You are here:

Enablers and Inhibitors to Integrating Computing and Engineering Lessons in Elementary Education

, , Brigham Young University, United States ; , Purdue University, United States ; , BootUp, United States

Journal of Technology and Teacher Education Volume 26, Number 3, ISSN 1059-7069 Publisher: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education, Waynesville, NC USA

Abstract

Increasingly, elementary teachers are being asked to teach the missing elements of a STEM education—computing and engineering. Over the course of a year, we worked with an entire elementary school (K-6) to implement computing and engineering lessons. Through persistent observation, field notes, and interviews, teachers revealed both enablers and inhibitors to successful classroom implementation. These fell into two categories—externally provided and internally cultivated enablers and inhibitors. We provide evidence for these claims and discuss how internally cultivated enablers and inhibitors can lead to or impeded the successful implementation of computing and engineering lessons in elementary education.

Citation

Rich, P., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E. & Perkins, M. (2018). Enablers and Inhibitors to Integrating Computing and Engineering Lessons in Elementary Education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 26(3), 437-469. Waynesville, NC USA: Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education. Retrieved August 22, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map

References

  1. ACARA. (2016). The Australian curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/download/f10.
  2. Breiner, J.M., Harkness, S.S., Johnson, C.C., & Koehler, C.M. (2012). What is STEM? A discussion about conceptions of STEM in education and partnerships: What is STEM. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 3-11.
  3. Cunningham, C.M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 30(3), 11-17.
  4. Delcker, J., & Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Computational thinking as an interdisciplinary approach to computer science school curricula: A German perspective. In P.J. Rich& C. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 49–62). New York, NY: Springer
  5. English, L.D., & King, D.T. (2015). STEM learning through engineering design: fourth-grade students’ investigations in aerospace. International Journal of STEM Education, 2(1), 219.
  6. Epstein, M.H. (1998). Assessing the emotional and behavioral strengths of children. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 6(4), 250–252.
  7. Ertmer, P.A. (1999). Addressing first-and second-order barriers to change: Strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(4), 47-61.
  8. Ertmer, P.A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research& Development, 53(4), 25-39. Doi:10.1007/BF02504683
  9. Ertmer, P.A., Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T., Sadik, O., Sendurur, E., & Sendurur, P. (2012). Teacher beliefs and technology integration practices: A critical relationship. Computers& Education, 59(2), 423-435. Doi:10.1016/J.compedu.2012.02.001
  10. Falker, K., Vivian, R. (2015). A review of computer science resources for learning and teaching with K-12 computing curricula: An Australian case study. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 390-429.
  11. Fitzgerald, E.M., & Cunningham, C.M. (2013). Bridging Engineering, Science, and Technology(BEST) for elementary educators. In 120th ASEE Annual Conference& Exposition (Paper ID#7041). Atlanta, GA: American Society for Engineering Education.
  12. Fuller, F.F., & Bown, O.H. (1975). Becoming a teacher. In K. Ryan (Ed.), Teacher education: 74th yearbook of the national society for the study of education. (Part II) (pp. 25-52). Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
  13. Furber, S. (2012). Shutdown or restart? The way forward for computing in UK schools. London: The Royal Society.
  14. Garneli, V., Giannakos, M.N., Chorianopoulos (2015). Computing education in K-12 schools: A review of the literature. Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), 2015 IEEE (pp. 543-551). IEEE.
  15. Ilic, U., Haseski, H.I., & Tugtekin, U. (2018). Publication trends over 10 Years of computational Thinking research. Contemporary Educational Technology, 131-153.
  16. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education, National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council of the National Academies
  17. Kelley, T.R., & Knowles, J.G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM Education, 3(1), 237.
  18. Lincoln, Y.S. & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
  19. Lye, S.Y., & Koh, J.H.L. (2014). Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior, 41, 51-61.
  20. Mast, J.V., & Ginsburg, H.P. (2010). A child study/lesson study: Developing minds to understand and teach children. In Handbook of reflection and reflective inquiry (pp. 257-271). New York, NY: Springer.
  21. Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
  22. Moore, T.J., Glancy, A.W., Tank, K.M., Kersten, J.A., Smith, K.A., & Stohlmann, M.S. (2014). A Framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research and development. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 4(1).
  23. Nadelson, L.S., Callahan, J., Pyke, P., Hay, A., Dance, M., & Pfiester, J. (2013). Teacher STEM perception and preparation: Inquiry-based STEM professional development for elementary teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.
  24. National Research Council. (2011). Successful K-12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Committee on Highly Successful Science Programs for K-12 Science
  25. Rich, K., Strickland, C., & Franklin, D. (2017). A literature review through the lens of computer science learning goals theorized and explored in research. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (pp. 495-500). ACM.
  26. Rich, P.J. (2012). Inside the black box: Revealing the process in applying a grounded theory analysis. The Qualitative Report, 17(49), 1-23.
  27. Rich, P.J., Jones, B., Belikov, O., Yoshikawa, E., & Perkins, M. (2017). Computing and engineering in elementary school: The effect of year-long training on elementary teacher self-efficacy and beliefs about teaching computing and engineering. International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools, 1(1).
  28. Tai, R.H. (2012). An examination of the research literature on Project Lead the Way. Citeseer. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/ Summary?doi=10.1.1.361.548
  29. Thorndike, E.L., & Woodworth, R.S. (1901). The influence of improvement in one mental function upon the efficiency of other functions. Psychological Review, 8, 247-261.
  30. Toikkanen, T., & Leinonen, T. (2017). The code ABC MOOC: Experiences from a coding and computational thinking MOOC for Finnish primary school teachers. In P.J. Rich& C.B. Hodges (Eds.), Emerging research, practice, and policy on computational thinking (pp. 239-248). Springer,
  31. Wendt, S., Isbell, J.K., Fidan, P, & Pittman, C. (2015). Female teacher candidates’ attitudes and self-efficacy for teaching engineering concepts. International Journal of Science in Society, 7(3), 1-11.
  32. Wong, G.K., Cheung, H.Y., Ching, E.C., & Huen, J.M. (2015). School perceptions of coding education in K-12: A large scale quantitative study to inform innovative practices. In Teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (TALE), 2015 IEEE international conference, (pp. 5-10).

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact info@learntechlib.org.