see highlighted text in Tables 2 and 3). This framework was used as a rubric for identifying the presence or absence of the science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in each EDIS instructional unit. Example tasks from various EDIS instructional units that fit in each category of the science and engineering practices or engineering design skills are provided in Tables 2 and 3.</p> <p>Table 2 Analysis Framework for Science and Engineering practices with specific indicator phrases</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>1. Asking questions and defining problems</bold></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p><bold><italic> Science</italic></bold> begins with a question about a phenomenon, such as "Why is the sky blue?" and seeks to develop theories that can provide explanatory answers to such questions</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold><italic>Engineering</italic></bold> begins with a problem, need, or desire that suggests an engineering problem that needs to be solved. A societal problem such as reducing the nation's dependence on fossil fuels may engender a variety of engineering problems, such as designing more efficient transportation systems. Engineers ask questions to define the engineering problem, determine criteria for a successful solution, and identify constraints</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example</underline></italic><italic>:</italic> Unit 24—Biomimicry: Students are asked to write about all the biomimicry-related questions they would like to know the answer to in order to develop their design ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 8—Biomes: Students identify an uninhabited natural area in their community and make a list of the animals that live there, determine the kinds of animal issues and interactions that might arise if they develop an apartment complex there</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>2. Developing and using models</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Science</bold> involves the construction and use of a wide variety of models and simulations to help develop explanations about natural phenomena. Models make it possible to go beyond observables and imagine a world not yet seen. Models enable predictions of the form "if ...then... therefore" to be made in order to test hypothetical explanations</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Engineering</bold> uses models and simulations to analyze existing systems so as to see where flaws might occur or to test possible solutions to a new problem. Engineers also use models to test proposed systems and to recognize the strengths and limitations of their designs</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 39—Cell Membranes: Students will create a model of the phospholipid bilayer of the cell membrane</p></td><td align="left"><p><underline>Example:</underline> Unit 29—Kinematics: Students create a CRUDE tabletop model before building a prototype</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>3. Planning and carrying out investigations</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Scientists</bold> plan and carry out systematic investigations, which requires the identification of what is to be recorded (gather data) and/or identify the dependent and independent variables. Observations and data collected from such work are used to test existing theories and explanations or to revise and develop new ones</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Engineers</bold> use investigations to gain data essential for specifying design criteria/parameters and to test their designs. Like scientists, engineers must identify relevant variables, decide how they will be measured, and collect data for analysis. Their investigations help them to identify how effective, efficient, and durable their designs may be under a range of conditions</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 44—Heat Transfer: Students will conduct an experiment in which safety precautions are observed and conclusions are drawn from empirical data</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 9—Pollution: Students will develop their criteria about what a successful design must be able to do, as well as determine the sites that they want to test around the school</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>4. Analyzing and interpreting data</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Scientific investigations</bold> produce data that must be analyzed in order to derive meaning, using a range of tools including tabulation, graphical interpretation, visualization, and statistical analysis to identify the significant features and patterns in the data</p></td><td align="left"><p>Engineers analyze data collected in the tests of their designs/ investigations, in order to compare different solutions and determine how well each one meets specific design criteria—that is, which design best solves the problem within the given constraints. Like scientists, engineers require a range of tools to identify the major patterns and interpret the results</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Example:</italic> Unit 12—Biological Macromolecules: Students will test various food stuffs they may use for their projects for protein, lipid, and carbohydrate content using the tests they have learned and comparing their data to that of their standard curve</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Example:</italic> Unit 19— Energy Plus Home: Students will utilize a computer simulation to gain and analyze data to support redesign</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>5. Using mathematics and computational thinking</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> In <bold>science,</bold> mathematics and computation are fundamental tools for representing physical variables and their relationships. They are used for a range of tasks, such as constructing simulations, statistically analyzing data, and recognizing, expressing, and applying quantitative relationships</p></td><td align="left"><p>In <bold>engineering,</bold> mathematical and computational representations of established relationships and principles are an integral part of design. For example, structural engineers create mathematically based analyses of designs to calculate whether they can stand up to the expected stresses of use and if they can be completed within acceptable budgets</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 42—Reactions and Interactions: Students will be able to derive the energy of a system using the formula, Q = mcΔT</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 