Changes in Teachers’ Adaptive Expertise in an Engineering Professional Development Course

Abstract

Although the consensus seems to be that high-school-level introductory engineering courses should focus on design, this creates a problem for teacher training. Traditionally, math and science teachers are trained to teach and assess factual knowledge and closed-ended problemsolving techniques specific to a particular discipline, which is unsuited for teaching design skills for open-ended problems that may involve multiple engineering disciplines. Instead, engineering teacher training should use the more fluid framework of adaptive expertise which values the ability to apply knowledge in innovative ways as well as recall facts and solve problems using conventional techniques. In this study, we examined a 6-week program to train math/science teachers to teach high school design engineering. For each curriculum unit, we had a pre-posttest to assess the teachers' factual knowledge and ability to solve typical problems (termed ''efficiency'') and their ability to apply their knowledge to reason through open-ended problems (termed ''innovation''). In addition, we conducted a pre-posttest to see whether teachers' attitudes and beliefs related to adaptive expertise changed over the course of the program.

Elementary Teachers’ Positive and Practical Risk-Taking When Teaching Science Through Engineering Design

“…Integrating engineering design-based science instruction is ''risky'' in that it necessitates new knowledge of engineering teaching, learning, and contextualization, as well as design knowledge (Hynes, 2012;McKenna & Agogino, 1998). It also requires that teachers understand how to recognize and adapt their instruction to constantly evolving student engagement in design scenarios (Martin, Baker Peacock, Ko, & Rudolph, 2015), noticing and responding to students' needs in real time while fostering diverse decision-making skills and design solutions (Wendell, Wright, & Paugh, 2017).…”

Data‐based conjectures for supporting responsive teaching in engineering design with elementary teachers

“…Similarly, the emerging teacher research in engineering design has focused on teachers’ disciplinary understandings and practices (Hsu, Cardella, & Purzer, ; Martin, Peacock, Ko, & Rudolph, ; Nadelson, Pfeister, Callahan, & Pyke, ; Wendell, ), their beliefs about implementing engineering in their classrooms (Van Haneghan, Pruet, Neal‐Waltman, & Harlan, ), and the fidelity of their implementation of curriculum (Capobianco & Rupp, ). While there has been extensive research on teacher noticing and responding in mathematics and science that teacher preparation in engineering can build on, there are several arguments for engineering‐specific work.…”

“…Similarly, the emerging teacher research in engineering design has focused on teachers' disciplinary understandings and practices (Hsu, Cardella, & Purzer, 2011;Martin, Peacock, Ko, & Rudolph, 2015;Nadelson, Pfeister, Callahan, & Pyke, 2015;Wendell, 2014), their beliefs about implementing engineering in their classrooms (Van Haneghan, Pruet, Neal-Waltman, & Harlan, 2015), and the fidelity of their implementation of curriculum (Capobianco & Rupp, 2014).…”

A Study of the Attitudes and Practices of K-12 Classroom Teachers who Participated in Engineering Summer Camps (Evaluation)

“…There is an increasing demand for engineering teachers, classes, and experiences, but teachers are not formally trained in engineering, especially not at the elementary level [3]. Teaching engineering is different than teaching traditional science and math content because it requires not so much new content as new ways of thinking [4]. Science and math teachers are trained to teach closed-ended problemsolving, or problems with right or wrong answers, while teaching design requires a familiarity with open-ended problem solving and what is called adaptive expertise: the ability to apply knowledge in innovative and creative ways [4].…”

“…Teaching engineering is different than teaching traditional science and math content because it requires not so much new content as new ways of thinking [4]. Science and math teachers are trained to teach closed-ended problemsolving, or problems with right or wrong answers, while teaching design requires a familiarity with open-ended problem solving and what is called adaptive expertise: the ability to apply knowledge in innovative and creative ways [4]. Many teachers are comfortable utilizing science in the classroom but are apprehensive about ensuring they conform to the standardized course of study, which makes it even harder for them to imagine utilizing engineering across content areas.…”