University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

(USC Thesis Other)

Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 1
PRESERVICE TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING
INTEGRATION IN K–5
by
Alina Vehuni
____________________________________________________________________
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2015
Copyright 2015 Alina Vehuni
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 2

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I express my deepest gratitude to those people who made this dissertation possible. First,
I acknowledge my late grandfather, my role model, Dr. Azat Vehuni, who set me on the engi-
neering path for my undergraduate degree, who encouraged me to pursue my dreams, and who
taught me how to overcome obstacles, big or small. He is not here to celebrate this accomplish-
ment with me, but I have always felt his presence and guidance in this journey. I thank my
beloved mother, who supported me every step of the way with everything possible and impos-
sible. I thank her for believing in me and supporting me in the achievement of my goals and
aspirations. I thank my dear family, especially my sons, Max and Alex, for being understanding
and supportive in the past 3 years. Thanks to all of my friends, who were there for me all these
years and always understood when I missed an important event in their lives.
I acknowledge my dear friend, Dr. Linda Chang, who told me about this program,
encouraged me to apply, and supported me throughout the process. I am grateful to the principals
with whom I work. These strong ladies had been through the process themselves and knew what
a commitment I made. My thanks go to Dr. Marine Avagyan and Dr. Narek Kassabian. I also
want to acknowledge the teachers in the program that I oversee for their kind words and support;
they are the Power Team!
This project would not have come to fruition without the guidance and support of my
chairs, Dr. Anthony Maddox and Dr. Frederick Freking, who helped me to grow professionally
and become a scholar in the field of education. I will always remember and cherish the oppor-
tunities for intellectual exchange and cognitively stimulating discussions. I have come to love the
research process and plan to write articles and other academic work over the years. I extend my
gratitude to them for listening and providing constructive feedback and positive affirmations.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 3

I cannot say enough to express how happy I am to have made a decision to travel to
Shanghai for the Rossier International Trip in May, 2014. I experienced a new culture, learned
about the Chinese education system, gained an international perspective, and made new friends.
Most of all, I am happy to have met on the trip my committee member, Dr. John Pascarella, who
challenged my thinking and supported the process. I am more knowledgeable as a result.
Finally, I thank all of my cheerleaders and comforters in this process. They know who
they are. I could not have been successful without their unwavering belief and encouragement.
Today, I am Dr. Alina Vehuni, thanks to all of them.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments 2
List of Tables 7
List of Figures 8
Abstract 9
Chapter 1: Overview of the Study 11
Background of the Problem 12
Statement of the Problem 15
Purpose of the Study 17
Significance of the Study 18
Limitations of the Study 19
Delimitations of the Study 20
Organization of the Dissertation 20
Definition of Terms 21

Chapter 2: Literature Review 24
Innovation Pipeline 24
STEM Integration 25
Standards 27
Engineering Standards 27
Common Core State Standards and the Four C’s 29
The Next Generation Science Standards 30
K–12 Continuum 31
Interest in Engineering and STEM Careers 32
Engineering Education in Elementary Schools 33
Perceptions of Engineering 34
Definitional Problems of Engineering in K–5 36
Engineering as a subject 37
Engineering as integration 37
Engineering as a way of thinking 38
Teacher Preparation for Engineering Integration 40
STEM Integration in Teacher Education Programs 42
Licensure 43
Knowledge base 43
Barriers 44
Pre-engineering 45
Content and pedagogy 45
Collaborative approaches 47
Successful models 49
Student Teaching 50
Mentors 52
Placement 54
Retention 55
Professional Development for Inservice Teachers 57
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 5

Induction 58
Ongoing Professional Development 60
Elementary Teacher Self-Efficacy in Engineering 61
Self-Efficacy Beliefs 62
Experts Versus Novices 65
Theoretical Frameworks for the Study 67
Systems Thinking 67
Social Cognitive Theory 69
Chapter Summary 71

Chapter 3: Methodology 73
Research Questions 73
Research Design 73
Sample and Population 74
Setting 74
Gaining Entry 75
Participants 75
Participant Profile 77
Instrumentation 83
Survey 84
Interview Instrument 84
Observation Instrument 85
Data Collection 86
Validity, Reliability, and Ethics 87
Data Analysis 88
Conceptual Frameworks 91
Chapter Summary 92

Chapter 4: Findings, Analysis, and Discussion 94
Data Findings for Research Question 1: Undergraduate Degree of
Preservice Elementary Teachers 94
Elementary Teacher Background in the STEM Disciplines 95
Math and science 96
Technology and engineering 97
Understanding of Engineering 98
Definition of engineering 98
Concept and skill set of engineering 99
Interdisciplinary Instruction 101
Exposure to integration 102
Understanding integration 103
Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 1 104
Data Findings for Research Question 2: Practices of the Teacher
Preparation Programs 105
Pedagogy of Integrated Instruction 106
Methodology courses 106
Exposure to engineering 107
Expectations of Teachers 108
Lesson Planning 110
Planning for integrated instruction 110
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 6

Planning for engineering instruction 112
Field Experience 113
Student teaching placement 114
Availability of resources 114
Classroom environment 116
Support and Mentorship 118
Professors’ support 119
Mentor teachers 120
Opportunities for Practice 121
Required tasks 122
Desired tasks 123
Fears 123
Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 2 125
Chapter Summary 127

Chapter 5: Summary and Implications of Findings 130
Purpose of the Study 131
Summary of the Findings 132
Implications for Practice and Policy 135
Recommendations for Future Research 140
Conclusion 143

References 145
Appendices
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter 157
Appendix B: Preservice Teacher Survey Protocol 158
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol 161
Appendix D: Teacher Observation Protocol 163
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 7

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Survey Participants’ Responses to Indicate Self-Efficacy Levels 78
Table 2: Participants’ Self-Reported Self-Efficacy 79
Table 3: Participant Profile 80
Table 4: Research Questions and Instrumentation 87
Table 5: Participant Background in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Disciplines 96
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 8

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Creswell’s model for qualitative data analysis 90
Figure 2: Relationship between the function, behavior, structure framework
and the design process 92
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 9

ABSTRACT
This qualitative study explored preservice elementary teachers’ perceptions of their
preparation to teach engineering as part of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
(STEM) integration, as required by the Next Generation Science Standards. The purpose of the
study was to understand how preservice teachers’ undergraduate major and teacher preparation
programs for a multiple-subject credential influence their self-efficacy to teach engineering for
STEM integration in elementary classrooms. The study informs the study site about teacher
candidates’ perceptions of efficacy and highlights a need for equipping elementary teachers with
knowledge, pedagogical skills, and strategies for increased self-efficacy to teach engineering as
part of STEM integration in Grades K–5.
The qualitative design generated vivid descriptions of the participants’ experiences that
had shaped their efficacy beliefs. From a relatively large sample, four participants who
demonstrated higher self-efficacy on the survey instrument were selected to participate in
interviews and observations. The data collection methods allowed the study participants to share
insight, personal thoughts, and beliefs as well as self-judgment regarding their anticipated
capabilities to teach engineering as part of the integrative approach to STEM disciplines. The
study analyzed the participants’ perceptions of the field practicum and its influence on their
preparation for instructional practices in elementary classrooms related to STEM integration with
an emphasis on engineering.
The study results revealed how the participants’ beliefs about undergraduate major and
experiences in teacher preparation programs influenced the aspiring elementary teachers’ self-
efficacy regarding subject background in the STEM disciplines and pedagogical knowledge as
they relate to pre-engineering and STEM integration in K–5 classrooms. The dissertation
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 10

presents implications that specifically relate to the preservice teachers’ views of the STEM-based
pedagogical knowledge and preparation in the studied teacher preparation program for a multiple
subject credential. It makes recommendations for future research to provide opportunities for
further learning by this program on how the participants’ perceptions spoke to the practices in
the program and how to help them shape higher self-efficacy beliefs for STEM integration
through engineering in K–5.

TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 11

CHAPTER 1: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Building economies of the future depends on cultivating talents for innovation. The right
education no longer consists of developing basic skills in mathematics (math) and literacy; it
includes teaching creativity, innovation, and entrepreneurship (Wagner, 2012). In the modern
world, U.S. students must develop skills that will allow them to compete in the global economy.
The National Science Foundation (NSF; 2010) called the development of future science, tech-
nology, engineering and math (STEM) innovators “a national imperative” because it is critical
for filling the increasing number of jobs in the field. How will the nation grow its cadre of engi-
neers, scientists, and technologists for future innovations?
Real-world contexts and global enterprises require integrated, interdisciplinary
approaches. The pedagogy for developing multiple literacies in the classroom requires holistic
methodologies and rethinking how one thinks about integration. Enabling students to integrate
their knowledge is achieved by implementing connected learning and modeling integrative
approaches (Honey, Pearson, & Schweingruber, 2014). It is necessary to increase overall per-
formance through increasing STEM proficiency and developing foundational skills for success in
the 21st century. To meet this goal, current and future teachers must be prepared to bring the
contemporary vision of STEM integration to reality. The continuum of teacher training from
undergraduate major through initial teacher preparation programs to continuous improvement
through induction and ongoing professional development must be aligned with national goals.
What is the actual influence of elementary teachers’ background and professional preparation on
their perceived ability to take on the mission of STEM integration through engineering?
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 12