55—Human Tissues: Students will complete calculations and record data for their redesigned artificial tissues</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>6. Constructing explanations and designing solutions</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>In science,</bold> the goal for students is to construct logically coherent explanations of phenomena that incorporate their current understanding of science, or a model that represents it, and are consistent with the available evidence</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Engineering design,</bold> a systematic process for solving engineering problems, is based on scientific knowledge and models of the material world. Each proposed solution results from a process of balancing competing criteria of desired functions, technological feasibility, cost, safety, esthetics, and compliance with legal requirements</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 31—Classification Systems: The group will collectively determine the basis for their phylogenetic tree (biological vs. morphological classifications, considering morphology or stages of development more heavily, etc.)</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example</underline></italic><underline>:</underline> Unit 1—Conservation of Energy: Students will be able to apply conservation of energy to the design of a water slide or roller coaster in order to best meet the criterion set forth to them in the engineering prompt</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>7. Engaging in argument from evidence</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> In <bold>science,</bold> reasoning and argument are essential for identifying the strengths and weaknesses of a line of reasoning and for finding the best explanation for a natural phenomenon</p></td><td align="left"><p>In <bold>engineering,</bold> reasoning and argument are essential for finding the best possible solution to a problem</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example</underline></italic><underline>:</underline> Unit 38—Proteins as antibodies: The human body's major solvent is water. Given this aqueous solution, which type of bond (ionic, covalent, van der Waals, or hydrogen) do you think would be strongest? Why do you think so?</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 4—Buoyancy, Pressure, and Materials Properties: Student groups will give a short presentation to the class, justifying why their boat did or did not hold the 50 g weight</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><bold>8.</bold> Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><bold>Science</bold> cannot advance if scientists are unable to communicate their ideas and the results of inquiry—orally, in writing, with the use of tables, diagrams, graphs, and equations, and by engaging in extended discussions with scientific peers. Science requires the ability to derive meaning from scientific texts (such as papers, the Internet, symposia, and lectures), in order to evaluate the scientific validity of the information acquired</p></td><td align="left"><p><bold>Engineers</bold> cannot produce new or improved technologies if the advantages of their designs are not communicated clearly. Engineers need to be able to express their ideas, orally and in writing, with the use of tables, graphs, drawings, or models, technologies, and by engaging in extended discussions with peers. They need to be able to derive meaning from colleagues' texts, evaluate the information, and apply it usefully</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example</underline></italic><italic>:</italic> Unit 14—Biodomes: Student teams share their food chains or food webs with the class, and communicate the flow of energy through each of their model biodomes</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Example:</underline></italic> Unit 5—Bridges and Forces: Students will design a bridge that will be used to cross a local river. Students will present their diagrams and prototypes of their bridge designs to a group of local politicians and engineering consultants</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Text highlighted in gray represents the anchoring <bold><emph>phrases</emph></bold> for the given practice and served as analysis guide during coding process</p> <p>Table 3 Analysis framework for Engineering Design Skills with specific indicator phrases</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Engineering design skills</p></th><th align="left"><p>Example phrases from some EDIS units</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>ETS1.A: Defining and Delimiting Engineering Problems</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Defining and identifying an engineering problem</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 48</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Osmosis and membrane transport:</underline></italic></p><p>Introduce design challenge to students and pass out design journal. Read through design challenge together. Ask students to identify the problem, constraints, and task</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Specifying goals, criteria or constraints that the final product or system must meet</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 40</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Photosynthesis:</underline></italic></p><p>Following presentation of engineering design problem, students will identify the problem, users, user's needs, problem constrains, and specification</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>ETS1.B: Developing Possible Solutions</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> May begin with a relatively open-ended phase during which new ideas are generated via brainstorming</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 19</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Energy Plus Home</underline></italic></p><p>Students will each generate three ideas individually and then participate in a group brainstorm session writing out all ideas</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Communicating initial ideas in various modalities such as sketches, diagrams, concept maps, physical models or computer simulations</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 22</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Ground Water Pollution</underline></italic></p><p>Students will model their clean-up ideas through drawings supported by mathematical models and written justification</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>ETS1.C: Optimizing the Design