Cross-Case Analysis of Engineering Education Experiences in Inclusive STEM-Focused High Schools in the United States

Abstract

Article HistoryIn an attempt to broaden participation in STEM, a new type of high school is emerging, high schools which include a focus on engineering, have few or no academic admission criteria, and actively involve students of all levels of ability, known as Inclusive STEM High Schools (ISHSs). One aspect of successful ISHSs includes the intentional and explicit integration of engineering learning opportunities into coursework. The purpose of this paper is to report results of a systematic cross-case analysis exploring the extent of engineering learning opportunities in five exemplar ISHSs. The results are framed by the Engineering in K-12 Education report from which seven different topics were derived to appropriately represent the field of engineering in schools: design, identifying constraints, modeling and analysis, engineering habits of mind, systems thinking, modeling, identifying constraints, communication, and optimization,. The crosscase analysis was conducted by aggregating the information gathered through surveys, interviews, focus groups, classroom observations, and document analysis, noting similarities and differences across schools and mechanisms for the course foci. It was found in the participating ISHSs that engineering is not merely an elective; all students must take at least one engineering course to graduate, although the states in which the schools are located did not require engineering for a diploma. The most prominent topics from the recommended list found at the schools were design, engineering habits of mind, and communication, while the least prominent were modeling, analysis, and identifying constraints. Based on the results of this study, the engineering education community is encouraged to continue making engineering concepts and skills accessible to K-12 educators, who may not have prior formal training in the field of engineering or engineering education.

NGSS-based teacher professional development to implement engineering practices in STEM instruction

“…Interviewed teachers provided more nuanced perspectives, reporting increased confidence in teaching through questions and addressing student responses, using models during investigations, and emphasizing optimization and the iterative nature of engineering. These pedagogical skills allow teachers to foster students' ability to plan and carry out investigations (Duschl and Bybee 2014;Peters-Burton and Johnson 2018). It also became apparent that while teachers showed growth in their perceived ability to develop NGSS-aligned engineering lessons, more attention should be paid to open-ended design and cost effectiveness in future workshop sessions, which is consistent with prior research (Haag and Megowan-Romanowicz 2015;Shernoff et al 2017).…”

The honeycomb of engineering framework: Philosophy of engineering guiding precollege engineering education

“…Our analysis of NSTA's articles also showed that engineering practices with heavier data components, such as OPT and EAN, were underutilized. According to Peters-Burton and Johnson (2018), modeling and analysis were also among the least prominent topics covered in the STEM-focused high schools they examined. Increased attention to these two inquiries of engineering (OPT and EAN) could help address the difficulties of integrating mathematics with science and engineering, especially at the high school level (Becker & Park, 2011;English, 2016).…”

Integrating engineering in K-12 science education: spelling out the pedagogical, epistemological, and methodological arguments

“…This reform effort, with its ambitious framing, also necessitated an urgent need for improving curriculum, assessment, and teacher education in alignment with the new vision. To address this need, many researchers have focused on increasing teachers' familiarity with engineering and developing integrated curricula expanding across elementary (Capobianco & Rupp, 2014;Moore, Tank, Gajdzik, et al, 2015;Museum of Science, 2019;Wendell & Rogers, 2013) and secondary education (Cantrell, Pekcan, Itani, & Velasquez-Bryant, 2006;Apedoe, Reynolds, Ellefson, & Schunn, 2008;Daugherty & Custer, 2012;Silk, Schunn, & Cary, 2009;Peters-Burton & Johnson, 2018). In this position paper, we draw attention to the differences in arguments that shape integration practices and elucidate related confusions.…”