Background of the Problem
Integrative approaches to education are underdeveloped in elementary school instruc-
tional practices (Sanders, 2009). The public education system in the United States has been
teaching subjects in isolation, valuing each one as a knowledge base. Current standards and text-
books have separate presentations of various disciplines, leading to teaching practices separate
from conceptual content and isolated from the flow of classroom instruction (National Research
Council [NRC], 2005). For decades, curriculum development and teacher education were
focused on individual disciplines, including elementary education, where the same teacher
instructs all core subjects. This focus has led to disconnected knowledge bases, narrow practices,
and particular habits of mind that do not prepare students for the workplace demands in the 21st
century. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation placed strong emphasis on language arts
and math through its accountability measures. As a result, the tested subjects prevail during the
instructional day, limiting emphasis on science in all grades and down to minimally in K–2
(Honey et al., 2014).
Engineering and other STEM disciplines have not been perceived as a way of thinking,
but rather as a bank of factual and conceptual knowledge built through rote memorization (Next
Generation Science Standards (NGSS); Achieve, Inc., 2013). Explicit integration is rare even in
the practices of teachers who have in-depth knowledge of a discipline. The expert-level
knowledge of the material allows them to see deep connections but does not ensure transfer into
daily instructional practice. The explicit demonstration and emphasis of connections in acquired
knowledge and skills are imperative for helping students to integrate what they learn (Honey et
al., 2014). Integrated STEM instruction requires knowledge of individual domains, along with
skills to integrate the knowledge and make connections between ideas across disciplines.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 13

Research shows that limited background in STEM disciplines and poor pedagogy of content
greatly affect teacher confidence to teach STEM and limit STEM implementation on a larger
scale (Honey et al., 2014).
As an important indicator of content knowledge, the undergraduate degree of prospective
elementary teachers must be considered in preparing STEM educators for K–5. Most elementary
teachers have limited technical backgrounds. “According to the 2012 National Survey of Science
and Math Education, just 5 percent of elementary teachers had a degree in science or science
education, and 4 percent had a mathematics or mathematics education degree” (Honey et al.,
2014, p. 117). In comparison, 41% of middle school science teachers reported having a degree in
science education and 35% of middle school math teachers had a degree in math education. Sig-
nificantly different are the figures for high school teachers: 82% for science and 72% for math
(Honey et al., 2014). The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) recommended that
elementary teachers take coursework in each of three areas: life sciences, earth sciences, and
physical sciences. Among elementary teachers, 74% have taken courses in at least two of the
three recommended areas. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has sug-
gested coursework in five areas for elementary teachers: numbers and operations, algebra,
geometry, probability, and statistics. “The National Survey of Science and Math Education
(NSSME) found that 10 percent of elementary teachers met this standard” (Honey et al., 2014,
p. 118). Johnson et al. (2013) indicated that 4% of elementary teachers, 6% of middle school
teachers, and 7% of high school teachers reported that they were prepared to teach engineering.
These statistics suggest an investigation of how the path for certification of aspiring teachers,
especially elementary teachers, prepares them for STEM integration and engineering instruction
as expected in newly adopted standards.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 14

Future elementary teachers in high-achieving countries have more opportunities to learn
both school and higher-level math compared to other countries (Wilson, 2011). “Twenty-three
states cannot boast a single [teacher preparation] program that provides solid math preparation
resembling the practices of high-performing nations” (Greenberg, Walsh, & McKee, 2015, p. 3).
Blömeke, Suhl, and Kaiser (2011) studied the relationship between future teachers’ math ability
and their effectiveness as a teacher finding a strong correlation. As measured by Math Content
Knowledge (MCK) and Math Content Pedagogical Knowledge (MCPK) assessments, the U.S.
teacher candidates demonstrated results that raise concerns. They were far exceeded by future
elementary teachers from Taiwan, Singapore, and Switzerland, as well as others (Blömeke et al.,
2011). Therefore, Wilson (2011) recommended that teacher preparation programs increase the
number of courses for higher-level math and recruit candidates with higher MCK and MCPK
performance. Others have suggested shifting the focus from “what teachers need to know” to
“what teachers need to do,” highlighting the main practices for analytical thinking (Ball &
Forzani, 2009; Widnshitl, Thompson, & Braaten, 2010).
Engineering, historically within the purview of higher education, has been given minimal
attention in secondary education and is generally absent at the elementary level. This situation
has led to limited understanding of pre-engineering education and has not established a tradition
of engineering in K–12 (Chandler, Fontenot, & Tate, 2011). By its nature, engineering encom-
passes ideas, skills, and practices from the other three STEM disciplines and is often viewed as a
natural way to integrate STEM disciplines and beyond (Honey et al., 2014). Others have defined
engineering as “a catalyst for a more interconnected and effective K–12 education system”
(NRC, 2005, p. 1). Chandler et al. (2011) identified a frequently encountered obstacle of
preservice teachers’ limited math and science content knowledge, which is a prerequisite for
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 15

most engineering courses. In addition, they argued that the engineering literature, mostly drawn
from college level, does not inform teacher practice for successful engineering integration in the
elementary classroom.
A clear definition of engineering is necessary for the emerging tradition of teaching
integrative STEM through engineering. Shared understanding; school, university, and workplace
partnerships; new curriculum development; and, particularly, new teacher preparation and certi-
fication processes should be established for successful STEM integration through engineering.
Statement of the Problem
The literature reviewed in Chapter 2 illustrates the need for major shifts in the education
system. Current K–12 graduates have insufficient knowledge and understanding and underdevel-
oped skills required to be engineers, teachers of STEM disciplines, and innovators in other fields
in the increasingly demanding competitive global market (U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Technology, 2010). The building of human capital in the nation starts with
elementary schools that have an obligation to lay strong foundations in factual and conceptual
knowledge, but even more so in cognitive skills necessary for the continued success of life-long
learners. The critical role of a teacher in developing a wide range of cognition is evident and
goes beyond coverage of what is in the textbook. The prevalent practice of teaching with the text
and to the test is obsolete in the era of rapid technological advancement. The role of a teacher has
to be redefined if teachers are to make a real difference in the education of K–12 students.
Teacher education programs are challenged to produce beginning teachers ready for
effective STEM integration in their first years in a classroom. It is important to note that the pool
of future teachers consists of high school and college graduates who lack prerequisite skills to
pursue this career option. “Three out of four [teacher education] programs fail even to insist that
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 16

applicants be in the top half of the college-going population, a modest academic standard”
(Greenberg et al., 2015, p. 4). To gain a deeper understanding and analyze potential solutions to
break from this potentially self-perpetuating cycle, this study focused on how the participants’
beliefs about both undergraduate major and experiences in teacher preparation programs
influence preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for engineering instruction in elementary schools as
an effective way to integrate the STEM disciplines.
Honey et al. (2014) discussed the new initiatives at Purdue University and St. Catherine
University to prepare STEM teachers, which indicated that it is possible to enhance novice
teachers’ knowledge of the STEM disciplines.
It is less clear, because there is virtually no research on the topic, that this additional
knowledge is put to use in the classroom in ways that support students’ ability to make
connections between or among concepts and practices in more than one area of STEM.
(Honey et al., 2014, p. 123)
These initiatives include small groups of future general education teachers. Additional research
is necessary to determine the extent of integration after establishing a clear definition of integra-
tive STEM education at the elementary level. Although the literature highlights the need for
reform and specific support in all stages of teachers’ careers, it is also explicit that the best stage
at which to address this issue is teacher preparation (Yesil-Dagli, Lake, & Jones, 2010). Inte-
grated instruction demands educator expertise that is beyond content knowledge and pedagogy of
content in individual disciplines, requiring time, money, and planning.
Self-efficacy is believed to influence teacher performance, which is related to student
academic achievement and motivation. Honey et al. (2014) called self-efficacy a determining
factor of teacher effectiveness. Efficacious teachers are found to be happier with the job,
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 17

committed to the profession, and displaying lower burnout levels (Duffin, French, & Patrick,
2012; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Increased self-efficacy of preservice teachers, along with
other factors, may potentially affect teachers’ persistence in the field.
Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as the belief that a teacher holds regarding his or her
ability to carry out instructional practices for positive student outcomes, both in academics and
motivation. It is extremely important to note that teacher self-efficacy is transformable or malle-
able in teacher education, as this is the time when it is being developed and formed (Bandura,
1997). Pajares (1996) found that, as a formed belief of a practitioner, self-efficacy is resistant to
change. Bandura (1997) concurred that, once established, self-efficacy regulates “aspirations,
choice of behavioral courses, mobilization and maintenance of effort, and affective reactions” (p.
4). Specifically, Honey et al. (2014) suggested, “Lack of confidence in mathematics and science
knowledge and fear of engineering have been tied to educator reluctance to engage in profes-
sional development related to engineering” (p.119). Monitoring teacher self-efficacy beliefs
during a teacher preparation program may be beneficial for identifying deficiencies and
addressing them by creating learning opportunities to build efficacy beliefs that define successful
practitioners. This study was designed to focus on preservice teachers’ self-reported efficacy
beliefs about integrated STEM instruction through engineering at the end of a teacher prepara-
tion program. The purposeful choice of timing was intended to reveal the commonly reported
level of self-efficacy before entering the work force in the field of elementary education.
Purpose of the Study
This study explored elementary teachers’ perceptions of their preparation to teach
engineering as part of STEM integration as required by the NGSS. The study was designed to
understand how preservice teachers’ undergraduate major and teacher preparation programs for a
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 18

multiple subject credential influence their self-efficacy to teach engineering for STEM
integration in elementary classrooms. It informs the studied teacher preparation program about
their teacher candidates’ efficacy beliefs to help to build knowledge, pedagogical skills, and
strategies for increased self-efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration at the
elementary level. Finally, the study was designed to gain understanding of how the field
practicum influences self-efficacy beliefs about instructional practices for integrating
engineering in Grades K–5. It aids to inform further inquiry regarding the impact of preservice
teachers’ self-efficacy on their ability to teach engineering and ways to increase it for maximum
effectiveness in their beginning years in elementary classrooms. To generate knowledge with the
goal of preparing efficacious elementary teachers to teach engineering in integrative STEM, this
study was guided by two research questions:
1. How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major influence their perceived self-
efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
2. How do the current instructional practices and field experiences in teacher preparation
programs for a multiple subject credential shape preservice teachers’ perceptions of efficacy to
teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
Significance of the Study
The knowledge generated from this study helps to develop understanding of how to
prepare elementary teachers for engineering instruction through multiple subject credentialing
programs. It helps to identify the undergraduate background requirements for aspiring elemen-
tary teachers to ensure strong disciplinary knowledge for engineering instruction. Increasing
teacher capacity to deliver integrated STEM instruction in K–5 through teacher preparation
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 19