Solution</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Determining what constitutes "best," by making trade-offs among competing criteria</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 35</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Projectile motion and conservation of energy:</underline></italic></p><p>Based on knowledge from the research of Texas topography and historical launching systems, students will evaluate the possible design solutions each team member built. They will then discuss benefits and possible drawbacks of each one prior to deciding which design model to actually build. After picking the best design, teams will have to justify their choice by describing the specific elements of the model and the design choices</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Designing prototypes</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Design, build, and make a model/prototype</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 27</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Cleaning Oil Spills</underline></italic></p><p>Student builds a working model that excellently aligns with the criteria, constraints, and intent of the problem. The working model can be tested using appropriate tools, materials and resources</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Testing prototypes</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Test, show, or demonstrate how a model or prototype works</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 33</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Circuits</underline></italic></p><p>For testing and evaluating, each group will have their work presented on their table (one person will stay to explain the parameters they were designing for) and will move around (round robin style) to each other's presentations, testing each product with the known parameters in mind</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><p><italic>Making Iterations</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Make iterations to improve designs</p></td><td align="left"><p><italic><underline>Unit 26</underline></italic>—<italic><underline>Biodiversity and Bycatch:</underline></italic></p><p>Student groups optimize their prototype based on the testing process and data collected and improve the percentage of target species caught</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Text highlighted in gray represents the <bold>anchoring phrases</bold> that served as analyses and coding guides for coders.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-8">Data Analysis</hd> <p>To establish the coverage of the eight science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in pre-service science teachers' EDIS instructional units, coders conducted line-by-line analyses in the learning objectives, activities, and assessments sections. The anchoring <bold><emph>phrases or words</emph></bold> for each description of the practices (Tables 2 and 3) served as descriptors and guided coders in what to look for during the coding process. Based on our research questions, we analyzed the EDIS instructional units for the overall coverage of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills, as well as for coverage by science discipline area (life science, physical science, and earth science), and unit sections (i.e., objectives, activities, assessments).</p> <p>The coders were two experts in science and engineering design-integrated curriculum development and implementation. The analysis process consisted of two initial phases of coding and rating of five randomly selected EDIS instructional units for coders to get familiar with the process. Due to the presence of the specific phrases/words as anchors as clearly highlighted in the framework, the coding process was quite consistent between the coders. The coders were in agreement on average of 90.52% of the time (Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]). After coding, the practices were scored for their presence and extent of coverage as described above.</p> <p>To calculate the overall coverage of the practices and design skills, each EDIS instructional unit was either scored with a one (denoting presence of coverage) or zero (denoting absence of coverage) for each practice and engineering design skill. The frequencies we got were the total number of EDIS instructional units that addressed the given practice or design skill, and the percentages were calculated out of the total number of all the units analyzed (i.e., 56 EDIS instructional units).</p> <p>Similarly, the coverages of the practices and design skills by science discipline and unit sections were scored with a one or zero for each practice and design skill. The frequencies were the total number of EDIS instructional units that addressed the given practice or design skill, in their respective science disciplines or unit sections.</p> <p>When determining the coverage level of the practices and design skills among all the 56 EDIS instructional units, the following threshold percentages were set and used: If the practice was addressed by 70%—100% of the curriculum units, it was described as <bold><emph>high coverage</emph></bold>; if it was addressed by 40%—69% of the curriculum units, it was described as <bold><emph>medium coverage</emph></bold>; if it was addressed by 1%—39% of the units, the practice was described as <bold><emph>low coverage</emph></bold>; and if no curriculum unit addressed it, it was described <bold><emph>no coverage</emph></bold>. These threshold percentages enabled us to categorize the extent to which the science and engineering practices and design skills were represented in the EDIS instructional units.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-9">Results</hd> <p>The results are presented in three subsections: overall coverage of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in the EDIS instructional units; coverage of the practices and design skills by science discipline area (i.e., life science, physical science, and earth/space science units); and coverage of practices and design skills by EDIS instructional unit sections (i.e., objectives, activities, and assessments sections). For easy in reading the percentages, all figures were rounded off to the nearest whole number.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-10">Overall Coverage of the Practices and Design kills</hd> <p>Figures 2, 3, and 4 show the overall coverage of science and engineering practices, engineering design skills, and coverage for all practices and design skills by unit sections and subject disciplines, respectively.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2 Percentage of science curriculum units integrating science and engineering practices</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3 Overall percentage of science curriculum units integrating engineering design skills</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 4 Overall percent coverage for all practices and design skills by unit sections and subject discipline</p> <p>The <bold><emph>science and engineering practices coverage</emph></bold> in Fig. 2 reveals the following: (a) all the eight science and engineering practices were integrated, though the extent of coverage varied by practice; (b) engineering practices were integrated more commonly than science practices; (c) while none of the science practices were integrated at a high level (i.e., present in 70% or more of the units), four engineering practices (<emph>designing solutions, engaging in argument from evidence, and obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information, and analyzing and interpreting dat</emph>a) received high coverage; (d) to the contrary, three science practices received low-level coverage (<emph>asking questions, planning and carrying out investigations, and engaging in argument from evidence</emph>); and (e) interestingly, the practices that had the lowest and highest coverage were the same for both science and engineering practices. For example, <emph>asking questions and defining problems</emph>, and <emph>planning and carrying out investigations</emph> were the least covered practices, while <emph>obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information</emph> was the most covered practice for both science and engineering. These findings imply that the EDIS instructional units were designed to engage students in science learning through engineering design process that would involve them in developing design solutions, interpreting data, providing explanations with evidence, and communicating their results to peers and teachers. This approach is consistent with the call for teaching science through engineering design process emphasized in science education reforms (NRC, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref42">18</reflink>]).</p> <p>The c<bold><emph>overage of engineering design skills</emph></bold> in Fig. 3 reveals that contrary to trends in science and engineering practices, nearly all engineering design skills had medium–high coverage, save for only <emph>determining what constitutes a best solution</emph> which received low coverage.</p> <p>The overall <bold>coverage for all practices and design skills by unit sections and subject disciplines</bold> as shown in Fig. 4 reveals that in all science subject disciplines, there were more practices and engineering design skills covered in activities section, followed by assessments and least in the objectives. This finding implies that students would have more opportunities to engage in science and engineering practices during the activities. Similarly, this outcome is consistent with the suggestion of teaching science through engineering design process outlined in NGSS.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-11">Coverage of Practices and Design Skills by Science Discipline</hd> <p>The coverage of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in the units by science discipline focus (i.e., life science, physical science, and earth/space science units) is shown in Tables 4 and 5, respectively. As shown in Table 4, the representation of <bold><emph>science practices coverage</emph></bold> in the units revealed the following trends: (a) there was low coverage for all science practices across all content areas; (b) life science units included medium coverage of the science practice <emph>developing and using models</emph>; (c) perhaps not surprisingly, physical science units included medium coverage of science practice <emph>using mathematics and computational thinking</emph>; and (d) there were no coverage of the science practice <emph>asking questions</emph> in Earth science and physical science units and no coverage in Earth science EDIS instructional units for the science practice <emph>engaging in argument from evidence</emph>, both of which may account for the low overall integration of these two practices across all units.</p> <p>Table 4 <emph>Percent Coverage for Science and Engineering Practices by science discipline units (N</emph> = <emph>56)</emph></p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Science and Engineering practices</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Science Practices (%)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Engineering Practices (%)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Life Science</p><p>(n = 30)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Physical Science</p><p>(n = 19)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Earth Science</p><p>(n = 7)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Average</p><p>(n = 56)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Life Science (n = 30)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Physical Science</p><p>(n = 19)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Earth Science</p><p>(n = 7)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Average</p><p>(n = 56)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Asking questions for science and defining problems for engineering</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>1</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Developing and using models</p></td><td align="left"><p>44</p></td><td align="left"><p>30</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>46</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p></td><td align="left"><p>41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Planning and carrying out investigations</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>8</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Analyzing and interpreting data</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Using mathematics and computational thinking</p></td><td align="left"><p>34</p></td><td align="left"><p>57</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>50</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Constructing explanations for science and designing solutions for engineering</p></td><td align="left"><p>29</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>41</p></td><td align="left"><p>46</p></td><td align="left"><p>81</p></td><td align="left"><p>56</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Engaging in argument from evidence</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>54</p></td><td align="left"><p>61</p></td><td