programs may reduce professional development and associated costs for beginning inservice
teachers in addition to preventing delays in quality STEM instruction with measurable outcomes.
Recommendations for further research are presented to identify additional knowledge to
be gained by the teacher preparation program to prepare its students for the requirements of
modern elementary education. The goal of the newly aligned coursework is to increase teacher
self-efficacy in STEM education and improve effectiveness in delivering interdisciplinary,
integrated STEM instruction through engineering, starting in the first year of teaching in a K–5
classroom. Identifying factors that contribute to developing strong knowledge in STEM
disciplines and the understanding of interdisciplinary pedagogy facilitates design of a purposeful
course of study for preservice teachers. Effective implementation of STEM education at the
elementary level requires understanding of the significant learning curve required for appropriate
engineering knowledge and skills of preservice teachers. Specialized programs to educate and
certify teachers in pre-engineering in K–5 classrooms can be designed to prepare teachers for the
work force in the modern field of elementary education.
Limitations of the Study
The detailed explanations of limitations related to research design are provided in
Chapter 3, but the following general limitations of the study are acknowledged.
1. The small sample size—four preservice teachers—limits the study’s applicability to
larger populations, leading to limited opportunities for broad generalizations. The study results
are potentially generalizable for the population at the study site because the students’ educational
experiences are likely similar. However, those experiences might not be generalizable to other
institutions with elementary teacher preparation programs.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 20

2. An administrator in the teacher preparation program selected the potential study
participant groups to provide access. The only criterion for sample selection was the students’
enrollment in the field practicum at the time of the data collection. The exclusion of the
researcher in the initial selection process of the potential study participants may present a
limitation.
3. Limited time for data collection has a potential impact on the results. The time was
constrained to one semester in a teacher preparation program that allowed for participant selec-
tion from one cohort at the study site.
4. The findings are dependent on the accuracy of the participants’ self-reporting during
the interview process. The intent was to elicit candid responses from the study participants, but
this could not be guaranteed.
5. The single-person point of view as an observer may be a potential limitation.
Delimitations of the Study
The study site is commonly chosen by aspiring elementary teachers to earn a multiple
subject credential. The question of the impact of the program on the quality of novice teachers is
beyond the sample size of the study. The study site represents the state university system in Cali-
fornia. It offers teacher preparation programs for multiple-subject and single-subject credentials.
It was assumed that the other universities in the system operate with the same standards and set
similar expectations that may result in similar outcomes.
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter 1 provides an overview of the study, introducing the topic and outlining its
purpose. Chapter 2 reviews relevant literature to establish the need for the study and to guide its
design. It describes the relatively short history of STEM integration in the schools of the nation
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 21

and the increasing demand for engineering education at a young age. The chapter discusses the
elementary teacher’s role in establishing a foundation for K–12 pre-engineering continuum to
develop interest in engineering-related careers and support the innovative pipeline in the country.
It illustrates the importance of efficacious elementary teachers for effective engineering instruc-
tion in K–5 and the role of teacher education programs in preparing the teacher work force for
21st-century learning that requires engineering as part of STEM integration. Chapter 3 describes
the study participants, the research design of the study, along with the conceptual framework that
supported development of research questions and instruments for data collection. Chapter 4
provides a detailed description of the data analysis process to address the research questions and
the findings of the study. Chapter 5 presents a discussion of the implications of the study and
recommendations for future inquiry based on the findings.
Definition of Terms
Connected learning: A theory of learning that is designed to connect and leverage all of
the various experiences, interests, communities, and contexts in which learners participate―in
and out of school―as potential learning opportunities (Institute of Play, 2015).
Engineering: A body of knowledge about the design and creation of human-made
products and a process for solving problems. This process is design under constraint. One con-
straint in engineering design stems from the laws of nature, or science. Other constraints include
time, money, available materials, ergonomics, environmental regulations, manufacturability, and
reparability. Engineering utilizes concepts in science and mathematics, as well as technological
tools (National Academy of Engineering [NAE] & NRC, 2009).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 22

Engineering design process: A problem-solving method used by engineers, along with
knowledge from mathematics and science, to solve technical challenges. It can be a highly social
and collaborative enterprise (NAE & NRC, 2009).
Innovation: The complex process of introducing novel ideas into use or practice in order
to develop cutting-edge breakthroughs in emergent fields. Innovation requires highly able,
determined, and creative leaders and thinkers (NAE & NRC, 2009).
Integrated curriculum: A curriculum that treats traditionally delineated content areas,
such as science, math, and English language arts, as integral parts of interconnected knowledge
domains (Institute of Play, 2015).
Mathematics: The study of patterns and relationships among quantities, numbers, and
space. Unlike science, where empirical evidence is sought to warrant or overthrow claims, claims
in mathematics are warranted through logical arguments based on foundational assumptions. The
logical arguments themselves are part of mathematics, along with the claims. As in science,
knowledge in mathematics continues to grow, but unlike science, knowledge in mathematics is
not overturned unless the foundational assumptions are transformed. Specific conceptual cate-
gories of K–12 mathematics include numbers and arithmetic, algebra, functions, geometry, sta-
tistics, and probability. Mathematics is used in science, engineering, and technology (NAE &
NRC, 2009).
Science: The study of the natural world, including the laws of nature associated with
physics, chemistry, and biology and the treatment or application of facts, principles, concepts, or
conventions associated with these disciplines. Science is both a body of knowledge that has been
accumulated over time and a process—scientific inquiry—that generates new knowledge.
Knowledge from science informs the engineering design process (NAE & NRC, 2009).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 23

STEM literacy: Literacy that includes (a) awareness of the roles of science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics in modern society; (b) familiarity with at least some of the funda-
mental concepts from each area; and (c) a basic level of application fluency (NAE & NRC,
2009).
Systems thinking: A set of practices or habits of mind grounded in the view of all things
as components of larger systems, best understood in relationship with each other and with other
systems, rather than in isolation; often identified as a key competency for success in the 21st
century (Institute of Play, 2015).
Technology: The entire system of people and organizations, knowledge, processes, and
devices that go into creating and operating technological artifacts, as well as the artifacts them-
selves. Much of modern technology is a product of science and engineering, and technological
tools are used in both fields (NAE & NRC, 2009).
Twenty-first century competencies: A set of skills or dispositions generally agreed to be
critical to success in the 21st and not typically addressed in traditional educational models, such
as systems thinking, creative problem solving, collaboration, innovation, time management,
identity formation, tenacity and empathy (Institute of Play, 2015).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 24

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
The vision and mission of integrative STEM education is to prepare a scientific and tech-
nical work force and productive professionals in the field of STEM to increase the nation’s inno-
vation capacity. “The innovation continuum, from identification and development of talented and
creative individuals through the education system, to a STEM career, and then to scientific
breakthroughs or to the creation of a novel product, is both vast and complex” (NSF, 2010, p.
15). STEM literacy is important for being smart consumers, thoughtful participants in democratic
decision making, generally making sense of the world, and leading productive lives as citizens
(Honey et al., 2014). Science and engineering knowledge and practices are perceived interna-
tionally to be 21st-century literacy measures (Achieve, Inc., 2013). The need to develop STEM-
literate human capital in the growing competitive market is evident.
Innovation Pipeline
Students in many countries outperform American students, even the highest-performing
ones (NSF, 2010). Undergraduate students in foreign countries show high interest in STEM
careers by choosing STEM subjects as their primary field of study at a much higher rate than do
their U.S. counterparts (NSF, 2010). Ranking 20th in the world by number of graduates with
engineering degrees, the United States has 200,000 vacant engineering positions annually (Hall,
Dickerson, Batts, Kauffmann, & Bosse, 2011). Currently, the nation relies on attracting and
retaining foreign-born talent in STEM to compensate for deficiencies in the domestic work force.
One way to develop capacity and ensure success in the innovative fields of STEM is to build an
education system that can identify talent and nurture it to develop every student’s highest poten-
tial, as well as incentivize the talent to pursue STEM as a career option. The NSF (2010) called
for creation of opportunities and establishing expectations for educational excellence as a
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 25

fundamental value. The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) have increased the bar for aca-
demic performance in the nation. However, the school infrastructure and human capital of
educators in pre-college education do not always meet those expectations.
STEM Integration
Unlike multidisciplinary teaching approaches, in which individual disciplines are easily
identifiable, STEM integration employs an interdisciplinary approach without clear borders
among the four disciplines (Wang, Moore, Roehrig, & Park, 2011). Davison, Miller, and
Metheny (1995) differentiated five meanings of math and science integration. Discipline-specific
integration applies to integration of concepts and skills from different branches of the same dis-
cipline, such as algebra and geometry for math. Content-specific integration applies to integra-
tion of an objective from math and an objective from science. For example, creating life-size
dinosaurs integrates the knowledge of measurement from math and the study of dinosaurs from
science. Process integration refers to use of experiments, data collection, data analysis, and so
forth. To perform math and science process integration, students use math in a scientific experi-
mentation. Methodological integration refers to investigating “issues in both science and mathe-
matics using related strategies such as inquiry, discovery, and learning cycle” (Davison et al.,
1995, p. 229). Thematic integration is driven by a thematic topic and typically goes beyond inte-
grating math and science to develop a strong understanding of the theme (Davison et al., 1995).
STEM integration may potentially utilize all five integration meanings.
Many researchers disapprove of the situation in which schools and teachers are left with
minimal guidance from policy makers and researchers in the field to determine an appropriate
structure for STEM integration (Koehler, Faraclas, Giblin, Moss, & Kazeroumian, 2013;
Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012). Some researchers attribute the lack of success in STEM
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 26

integration to “the nature of teacher education, education in general, and the nature of the disci-
plines” (Lederman & Lederman, 2013, p. 1237). Honey et al. (2014) cautioned that integration
on a large scale does not imply quality. True integration builds on students making connections
across disciplines while developing disciplinary knowledge. An integrated approach to instruc-
tion is explicit, supports student knowledge, and promotes collaborative problem solving and
decision making. Integration leads to subject relevance for teachers and students and cross-
disciplinary connections in K–12 education. Integrative approaches view brain, body, and envi-
ronment as an interactive unit (Honey et al., 2014).
The presence of engineering in pre-college education has been limited due to underdevel-
oped engineering standards in the national curricula. Carr, Bennett, and Strobel (2012) analyzed
the presence of engineering in state standards across the 50 states and found that engineering
skills and knowledge were present in science or technology standards in 41 states. Few of those
states explicitly mentioned standards as related to engineering. The researchers concluded that
pre-engineering standards are largely underdeveloped. However, they also identified an urgent
need for shared standards for the K–12 engineering continuum due to increasing importance of
the STEM disciplines for college and career readiness. Successful engineering-inspired initia-
tives, such as Engineering Is Elementary and Project Lead the Way, contributed to inclusion of
engineering standards in the K–12 context (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008). The
CCSS and NGSS explicitly put engineering standards in the national curricula, mandating mas-
tery of identified engineering design skills and knowledge as a graduation requirement.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 27