align="left"><p>81</p></td><td align="left"><p>65</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information</p></td><td align="left"><p>40</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td align="left"><p>33</p></td><td align="left"><p>59</p></td><td align="left"><p>50</p></td><td align="left"><p>44</p></td><td align="left"><p>51</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>N = 56 units</p> <p>Table 5 Percent Coverage for Engineering Design skills by science discipline</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Engineering Design Skills</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Science Disciplines (%)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Life Science</p><p>(n = 30)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Physical Science</p><p>(n = 19)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Earth Science</p><p>(n = 7)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Average</p><p>(n = 56)</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Define and identify an engineering problem</p></td><td align="left"><p>43</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>26</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Specify criteria/constraints</p></td><td align="left"><p>27</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>28</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Brainstorm new ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>62</p></td><td align="left"><p>59</p></td><td align="left"><p>56</p></td><td align="left"><p>59</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Communicate initial ideas</p></td><td align="left"><p>41</p></td><td align="left"><p>39</p></td><td align="left"><p>44</p></td><td align="left"><p>41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Determine what constitutes "best," design</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Design or build model/prototype</p></td><td align="left"><p>74</p></td><td align="left"><p>72</p></td><td align="left"><p>56</p></td><td align="left"><p>67</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Test or show how model or prototype works</p></td><td align="left"><p>49</p></td><td align="left"><p>55</p></td><td align="left"><p>50</p></td><td align="left"><p>51</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Make iterations to improve designs</p></td><td align="left"><p>72</p></td><td align="left"><p>66</p></td><td align="left"><p>53</p></td><td align="left"><p>64</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>On the other hand, Table 4 shows that all <bold>e</bold><bold><emph>ngineering practices</emph></bold> were covered, though to varying extents. Half of the engineering practices were covered at a medium or high level for Earth science and physical science, and three out of eight engineering practices were covered at a medium or high level for life science units. As was reflected in overall results, engineering practices six (Design solutions), seven (Argumentation), and eight (Communicate) were covered at medium or high levels across all content areas. Of note, however, was that while science practice seven (engaging in argument from evidence) was not covered at all in Earth science EDIS instructional units, engineering practice seven was covered at a high level in earth science units (compared to only a medium level for life science and physical science). This trend was also present for practice six, where Earth science unit coverage was at a high level for the engineering practice (designing solutions), but a low level for the science practice (constructing explanations). This highlights again the greater focus on engineering practices over science practices, particularly in the Earth science EDIS units.</p> <p> <bold> <emph>Engineering design skills coverage</emph> </bold> shows similar trends to engineering practices coverage in that they were all covered to a greater extent across discipline areas (Table 5). Notable observations were medium coverage for design skills related to, <emph>designing, making iterations, testing</emph>, and <emph>brainstorming new ideas</emph>, while low coverage was found among skills related to <emph>defining/identifying an engineering problem, specifying criteria and constraints,</emph> and <emph>determining what constitutes "best" solutions</emph>. These results imply that the EDIS instructional units across the science disciplines were also designed to teach engineering design skills.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-12">Discussion</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to determine the extent to which pre-service science teachers integrated science and engineering practices and engineering design skills into their EDIS instructional units, in aggregate and by science discipline and unit sections. Results showed that, in aggregate, all practices and design skills were included. However, more engineering practices and design skills were covered than science practices in the EDIS instructional units. These findings show that the pre-service teachers did not treat engineering design as an add-on or culminating activity. Instead, they planned the units to teach science through engineering design process, which was consistent to the model of our intervention, and NGSS. This finding is different from those reported in previous studies. For example, Crotty et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref43">6</reflink>]) reported that some teachers represented engineering design as an add-on or culminating activity in their curriculum materials rather than as a vehicle to learn science. In our study, the pre-service teachers' EDIS instructional units had an <emph>explicit</emph> approach to engineering integration, where the design challenge was introduced at the beginning of the unit and engineering design process was integrated consistently as a foundational component of the EDIS instructional unit throughout. This finding is not similar to those reported by Peterman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref44">20</reflink>]), who analyzed 80 lessons from online curriculum materials and found that very few lessons had design challenges that required students to state the scientific rationale for their decision decisions, and engineering terminology was rarely covered.</p> <p>It is also important to note that the engineering design skills and practices related to brainstorming, developing, and redesigning prototypes were integrated particularly well, often at a high level, whereas those related to identifying constraints and determining criteria for best solutions were integrated at a lower level. This reflects pre-service science teachers' understanding of engineering as focused on design and redesign. This finding supports the suggestion for teachers' increased exposure to less well-known components of engineering design during teacher preparation (Judson et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]) for them to improve their instructional planning and teaching.</p> <p>The new addition to the literature on engineering design integration science curriculum was this study's analysis of engineering design-integrated science units by discipline areas. This was important because at the start of the intervention in our science methods course biology pre-service teachers perceived engineering design as fitting most closely with physical science. There was a pushback from our biology pre-service teachers that biology cannot be taught through engineering design process. However, results from our discipline-specific analyses suggest that pre-service teachers from all content areas were successful at including engineering practices and design skills into their EDIS instructional units, often at a medium or high level. Indeed, Earth science or life science units outscored physical science EDIS instructional units on seven of the eight science and engineering practices and on six of eight engineering design skills, though scores were high for numerous practices and skills across disciplines. Earth science EDIS instructional units in particular showed a focus on engineering practices, integrating engineering practices at a high level, whereas science practices were included at a low level. This, in addition to the overall low scores by discipline for science practice integration, again suggests that science teacher educators should direct their focus on integrating science and engineering in teacher preparation so that pre-service teachers are exposed to both types of practices through EDIS instruction.</p> <p>Overall, our study shows that the pre-service science teachers were able to develop EDIS instructional materials. Two explanations for our results merit consideration. First, participants may have been motivated to learn more about engineering design because current science education reforms require them to incorporate it in science instruction. Second, participant pre-service teachers were immersed in authentic EDIS instructional activities and resources that explicitly addressed the NGSS practices and engineering design process. These assertions are in keeping with recommendations in previous studies (Capobianco & Rupp, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref46">3</reflink>]; Guzey et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref47">10</reflink>]; Peterman et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref48">20</reflink>]). For example, Peterman et al. ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref49">20</reflink>]) stated that curriculum developers must develop engineering-integrated science instructional materials that make explicit connections between science and engineering throughout, and those that include design challenges that allow students to apply science knowledge to solve engineering problems.</p> <p>The growth demonstrated by our participant pre-service teachers in their ability to develop EDIS instructional units has implications for science teacher education. For example, the pushback by participant biology teachers before we started the intervention and the lack of training in engineering design among teachers reported in previous studies (e.g., Banilower et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref50">1</reflink>]; Haag & Megowan, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref51">12</reflink>]) should be a call to action in science teacher education programs. We suggest science teacher education programs should refocus their science methods courses to explicitly address engineering design to ensure that pre-service science teachers are adequately prepared to develop and teach EDIS lessons. We believe the explicit instructional approach to engineering design in science teacher education is likely to increase the opportunity for teachers to develop sound instructional planning skills for EDIS lessons. Likewise, the explicit EDIS instructional approach is likely to have a positive impact on pre-service teachers' instructional practices and subsequently on student learning of science and engineering outlined in the NGSS.</p> <p>Although the findings in this study cannot be generalized due to a small number of participants, our findings suggest the evidence to support the need for intensive PD for secondary pre-service science teachers on engineering design and how to develop EDIS instructional materials they can use in their science instruction. We also suggest three areas for future research on engineering design in science teacher education: First, this study can be extended to a large sample of secondary pre-service science teachers. Second, investigate the relationship between pre-service teachers' EDIS instructional planning and their instructional practices in science classrooms. Third, examine the extent to which pre-service science teachers' implementation of their EDIS instructional units impact students' understanding of science concepts and engineering design process. These studies would provide evidence on the extent to which teachers' EDIS curriculum development skills translate into effective instruction practice, and students' achievement in science and engineering design.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-13">Conclusions</hd> <p>This study reports on the extent to which science and engineering practices and engineering design skills were integrated in the EDIS instructional units developed by secondary pre-service science teachers. Overall, all science and engineering practices and design skills were included in the units. However, engineering practices and design skills were covered more than science practices in the EDIS instructional units. Although these findings cannot be generalized, they have the potential to contribute to better teaching and learning of science and engineering design in schools. For example, science teacher educators should emphasize on integration of both practices and engineering design skills in teacher education programs. The understanding of pre-service teachers' competencies in developing science and engineering practices integrated lessons is helpful in furthering the development of robust engineering education programs in teacher education and schools. Such findings have the potential to contribute to better teaching and learning of science and engineering design in schools.