Standards
Engineering Standards
Victor Hugo said, “All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time
has come” (Classiclit.com, n.d.). Bybee (2011) claimed that the time is right for engineering
standards to create novel opportunities in education and advocated use of standards to prepare
teachers for engineering instruction as a sound feature of elementary learning. The National
Association of Engineering Standards Committee (NAE, 2010) suggested that engineering
should be considered as a separate discipline, taught along with more established disciplines,
such as language arts and math. The committee viewed engineering to be a motivator for
students in K–12 to study STEM subjects and eventually pursue as a career choice. Moreover,
the committee contended that engineering gives teachers opportunities to provide “why” to
learning and to develop cognitive skills for complex problem solving. This notion is of great
importance as it challenges the established views of teachers being practitioners who know the
“how” but rarely address the “what” or the “why” of teaching and learning (Shulman, 1986;
Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981). Teachers are believed to know the procedural aspects of teaching
rather than being equipped with “conceptual tools that would enable them to transcend the
structural contexts within which teaching and learning currently occur” (Zeichner & Tabachnick,
1981, p. 9). Shulman (1986) agreed that “he who knows, does; he who cannot, but knows some
teaching procedures, teaches” (p. 5).
Bybee (2011) asserted that, of the four STEM disciplines, engineering is the only domain
without nationally adopted standards. The researcher emphasized the power of national standards
in changing the education system on a large scale. “Very few things have the capacity to change
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and the professional education of teachers. National
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 28

standards must be on short list of things with such power” (p. 23). Calling engineering “a viable
component of K–12 education” (p. 26), Bybee justified the urgency of developing engineering
standards for societal and environmental changes. He predicted that engineering will be the
greatest contributor to important changes in the 21st century.
Validating the importance of standards in education, the literature on engineering stand-
ards development is divided according to views of the status of engineering as a separated disci-
pline or an infused domain in integrated STEM. Some researchers contend that engineering
concepts are already present in K–6 curriculum and instruction but are not recognized as engi-
neering (Carr et al., 2012; Koehler et al., 2013; Mann, Mann, Strutz, Duncan, & Yoon, 2011).
Others suggest that STEM refers to math and science with the “T being slightly visible and E
being invisible” (Bybee, 2011, p. 26). Katehi, Pearson, and Feder (2009) and Pinnell et al. (2013)
urged establishment of clear goals and a shared vision for engineering education prior to devel-
oping engineering standards. Sanders (2009) found this progression to be effective for establish-
ing a contemporary vision of STEM. Bybee (2011) suggested defining knowledge and abilities in
engineering with strong understanding of the entire system, as the lack of careful approaches
may “perpetuate the politics and territorial disputes among science, technology, engineering and
mathematics disciplines” (p. 26). The researcher claimed that STEM disciplines are separate and
unequal due to existing national standards and assessments for math, science, and technology.
Recognizing the dominance of math, science, and technology in the current standards and the
curricula, Bybee (2011) and Roehrig et al. (2012) proposed to develop engineering standards in
conjunction with the other STEM disciplines, considering their natural connection. Lack of
balance between STEM disciplines “could be a disservice to STEM education” (Bybee, 2011,
p. 27). Viewing STEM as a “meta discipline” of four integrated disciplines, researchers have
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 29

called for infusion of engineering in nationally adopted standards, such as the CCSS and NGSS
(Carr et al., 2012; Katehi et al., 2009). Mann et al. (2011) built on this notion of introducing
engineering not as a separate content area but rather teaching the present concepts within an
engineering context.
Common Core State Standards and the Four C’s
Developed by experts in the field of education, the CCSS are intended to prepare students
for college and entry-level careers. “The Common Core focuses on developing the critical-
thinking, problem-solving, and analytical skills students will need to be successful” (CCSS Initi-
ative, 2014, para. 2). The standards are designed to cover fewer topics that are developmentally
appropriate at each grade level with greater depth while ensuring academic rigor, coherent pro-
gression, and relevant content. The CCSS also call for integrative approaches in STEM disci-
plines and beyond for a systemic approach to creating pathways to success in college, career, and
life. One of the actions outlined by the CCSS committee was to “recruit, prepare and develop
teachers that reflect the human capital practices of top-performing nations and states around the
world” (Jerald, 2008, p. 27). However, the document provides vague descriptions of teacher
characteristics that meet the international standards for the human capital of educators and does
not clarify how to develop those characteristics.
The National Education Association (NEA, 2012) identified 4 C’s of the CCSS: critical
thinking, communication, collaboration, and creativity. Initially developed by the Partnership for
21st Century Skills (P21), this framework is commonly accepted as the most important in K–12
education (NEA, 2012). These skills describe STEM-literate students and professional engineers,
establishing a clear need for STEM integration and engineering instruction in K–12 (Katehi et
al., 2009; Mann et al., 2011). The engineering habits of mind align with the 4 C’s to develop
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 30

other essential skills for 21st-century learners, such as systems thinking, optimism, and ethical
considerations (Katehi et al., 2009).
The Next Generation Science Standards
Lederman and Lederman (2013) supported the position that NGSS are aligned with the
vision of integrated STEM as an interdisciplinary approach. The goal of the NGSS is to educate
scientifically literate generations by ensuring integrated rigorous core content. It is also intended
to increase coherence in K–12 science education through developmental progressions in STEM
domains. The Framework for K-12 Science Education clearly illustrates the interdependence of
science, engineering, and technology and their influence on human society and the natural envi-
ronment. The constant interaction of the disciplines has facilitated advancement in areas such as
space exploration and medicine. The conceptualization of this interconnectedness is essential for
teachers’ understanding of an integrated approach to implement in educational settings (Achieve,
Inc., 2013).
The NGSS declared a commitment to integrate engineering design into science education.
The prior standards lacked clear definition of the terms science, engineering, and technology.
The new framework makes clearer distinction between engineering design and scientific inquiry
while highlighting similarities of scientific and engineering practices. It also clarifies miscon-
ceptions about technology, referring to electronic devices rather than describing the ways in
which people modify the world for their needs (Achieve, Inc., 2013). A clear definition of engi-
neering and its key cognitive components is fundamental to STEM integration through engi-
neering. The Framework for K–12 Science Education has defined engineering design as a
combination of three component ideas: defining and delimiting engineering problems, designing
solutions to engineering problems, and optimizing design solutions (Achieve, Inc., 2013). The
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 31

key idea is that a problem solver can redefine a problem at hand and generate new solutions by
using the three components in any sequential order.
K–12 Continuum
Educators have long recognized the benefits of design as it promotes self-guided inquiry
skills. Brophy et al. (2008) asserted that these skills may and must be developed in P–12 “fol-
lowing the progression of complexity that evolves as learners’ technological, mathematical, and
scientific literacy evolves” (p. 372). Students tend to be more interested in design activities if the
activities are relevant to daily life (Brophy et al., 2008; Lammi & Becker, 2013). STEM educa-
tion may then be more effective when rooted in students’ ability to use science and engineering
practices in rigorous content.
The effect of integrative approaches by grade level indicates that early exposure might
yield improved achievement scores among STEM subjects. These outcomes reflect that integra-
tive approaches among STEM subjects may be better suited for a young learner (Becker & Park,
2011). In early elementary grades, engineering education may be built on hands-on activities
with the standards’ primary focus on observing, categorizing, and using basic tools. In upper
elementary classrooms, the standards require knowledge and understanding of simple and
complex machines, in addition to understanding the basic step of design. The progression
includes more complex and abstract representations of systems in middle grades, culminating in
high school in deep analytical processes for understanding how systems work. On this con-
tinuum, students must learn how to make connections among math, science, and engineering by
recognizing and applying concepts that have different meanings or applications across disci-
plinary contexts, thus ensuring transfer among disciplines (Brophy et al., 2008; Jonassen,
Strobel, & Lee, 2006).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 32