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-14">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>We acknowledge all participant pre-service teachers for attending the intervention and developing the EDIS units we analyzed for this study.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-15">Funding</hd> <p>This research was supported by two National Science Foundation award numbers DUE 1439858 and EEC 1636443. The funding enabled researchers to do the intervention on engineering design and collect data.</p> <hd id="AN0161234713-16">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 67 KB)</p> <ref id="AN0161234713-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref5" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Banilower, E. R, Smith, P. S, Weiss, I. R, Malzahn, K. A, Campbell, K. M, & Weis, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 national survey of science and mathematics education. Horizon Research Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref31" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Burghardt, M. D, & Hacker, M. (2004). Informed design: A contemporary approach to design pedagogy as the core process in technology. Technology Teacher,64(1), 6–8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref21" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Capobianco, B. M, & Rupp, M. (2014). STEM teachers' planned and enacted attempts at implementing engineering design-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics,114(6), 258–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12078</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref13" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Clandinin DJ, Connelly FMJackson PW. Teacher as curriculum maker. Handbook of research on curriculum. 1992; Macmillan: 363-401</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref41" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement,20(1), 37–46.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref16" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Crotty, E. A, Guzey, S. S, Roehrig, G. H, Glancy, A. W, Ring-Whalen, E. A, & Moore, T. J. (2017). Approaches to integrating engineering in STEM units and student achievement gains. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 7(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Cunningham, C. M, & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching engineering practices. Journal of Science Teacher Education,25(2), 197–210. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9380-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref18" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Dare, E. A, Ellis, J. A, & Roehrig, G. H. (2018). Understanding science teachers' implementations of integrated STEM curricular units through a phenomenological multiple case study. International Journal of STEM Education,5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0101-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref14" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Guzey, S. S, Harwell, M, Moreno, M, Peralta, Y, & Moore, T. J. (2017). The impact of design-based STEM integration curricula on student achievement in engineering, science, and mathematics. Journal of Science Education and Technology,26(2), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9673-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guzey, S. S, Moore, T. J, & Harwell, M. (2016). Building up STEM: An analysis of teacher developed engineering design-based STEM integration curricular materials. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1129</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guzey, S. S, Tank, K, Wang, H. H, Roehrig, G, & Moore, T. (2014). A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics,114(3), 139–149. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12061</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haag, S, & Megowan, C. (2015). Next generation science standards: A national mixed-methods study on teacher readiness. School Science and Mathematics,115(8), 416–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hynes, M. M. (2012). Middle-school teachers' understanding and teaching of the engineering design process: A look at subject matter and pedagogical content knowledge. International Journal of Technology and Design Education,22, 345–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-010-9142-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huizinga, T, Handelzalts, A, Nieveen, N, & Voogt, J. M. (2014). Teacher involvement in curriculum design: Need for support to enhance teachers' design expertise. Journal of Curriculum Studies,46(1), 33–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.834077</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Katehi, L, Pearson, G, & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12635</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judson, E, Ernzen, J, Krause, S, Middleton, J. A, & Culbertson, R. J. (2016). How engineering standards are interpreted and translated for middle school. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 6(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1121</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maeng, J. L, Whitworth, B. A, Gonczi, A. L, Navy, S. L, & Wheeler, L. B. (2017). Elementary science teachers' integration of engineering design into science instruction: Results from a randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Science Education,39(11), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1340688</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/13165</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18290</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peterman, K, Daugherty, J, Custer, R, & Ross, M. (2017). Analyzing the integration of engineering in science lessons with the Engineering Infused Lesson Rubric. International Journal of Science Education,39(14), 1913–2193. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2017.1359431</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schnittka, C, & Richards, L. (2016). POWERED by the Sun: Teaching the science of energy, force, and motion through an engineering design challenge. The Science Teacher,83(3), 25–32.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schnittka, C, & Bell, R. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in science: Addressing thermal energy and heat transfer in eighth grade. International Journal of Science Education,33(13), 1861–1887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2010.529177</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stohlmann, M, Moore, T. J, McClelland, J, & Roehrig, G. H. (2011). Yearlong impressions of a middle school STEM integration program. Middle School Journal,43(1), 32–40.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tashakkori, A, & Teddlie, C. (2009). Integrating qualitative and quantitative approaches to research. The SAGE handbook of applied social research methods (2nd ed, pp. 283–317).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Voogt, J, Westbroek, H, Handelzalts, A, Walraven, A, McKenney, S, Pieters, J, & De Vries, B. (2011). Teacher learning in collaborative curriculum design. Teaching and Teacher Education,27(8), 1235–1244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.07.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yaşar Ş, Baker D, Robinson-Kurpius S, Krause S, Roberts C. Development of a survey to assess K-12 teachers' perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Engineering Education. 2006; 95; 3: 205-216. 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2006.tb00893.x</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Frackson Mumba; Alexis Rutt and Vivien Mweene Chabalengula</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref45"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1361917
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Representation of Science and Engineering Practices and Design Skills in Engineering Design-Integrated Science Units Developed by Pre-Service Teachers
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mumba%2C+Frackson%22">Mumba, Frackson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rutt%2C+Alexis%22">Rutt, Alexis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Chabalengula%2C+Vivien+Mweene%22">Chabalengula, Vivien Mweene</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22International+Journal+of+Science+and+Mathematics+Education%22"><i>International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education</i></searchLink>. Feb 2023 21(2):439-461.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: National Science Foundation (NSF)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: DUE1439858<br />EEC1636443
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Postsecondary+Education%22">Postsecondary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Education%22">Science Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teacher+Education%22">Preservice Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preservice+Teachers%22">Preservice Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Engineering+Education%22">Engineering Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Design%22">Design</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Instruction%22">Science Instruction</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Teachers%22">Secondary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Science+Teachers%22">Science Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Developed+Materials%22">Teacher Developed Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Skill+Development%22">Skill Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Integrated+Curriculum%22">Integrated Curriculum</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Units+of+Study%22">Units of Study</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10763-022-10266-6
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1571-0068<br />1573-1774
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The current US science education reforms call for integrating engineering design in science instruction requires teachers to develop and teach engineering design-integrated science (EDIS) lessons. However, very few teachers have received training in engineering and how to integrate engineering design into science lessons. In response to this challenge, our teacher education program has been training secondary pre-service science teachers in engineering design and how to develop EDIS instructional materials. Thus, this study reports on the representation of science and engineering practices and engineering design skills in the EDIS instructional units developed by participant pre-service teachers, in aggregate and by science discipline and by different sections within the units. Results show that all science and engineering practices and design skills were included in the units. However, engineering practices and design skills were covered more than science practices in the EDIS instructional units. Pre-service teachers did not treat engineering design as an add-on or culminating activity. Instead, they planned the units to teach science through engineering design process, which was consistent to the model of our intervention, and the Next Generation Science Standards. We conclude that instruction on engineering design process and how to integrate it in science instruction through intensive professional development activities can enhance pre-service science teachers' abilities to develop EDIS instructional units, even for science subjects like life science.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2023
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1361917
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1361917
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10763-022-10266-6
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 439
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Science Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preservice Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Engineering Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Design
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Instruction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Science Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Developed Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Skill Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Integrated Curriculum
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Units of Study
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Representation of Science and Engineering Practices and Design Skills in Engineering Design-Integrated Science Units Developed by Pre-Service Teachers
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mumba, Frackson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rutt, Alexis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Chabalengula, Vivien Mweene
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 02
              Type: published
              Y: 2023
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1571-0068
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1774
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 21
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1