Interest in Engineering and STEM Careers
Hall et al. (2011) conducted a study to identify factors that influence students’ choices of
STEM careers, particularly engineering. The study of 132 high school students identified interest
in the field as the most important consideration for choosing a major (Hall et al., 2011). That
interest may be developed primarily if students are exposed to a particular discipline or domain.
Hence, the researchers concluded that the secondary school has the responsibility to help
adolescents to become aware of STEM careers.
In contrast, Matusovich, Sterveler and Miller (2010) found choice of engineering as a
career to be consistent with students’ sense of self and personal identity. Understanding what
students value and connecting it with engineering practices will help them to identify with engi-
neering persisters (Matusovich et al., 2010). The study of 24,599 students selected from 1,052
middle schools identified academic proficiency and math self-efficacy as the two most predictive
factors of student persistence in science and engineering careers (Mau, 2003).
Engineering activities can be intrinsically motivating because they tap into the curiosity
and excitement of making something new. Both types of interest stem from a natural desire to
understand how things work, evolve, and can be innovated. Design-based activities are engaging
for learners of all ages and may serve as a popular instructional model for STEM domains. An
integrative approach to student learning increases motivation and improves academic outcomes
(Becker & Park, 2011). Sanders (2009) concurred with other researchers regarding the need to
promote STEM integration in elementary grades.
If America hopes to effectively address the STEM pipeline problem, we must find ways
of developing young learners’ interest in STEM education and must sustain that interest
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 33

throughout their remaining school years. Therein lies the real potential and promise of
integrative STEM education. (Sanders, 2009, p. 22)
Engineering Education in Elementary Schools
According to a global perspective, engineering presents opportunities for innovation in
K–12. “Innovation and engineering design can be incorporated into nearly any academic content
area” (Pinnell et al., 2013, p. 29). Engineering allows engaging in authentic tasks, developing
conceptual knowledge, and applying that knowledge in real-world contexts. Pinnell et al. sug-
gested that children are “natural engineers and technologists” because they are creative in their
ability to design and construct. The NAE and NRC (2009) called engineering “a catalyst for a
more interconnected and effective K-12 STEM education system” (p. 1). The literature is clear
that engineering has a unique potential to increase student conceptual understanding of STEM
disciplines as the most natural way to integrate content knowledge and skills (Brophy et al.,
2008; Honey et al., 2014).
Early exposure to engineering as part of STEM integration is particularly important.
Exposure to engineering at a young age may spark interest in future STEM careers, which is
critical for undertaking the world’s challenges (Achieve, Inc., 2013). Brophy et al. (2008) illus-
trated that engineering design may be taught as early as ages 3 to 5 years, using the example of
preschool children who were asked to create a home or a friend for the lonely character in the
story that they read. The design process involved phases of planning, making, and evaluating.
Although the task was organized through the model of a free-play activity, the results indicated
that students clearly understood the goal and articulated their initial intentions, as well as
whether the final design met their goal. The study of 4- to 10-year-old children engaged in a
design task that established an open-inquiry learning environment was successful in
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 34

demonstrating student engagement in more sophisticated strategies, compared to preschool
children (Brophy et al., 2008).
Interest in STEM that has a potential to grow into a lifelong career often starts in ele-
mentary school. Students need to develop strong understanding of fundamental principles in
math, science, and technology at a young age to instill interest in pursuing technical career
opportunities. Through observations and studies of relevant literature, Bairaktarova, Evangelou,
and Citta (2011) identified pre-engineering behaviors of young children to be precursors to engi-
neering thinking. The discovery skills of exploration, inquisitiveness, and creative thinking are
highly desirable in engineering. The researchers’ goal was to develop age-appropriate ways to
integrate engineering concepts and skills in early childhood education to stimulate interest in
engineering and develop an engineering-minded youth. Adopting an engineering perspective
provides insight into STEM content knowledge and skills and helps to identify clear road maps
for student formal technical education in school.
Perceptions of Engineering
NAE (2008) identified a conceptual disconnect between perceptions and instruction in
engineering in elementary classrooms. Public polls indicate poor understanding of what engi-
neers do and how their work is connected with creativity and innovation (NAE, 2008). The
polling results suggest that parents favor their children’s choice of engineering, seeing personal
benefits of this career path such as job security and opportunity for advancement. Students, on
the other hand, show low interest in pursuing this path due to associating engineering with strong
knowledge in math and science. Hence, they conclude that engineering is for a relatively small
group of “smart” children.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 35

NAS (2008) proposed changing public beliefs about engineering by engaging the engi-
neering community in communication with the public. The goal of the suggested nation-wide
engineering awareness campaign was to reposition engineering as a field that makes a difference
in the world. The messages of the campaign were intended to inform the public about engineer-
ing and its dispositions, such as math and science, in conjunction with promoting engineering as
a domain that “turns ideas into reality” (NAS, 2008, p. 9). In the discussion of outreach initia-
tives to educate about engineering, NAS (2008) underscored outreach efforts with high school
students, with little attention to elementary and middle school students. “Messages targeting
younger children attempt to convince them that mathematics and science are easy or fun and that
engineering is challenging” (NAS, 2008, p. 4).
Busch-Vishniac and Jarosz (2004) expressed concern about public perceptions of engi-
neering that might influence teachers’ perceptions and give little incentive to teachers to make
the necessary effort for engineering integration. Their study of 98 science teachers across
Arizona indicated a stereotypical view of engineering among professional educators. The partici-
pants’ poor understanding of what engineers do ignored the realities of the engineering
profession such as teamwork, collaborative problem solving, and serving customers both locally
and globally. The narrow view of engineers as people with poorly developed verbal, writing, and
social skills might discourage teachers from promoting engineering as a career choice for their
students (Yasar, Baker, Robinson-Kurpius, Krause, & Roberts, 2006).
Wang et al. (2011) found that teacher perceptions of STEM integration shaped how they
designed STEM integration lessons. The study participants’ perceptions about STEM integration
varied depending on the subject that they taught and their view of STEM integration. One
teacher emphasized problem solving as a key feature of STEM integration, another focused on
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 36

real-world contexts, and the third valued teamwork and independent thinking for integrating
STEM disciplines. The teachers expressed a need for curricular alignment to help them to see the
big goals of STEM integration and how their subject fit into the “big picture.”
Definitional Problems of Engineering in K–5
Among STEM disciplines, engineering is the least-developed component and requires
increased attention. Similar to STEM integration, there is no agreed-upon definition of activities,
knowledge base, and skills that are appropriate for teaching and learning engineering in K–12
(Chandler et al., 2011; Roehrig et al., 2012). It is also important to be aware of cognitive
demands and limitations for each age span, considering the brain’s processing ability. Design-
based learning is a complex cognitive and social process that reflects the process of inquiry in
systems context (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, & Leifer, 2005). Therefore, it requires skills for
coping with complexity and meeting the goal of solving difficult problems. The instructional
challenge is to identify contexts of engineering accessible to the learners and presenting appro-
priate intellectual challenge for continued engagement and motivation. Contexts of engineering
for teacher accessibility must also be identified in order to equip them with knowledge and skills
for engineering instruction as required by NGSS. Researchers have agreed that teacher support
has significant influence in model-building activities, in helping students to see connections
between systems and their components, and in developing conceptual understanding with char-
acteristics of experienced designers and engineers (Chandler et al., 2011; Dym et al., 2005;
Roehrig et al, 2012). Hence, the competence of teachers in the classroom is invaluable in helping
students to develop those cognitive skills. Bairaktarova et al. (2011) asserted that teacher educa-
tion must transform to “include developmental engineering pedagogy in classroom practice” (p.
1).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 37

Engineering as a subject. Silk and Schunn (2008) suggested that successful classroom
practice related to core concepts of engineering enables elementary students’ productive
engagement with these concepts. Focusing on core engineering concepts in early grades builds a
solid foundation for an engineering path at the undergraduate level. The researchers analyzed
how elementary students handled the concepts that support the work of engineers and what
factors helped them to overcome difficulties in understanding those concepts. They found that
the context was very important in helping young children to reason about mechanisms and
structures. Young students tend to recognize functions of objects easily but require considerable
teacher prompting for recognizing underlying structures that provide those functions (Silk &
Schunn, 2008). The conceptualization of interdependencies of systems evolves over time. Young
children have not yet developed understanding of causal mechanisms and complex causal
behaviors. As confirmed by the NGSS release (Achieve, Inc., 2013), the developmental progres-
sion from concrete to abstract understanding takes time and should determine the appropriate
engineering skills and concepts for each grade level.
Engineering as integration. Combining practices from two or more STEM disciplines
through scientific experimentation and engineering design helps teachers to recognize when a
concept or practice is presented in an integrated way and teaches complex problem solving.
Knowing when to draw on disciplinary knowledge to support integrated learning experiences is
another cognitive skill in the engineering design process (Honey et al., 2014). The study of first
and second graders who were assigned a design task of building a model elbow demonstrated the
teacher’s central role in developing student understanding of functional qualities of the elbow
model (Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1997). Explicit teacher support made the iterative
design process possible. The students designed functional models with increasing complexity,
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 38

developed data representations, revised the design model for intended performance, and evalu-
ated it for deeper understanding. Penner et al. (1997) concluded that elementary students need
considerable teacher support to develop understanding of increasingly complex systems and
functions.
Jaramillo (2013) contended that engineering design should be a rule in the elementary
classroom, rather than its current status as the exception. The author suggested that the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) design challenges that follow the elementary
design process. Intended to promote guided inquiry to solve challenging problems, this design
process progresses through the steps of asking, imagining, building, evaluating, and sharing. The
elementary design process allows teachers to move toward more open-ended and student-
centered projects while facilitating student exploration and collaboration. During this process,
students think and act like engineers, integrating their knowledge of various disciplines in the
inquiry process (Jaramillo, 2013).
Engineering as a way of thinking. The infusion of engineering in elementary education
creates opportunities to develop habits of mind that are valuable in every discipline and career
field. “Engineering practice, at its core, is a way of thinking to solve problems for a purpose”
(Roehrig et al., 2012, p. 33). Katehi et al. (2009) named the following habits of mind to be the
result of engineering education: systems thinking, creativity, optimism, collaboration, communi-
cation, and attention to ethical considerations. Mann et al. (2011) expanded the list by adding
literacy, strong imagination, leadership talents, and other attributes. The researchers drew a par-
allel between attributes of gifted students and successful engineers finding significant common-
alities (Mann et. al., 2011). They also noted that, historically, educational practices intended for
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 39

gifted students but implemented in general classrooms resulted in higher academic achievement
for all students, including students with limited language skills and special needs.
Engineering requires strong content knowledge and cognitive processes of design, analy-
sis, and troubleshooting of complex systems for problems that are often ill defined in the work
place. These types of unstructured problems pose significant challenges due to their complexity
and potential multiple solutions. “Solving a complex problem will tap into many of the cognitive
processes associated with solving more constrained problem types such as logical, algorithmic,
rule-use, decision-making, diagnosis, strategic performance, case-analysis and dilemma analysis”
(Brophy et al. 2008, p. 371). Higher-order thinking skills such as application, analysis, and
synthesis are highly emphasized in modern education through standards, emerging pedagogies,
and new instructional practices. These skills are integral components of design thinking and are
necessary for engineering design (Katehi et al., 2009; Mann et al., 2011). Teaching with
engineering design requires developing authentic activities. Such tasks foster problem-solving
skills and analytical thinking that can be applied beyond the classroom (Putnam & Bortko,
2000).
In order to improve design pedagogy, people must understand design both as a mecha-
nism for learning and as a learning process (Dym et al., 2005). Design-based activities involve
breaking down complex systems or problems into smaller functional components, identifying
connections and interrelationships, learning new information, and defining alternative solutions
to the problem for functionality of the entire system. These cognitive skills are required for inno-
vation and are currently underdeveloped in instructional programs, especially at the elementary
level. Opportunities to engage in a STEM practice, such as engineering design that uses
knowledge from other disciplines, promote systems thinking and recognition of the interplay
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 40

among disciplines beyond STEM (Mann et al., 2011). Real-world problems require strong design
capability under the constraints in business, cultural, and global contexts, calling for a global
outlook for design education (Dym et al., 2005). Design activities allow for risk taking and
experimentation with ideas where failure provides data for future learning. A critical step in the
engineering design process is reflective analysis. Analyzing what worked and what is needed for
improvement is imperative for new solutions (Mann et al., 2011). The engineering habits of mind
create glorious opportunities for human innovative potential. According to the late Robert F.
Kennedy (1968), “There are those who look at things and ask why . . . I dream of things that
never were, and ask why not” (as cited in Quote/Counterquote.com, 2015, para. 1).
Teacher Preparation for Engineering Integration
A lack of cohesive policy in K–12 engineering, systemic infrastructure, standards, and
framework for shared understanding of engineering instruction creates a significant gap in
knowledge and expertise for successful implementation. The system-wide change required for
effective implementation of K–12 STEM integration on a large scale indicates its potential of
becoming a disruptive innovation in education. As part of broad changes for K–12 STEM inte-
gration, teacher preparation is a key factor. The preparation and competence of teachers entering
the work force in the next two decades will largely determine the success or failure of the
STEM-related innovation. These educators must bring the STEM vision to reality.
Elementary teachers have the potential to influence future innovators, as they have the
most contact with young students. Yet in the analysis of 907 undergraduate and graduate
elementary programs, Greenberg et al. (2015) found that
nearly half (47 percent) fail to ensure that teacher candidates are capable STEM
instructors: these programs’ requirements for candidates include little or no elementary
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 41

math coursework and the programs also do not require that candidates take a single basic
science course. (p. 3)
Therefore, teacher preparation for effective STEM integration and methods of teaching pre-
engineering is of urgency (NSF, 2010). Preparation of general education teachers for engineering
instruction is especially problematic due to the absence of traditions of engineering in K–12 and
a lack of standards-driven teacher education mechanisms (Chandler et al., 2011). However,
researchers have assumed that establishing programs for K–12 engineering teachers and other
mechanisms requiring engineering integration into K–12 education will eventually create a
framework for a meaningful continuum from elementary to college engineering and potentially a
career choice. Bybee (2011) predicted that the new standards will drive innovation in education,
including teacher preparation and training. Developing a set of engineering standards for K–12
will provide an incentive for colleges to participate in teacher preparation for engineering
instruction. Carr et al. (2012) were optimistic that the engineering content in the CCSS and
NGSS will indicate ways of building infrastructure to prepare teachers for engineering
instruction by using an integrated framework.
Due to limited teacher preparation, exposure of students to engineering in K–12 is
extremely rare, limiting student opportunities to develop experience with inquiry-based learning,
real-world problem solving, hands-on training, and peer collaboration (NSF, 2010). Yasar et al.
(2006) assessed K–12 teachers’ perceptions of engineering and their familiarity with teaching
design and engineering and reported that the surveyed K–12 teachers did not feel confident to
teach design-engineering-technology (DET). The elementary teachers placed less importance on
DET than did middle and high school science teachers. The study also found that less-
experienced teachers expressed more willingness to learn about DET through professional
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 42

courses or inservice workshops and, in comparison with their more-experienced colleagues,
reported being better prepared by the teacher education program to teach DET (Yasar et al.,
2006). The latter may be attributed to the stronger presence of science and technology concepts
and skills in the current national standards.
Hall et al. (2011) expressed concern regarding teachers’ and counselors’ limited
knowledge with respect to STEM careers, especially engineering. The study of 132 high school
students and 83 college students indicated student career choices to be influenced by four main
factors, in the following order: interest, parents, earning potential, and teachers. The survey of 10
high school counselors and 23 math and science teachers in the same study showed that 33% of
the surveyed high school personnel did not feel knowledgeable about career options in science,
63% did not feel knowledgeable about careers in information technology, and 62% did not feel
knowledgeable about engineering career choices. Hall et al. (2011) predicted that a lack of inter-
est would lead to a shortage of qualified teachers in STEM disciplines, resulting in a self-
perpetuating cycle. This creates an ongoing issue of how, when, and who will offer effective
integrative STEM instruction to attract and retain engineering-minded youth. The shortage of
STEM-minded teachers is a barrier to encouraging students to pursue engineering and other
STEM careers (Bybee, 2011; Hall et al., 2011).
STEM Integration in Teacher Education Programs
Empirical research regarding courses for integrated instruction in science and math for
preservice teachers has emerged in the past few decades (Berlin & Lee, 2005). Davison et al.
(1995) explored the problem in an attempt to redesign preservice teacher preparation programs to
integrate math and science. The premise of their study was the importance of math and science
for making sense of the world instead of each subject being taught in isolation for the sake of
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 43

teaching the discipline. Pang and Good (2000) conducted a study to extend the rationale for math
and science integration. They highlighted inquiry and problem solving as similar scientific
processes and emphasized interdependent ways of knowing but cautioned against presenting the
subjects in an unbalanced way. The researchers found that many practicing teachers perceived
integration as a topic to add to an already large curriculum scope. This perception challenged the
fulfillment of integration (Pang & Good, 2000).
Licensure. Shober (2012) discussed the issue of teacher licensure and how it views
teachers as equivalent and interchangeable. He asserted that teacher certification is unrelated to
student outcomes and overall teacher effectiveness in the classroom. Teachers have individual
strengths and weaknesses and teacher credentialing should account for those. In addition to the
teacher preparation problem, Shober (2012) discussed the problem of teacher supply, especially
in the STEM disciplines, as a cause for low teacher effectiveness. “Teacher education is
characterized by little competition and selection, and the educational programme, compared with
other professions, is not very complex with regard to intellectual demands and organizational
features” (Veenman, 1984, p. 167). Shober (2012) reported that high compliance rates with the
standards for Highly Qualified Teacher (HQT) suggested low requirements from the states.
Knowledge base. Greenberg et al. (2015) assert that teacher candidates lack the content
foundation that is required before entering professional training. They reported district
superintendents’ views of elementary teachers as novices with insufficient knowledge of core
subjects. The fragmented knowledge base of elementary teachers and the inability of teachers
who specialized in one subject to see connections between disciplines made integration of
disciplines challenging (Lederman & Lederman, 2013). The demand of the modern work place
reflected in K–12 education goes beyond integration of only science and math. Honey et al.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 44

(2014) suggested using science and math to support knowledge gains in engineering and
technology. Until recently, no undergraduate program offered such coursework for preservice
teachers (Chandler et al., 2011). Currently, very few programs in the country focus on preparing
teachers for integrated STEM education, particularly for engineering instruction in K–5 (Honey
et al., 2014). Chandler et al. (2011) identified accreditation as one of the major obstacles to
integrating engineering in K–12 settings. A lack of acceptance of pre-college engineering
coursework for admission to universities reflects how universities view engineering in relation to
the science and math (Brophy et al., 2008). Pang and Good (2000) concurred that university
instructors’ perceptions of integration and their influence on preservice teachers’ attitudes toward
integration must be considered. This approach calls for a system-wide change. “Perhaps we
should heed to the notion put forth by NAE that precollege engineering could serve as a catalyst
for significantly changing the way we educate our children, and that, if done right, might pre-
cipitate rethinking the whole system” (Chandler et al., 2011, p. 47).
Barriers. Wilson (2011) identified four barriers to improving teacher preparation for
STEM education. The researcher cited understaffed STEM disciplinary departments at the
university-based programs for teacher preparation as one of the main challenges. Wilson noted
that most courses in larger professional programs are taught by doctoral students and adjunct
faculty, which jeopardizes the quality of the teacher preparation programs. Second, the issue of
ever-changing curricula that new teachers will be assigned to teach complicates the situation. As
“a safe bet,” the teacher programs focus on key concepts in foundational disciplines because
most teachers will need to know and use them. The third issue is the lack of common curricula
for teacher education at different stages of their teaching career. The incoherence of the system
for teacher learning and support through teacher preparation, induction, and professional
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 45

development programs can be best described as a “parallel play” that fails to improve the system.
Fourth, as a school-level characteristic, the teaching quality of prospective teachers develops in
collaboration with experienced, quality teachers in their classrooms. Lack of mentorship of
effective STEM teachers during student teaching and other phases of preservice teacher educa-
tion questions the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs for a multiple subject credential
(Wilson, 2011).
Pre-engineering. Effective implementation of engineering in K–12 requires a systemic
framework that includes pre-engineering in teacher preparation programs for certification
(Chandler et al., 2011). Pinnell et al. (2013) addressed the limited interest in STEM and particu-
larly in engineering by analyzing the impact of teacher preparedness to instruct STEM subjects
for student engagement and strong academic outcomes in STEM disciplines. The study of 10
inservice and 5 preservice teachers examined their participation in a professional development
opportunity created by a collaborative partnership between a school of education and a school of
engineering in the interest of advancing STEM education. The teachers’ involvement in curricu-
lum development focused on engineering design, innovation, and classroom instruction with the
use of a developed framework. It supported them to develop STEM capabilities in the follow-up
year and provide STEM leadership. The study showed that teachers need a good understanding
of engineering practices, applications, and careers in order to teach and promote engineering.
Content and pedagogy. The goal of teacher education programs is to increase both edu-
cators’ STEM content knowledge and pedagogy of teaching content in an integrative way for
high self-efficacy and well-developed metacognitive skills related to the practice of engineering
as a subject, a means for integration and a way of thinking. The intended outcomes are to change
instructional practices through increased STEM content and pedagogical content knowledge.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 46

Honey et al. (2014) suggested problem-based learning, project-based learning, and design-based
tasks as instructional strategies to build a strong knowledge and skill base for future educators. In
order to teach in an integrated manner, teachers need an understanding of an experience with
integrated STEM (Honey et al., 2014).
Inquiry-based approaches to teaching are well discussed in the literature on the topic.
Hammer and Schifter (2001) suggested “teaching as research” or implementation of two
practices—researcher and instruction—to enhance new teachers’ understanding of content and
pedagogy (p. 2). Similarly, the new conceptions of teaching required by the educational reforms
are reflected in the “inquiry as a stance” construct of Cochran-Smith and Lytle (1999). This
construct explains “the relationship between inquiry, knowledge and professional practice” and
aims to provide direction for preservice teacher education (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999, p.
250). The scholars differentiated among knowledge-for-practice, knowledge-in-practice, and
knowledge-of-practice. The first concept refers to the knowledge of theory and research
including subject matter, strategies, and best practices. The second concept describes the
practical knowledge of pedagogy or what effective teachers do and how they reflect on their
practice. The third concept assumes that new teachers develop knowledge through their own
practice as they examine, investigate, and question what is already known. All three types of
knowledge are applicable and necessary for STEM integration through engineering.
Shulman (1986) stated that content and pedagogy make up the body of understanding and
was concerned with the ways “the subject matter is transformed from the knowledge of a teacher
into the content of instruction” (p. 6). Shulman pursued a goal of tracing teachers’ “intellectual
biography” or their conceptions and understanding of the subject that they teach (p. 8). Shulman
suggested three categories for content knowledge: (a) subject matter, (b) pedagogical knowledge,
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 47

and (c) curricular knowledge. He asserted that content knowledge goes beyond the knowledge of
the facts in the discipline and requires understanding of the domain structures and the reasons
behind those structures. He defined pedagogical knowledge as “subject matter knowledge for
teaching” with consideration of the cognitive challenges imposed by different forms of
presenting the knowledge (p. 9). Feiman-Nemser (1990) concurred that pedagogical content
knowledge helps with conceptualization of topics and identifying how difficulties in learning
should be addressed. Shulman (1986) argued that teacher education programs are delinquent
with respect to curricular knowledge and that professional teachers must have a strong
understanding of curricular alternatives for instruction. Shulman’s assertions hold true of teacher
preparation for integrative STEM and engineering. Understanding preservice teachers’ learning
and cognition for presenting knowledge in the engineering domain is essential for equipping
them with conceptual and practical tools in teacher preparation programs.
Ernst (2013) studied how experiential learning affected cognitive achievement of future
technology and engineering educators. The researcher defined experiential learning as
“application of existing personal knowledge and prior experiences into the new educational envi-
ronment” (p. 32) in order to construct meaning. The study of 73 preservice technology and
engineering teachers showed strong cognitive benefits for participants to result from participat-
ing in courses designed to promote both “conceptual knowledge and skill-based” aptitude
through experiential learning. The literature suggests that teachers need to learn through experi-
ences that are similar to those that they will provide for students (Ernst, 2013; Honey et al.,
2014).
Collaborative approaches. Collaboration by various groups of professionals in the field
may be the way to bring the STEM vision into reality. National Council for Accreditation of
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 48

Teacher Education (NCATE, 2010) recommended collaboration between teacher preparation
programs and school districts to design preservice teacher training that meets the needs of
schools. Sanders (2009) was skeptical about the ability of new teacher licensure programs to
provide sufficient content knowledge in addition to content pedagogy to teach integrated STEM
effectively. The researcher asserted that the amount of content knowledge necessary to be
effective in teaching math, science, engineering, and technology is outside of the scope of
teacher preparation programs. Hence, he suggested offering a new body of knowledge to
preservice teachers in the form of foundational concepts, pedagogy, curriculum, and research to
integrate as complementary to their own STEM disciplines in collaboration with colleagues.
Lederman and Lederman (2013) agreed that groups of professionals with various disci-
plinary backgrounds can piece different conceptual and practical knowledge together with the
integrity to contemporary vision of STEM. Middle school teachers were found to be the most
successful in providing integrated STEM instruction by working as a team and taking advantage
of their colleagues’ professional expertise. Collaborative approaches encourage distribution of
cognition across a group of people, empowering them to accomplish complex cognitive tasks
that are too difficult for any individual member (Putnam & Bortko, 2000).
A study of 33 secondary math, 33 science, and 8 technology teachers from 10 schools
showed the highest quality of STEM integration in the lessons co-planned by math and science
teachers (Roehrig et al., 2012). Engineering-only lessons were mainly taught by technology
teachers. “Lessons integrating two of the STEM disciplines varied in approach, with the majority
of science teachers implementing product-focused engineering design and the majority of math-
ematics teachers implementing process-focused engineering design lessons” (p. 41).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 49

Successful models. An interesting view of design was expressed by O’Brien (2010), who
contended that design skills are imperative for all teachers because they “constantly design
lesson plans, design their time, and design curricula” (p. 37). While seeing design thinking as a
skill that extends beyond STEM integration, O’Brien (2010) studied it in a program intended to
educate STEM teachers for K–5. The Math-Science-Technology (MST) program at the College
of New Jersey was established to educate STEM teachers for K–5 by preparing them in STEM
subjects along with non-STEM subjects. To address the concern of finding a balance between
depth and breadth, the major was established with “a broad core and a required in-depth
specialization in one of the three disciplines of mathematics, science or technology” (O’Brien,
2010, p. 36). Although the program served pre-engineering teachers, it did not offer engineering
courses; rather, it included an engineering component in courses for other STEM disciplines. The
author emphasized the university professors’ awareness of preparing future educators rather than
engineers or scientists. He called the program “a systemic solution to the K–5 STEM teacher
void” (O’ Brien, 2010, p. 37).
O’Brien (2010) also studied the competency level in various disciplines developed by
preservice teachers in the MST program. The knowledge of K–5 candidates in math and science
was measured by the Elementary Education Content Knowledge test. Similar metrics for tech-
nology and engineering do not exist. However, O’Brien (2010) claimed that preservice teachers’
competency in technology and engineering can be quantified by the level of exposure and the TE
Praxis test. The program described and analyzed in that study graduated 25 to 40 K–5 teacher
candidates each year, which is insignificant, considering the growing demand for STEM teachers
nationwide. O’Brien (2010) recommended an increase in the number of MST programs to affect
at least 1 million students.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 50

Student Teaching
Ball and Forzani (2009) and NCATE (2010) contended that student learning depends
largely on teacher preparation with clinical practice in its core. They called for a balance between
the cognitive aspects of teacher education, such as beliefs and ideas, and the practicum that is
focused on the actual skills and enactment. Viewing the teacher’s job as “unnatural and
intricate,” Ball and Forzani (2009) recommended a training that offers preservice teachers a
multitude of opportunities to practice the fundamentals of the teaching task. The teacher’s role is
to help others to learn and to be knowledgeable and skilled in what is taught. However, the
researchers asserted that the role of the teacher goes beyond ordinary showing and helping that
most adults are able to do; it is specialized as a profession. “Decisions about what to do are not
appropriately rooted in personal preferences or experiences but are instead based on
professionally justified knowledge and on the moral imperatives of the role” (Ball & Forzani,
2009, p. 500), and hence stand on specialized training. The scholars contended that, if teachers
wish to identify students’ difficulties with fractions or understanding of gravity, for example,
they must have strong content knowledge and be skilled in these tasks. Similarly, they should be
knowledgeable and skilled in all STEM disciplines. Using “practice-focused curricula,” teacher
training programs should offer repeated opportunities for novices to practice what they will be
expected to teach in classrooms (Ball & Forzani, 2009).
The calibration of the contributing factors to preservice teachers’ self-efficacy with the
observed instructional practices is critical for gaining understanding of correlations between
various dimensions. Ryan, Kuusinen, and Bedoya-Skoog (2015) examined the nature of pre-
service teacher self-efficacy and its implications for their teaching practices and the observed
classroom quality. The researchers found that self-efficacy of preservice teachers for managing
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 51

peer relationships was significantly associated with observed classroom quality, which included
classroom management and instructional support. By contrast, teachers who felt efficacious in
their instructional practice were not observed to have higher levels of instructional or emotional
support for their students than teachers who reported lower self-efficacy. However, students who
moved from a classroom of an efficacious math teacher to a teacher with lower self-efficacy had
“lower expectations for themselves in math, lower perceptions of their performance in math and
higher perceptions of the difficulty of math” (Ryan et al., 2015, p. 147).
Bandura (1997) suggested that enactive mastery experiences offer proof of a person’s
capability to perform. Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy is formed by cumulative mastery experi-
ences, with more recent experiences being more significant and carrying more weight. For
preservice teachers, the opportunities to practice their performance with integrated STEM and
engineering instruction during student teaching may bolster their sense of efficacy. Hence, the
role of their student teaching placement should not be underestimated and must be purposefully
selected to provide meaningful professional experiences that build strong efficacy beliefs for
STEM integration through engineering. “When mastery experiences occurred in the form of
successful lessons they seemed an important source of science teaching efficacy beliefs” (Mul-
holland & Wallace, 2001, p. 258). The researches asserted that preservice teacher support during
practicum must ensure mastery experiences. Mulholland and Wallace (2001) considered this to
be the most obvious implication of their longitudinal case study of self-efficacy beliefs of an
elementary teacher during her transition from preservice to inservice teaching.
Bandura (1997) also emphasized the importance of vicarious experiences, asserting that
the competence of the referent person is critical for the observer’s efficacy. Master teachers are
role models for preservice teachers, who learn from the modeled success or failure in
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 52

instructional practice. Lack of opportunities to observe a well-designed effective lesson for
STEM integration through engineering presents a limitation for preservice teachers’ learning
through observation. Bandura (1997) asserted that teachers’ self-efficacy is not constant across
various subjects and concluded that teachers spend less time on subjects in which they have low
perceived self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1997), teachers’ strong efficacy beliefs and
student achievement are linked. Mulholland and Wallace (2001) concurred that self-efficacy
beliefs are a powerful source for willingness to teach new subjects, particularly science.
Presumably, the same is true for engineering and the other STEM disciplines. Therefore, for high
student achievement in the STEM disciplines and connected learning, it is imperative to increase
preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for STEM integration.
Mentors. Le Cornu (2009) suggested that university faculty and mentor teachers play a
significant role in preservice teachers’ agency and resilience building. Mentors help novices to
confront the challenges of practice, find their own ways of teaching, and use the student teaching
practicum as a site for learning (Feiman-Nemser, 2001). The opportunities for reflective
discussions, dynamic interactions, and growth-fostering networking affect preservice teachers’
attitudes and perceptions of how much they learned from their academic experience and the
practicum. The preservice teachers’ confidence level is dependent on how the mentor teacher
provided appropriate scaffolding in the learning process.
We know that preservice teachers find some or all of the practicum experience stressful
and having the mentor teacher provide encouragement in such a way that enabled
preservice teachers to cope with their emotional responses as result of their increased
vulnerability is an important aspect of their role. (Le Cornu, 2009, p. 720)
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 53

In a quantitative study of 573 students who were in their final year of a 4-year under-
graduate primary teaching program in Australia, O’Neill and Stephenson (2012) discovered that,
if student teachers found their mentor teachers to be efficacious, the mentors’ feedback had a
strong positive effect on preservice teachers’ efficacy appraisal. The researchers also found that
the university professors’ feedback was not as influential. Preservice teachers called the profes-
sors’ feedback more “superficial” due to little information as a result of limited observation time
and collaboration opportunities (O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012).
As part of the “integration between practice and theory” for competence development,
Brouwer and Korthagen (2005, p. 216) suggested the triadic cooperation model for teacher
candidates, university professors, and cooperating teachers. Regular contact with people in the
triad is encouraged during the field practicum and college-based activities (Brouwer &
Korthagen, 2005; Wideen, Mayer-Smith, & Moon, 1998). Cartaut and Bertone (2009) studied
the triadic model of supervising preservice teachers by examining the impact of university
supervisors’ and cooperating teachers’ collaboration on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy. The
researchers suggested that divergent thinking by people in those supervisory roles may create an
uncomfortable situation for preservice teachers and limit appropriate joint scaffolding for the
preservice teachers’ current level of development (Cartaut & Bertone, 2009; Putnam & Borko,
2000). They explained that “the conflictual dynamics of traditional triadic supervision” (p. 1092)
is often created by the unclear roles of the university supervisors and the mentor teachers and
their ineffective communication. The authors proposed that the supervisors jointly “construct
support modalities that truly complement [preservice teachers’] professional activity” (p. 1092).
Feiman-Nemser (2001) defined a mentor as a co-thinker who helps teacher candidates to see new
perspectives to solve problems. Another role of a mentor is to teach mentees how to identify
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 54

problems, frame them, discuss them in analytical ways, and find novel solutions. Feiman-Nemser
(2001) suggested that preservice and beginning teachers should have access to experienced and
effective teachers’ “practical wisdom” to connect theory and practice in a meaningful way (p.
24). However, the author also warned about negative impacts of mentoring, such as
individualism and noninterference. Hence, the selection of mentor teachers is a complex task that
requires a purposeful approach and careful considerations on behalf of the teacher preparation
programs.
Placement. Field placement support has been found to be the most influential part of
preservice teacher preparation (Cartaut & Bertone, 2009; Le Cornu, 2009; Moulding, Stewart, &
Dunmeyer, 2014; NCATE, 2010; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012). According to the situative
perspective, various settings support various types of learning for teachers (Putnam & Borko,
2000). Classroom experiences with experienced mentors allow experiencing and examining the
complexity of pedagogical practice in the real world. More support from mentor teachers was
positively associated with higher levels of preservice teacher efficacy, as measured by the
Teacher Sense of Efficacy (TSES) instrument in the study conducted by Moulding et al. (2014).
This is consistent with findings reported by Knoblauch and Woolfolk Hoy (2008) that “perceived
cooperating teachers’ efficacy was predictive of and significantly positively related to the student
teachers’ post-TSES scores” (p. 174). Moulding et al. (2014) also found that, despite variations
between teacher preparation programs in traditional and alternative routes, the length of student
teaching experience tended to be mostly consistent across the programs and lasted for about one
university term. This finding suggests that the length of the student teaching practicum has less
impact than the quality of the experience, which was confirmed by Ronfeldt and Reininger
(2012). The quality of clinical experience, as a key dimension of teacher preparation, is defined
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 55

by “the context of field placement sites (including faculty support and collegiality), cooperating
teacher quality, and university supervisor quality” (p. 1093). Along with other features,
“discourse communities in which teachers work and learn” help to equip novice teachers with
competence necessary for “enculturation into a community’s ways of thinking” (Putnam &
Borko, 200, p. 5). The scholars suggested that this type of collaborative community supports the
apprenticeship model of teaching. The availability of such classrooms where teacher candidates
may practice alongside experienced cooperating teachers what they learned from their university
professors is essential for pedagogical growth (Feiman-Nemser, 1990; Putnam & Borko, 2000).
The researchers suggested including university professors in this discourse and ensuring that the
structure of such collaboration is well balanced “between presenting new information and
facilitating teachers’ construction of new knowledge” (Putnam & Borko, 2000, p. 9). Ronfeldt
and Reininger (2012) showed that preservice teachers who reported a better quality student
teaching experience felt more efficacious and better prepared to enter the work force, and they
planned to stay longer on this career path. The last finding also suggests that the quality of
student teaching may address the issue of new teacher attrition.
Retention. Hong (2010) called beginning teacher attrition a major concern that affects
school effectiveness by disrupting program continuity and increasing unnecessary costs for
recruiting and managing teachers. Hong contended that career decisions are associated with the
teacher identity that is constructed during the teacher preparation program and preservice and
early inservice teaching experiences. Hong identified efficacy as one of the six contributing
factors and underscored the importance of the student teaching practicum, suggesting that daily
interactions in a particular setting help to shape the preservice teachers’ professional identity.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 56

Beginning teachers often consider themselves to have failed as they share duties and
responsibilities with veteran teachers. Corcoran (1981) concurred that beginning teachers are
caught in this common state of not knowing and fail to transfer what they have supposedly
learned in teacher education to their classroom practice. The researcher called this condition
“transition shock” (p. 23). “The experiences novices encounter upon their transition often results
in creative and talented teachers finding their work frustrating, unrewarding and intolerably
difficult which ultimately increases their risk of becoming a casualty of the profession” (Fantilli
& McDougall, 2009, p. 814). To address this problem, researchers have suggested expanding
support offered by induction and mentorship programs in both preservice and inservice
experiences. In addition, subject specific workshops prior to and throughout the first year in the
classroom, release time for planning and observations, and increased time for mentor-mentee
collaboration were proposed as remediation strategies (Fantilli & McDougall, 2009).
The findings of research on preservice teachers’ experiences when turning theory into
practice in the transition from a teacher preparation program into the workplace have serious
implications for this study. Brouwer and Korthagen (2005) and Zeichner and Tabachnick (1981)
suggested that preservice teachers have more progressive views and attitudes toward education
while in school. Upon entry in the workforce, those beliefs regress toward more traditional
viewpoints that they held prior to university education, thus suggesting that “professional
training has minimal impact” (Zeichner & Tabachnick, 1981, p. 8). Cole and Knowles (1993)
concurred that teacher applicants bring long-held beliefs about teachers and their practices that
stem from their own experiences as students, as well as from media images. “Although the
lengthy personal experience of schooling provides teacher candidates with many ideas about
teaching and learning, it does not prepare them for the central task of teaching” (Feiman-Nemser
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 57

& Buchmann, 1989, p. 367). Yet, teachers think of student teaching as of the most valuable
experience in the formal training (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1989; NCATE, 2010).
Preservice teachers’ preconceptions merge with more progressive views in the teacher education
programs, converging into expectations for classroom practice that beginning teachers hold after
graduation (Veenman, 1984). However, consistent with perspectives of other scholars, Cole and
Knowles (1993) noted that preservice field practicum may be “non-educative” or have secondary
influence on teachers’ practice as more traditional views of new inservice teachers surface and
dominate. They concluded, “Most preservice programs concentrate almost entirely on teaching
preservice teachers to teach; little attention is placed on helping them to become teachers”
(p. 469).
Allen’s (2009) examination revealed that, during teacher education, preservice teachers
value both theory and practice in the student teaching classroom. Upon becoming practitioners,
they tend to privilege good practice and try to emulate veteran teachers, whose practice they
consider to be exemplary. This notion presents limited opportunities for novice practitioners to
observe veteran teachers’ practice for STEM integration through engineering. Allen (2009)
concluded that teacher preparation programs should be reengineered. This could create a
disruptive innovation in teacher education (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). Allen (2009)
also recommended focus on input from graduates of teacher education programs to give them a
voice to determine whether the programs have achieved their goals.
Professional Development for Inservice Teachers
A lack of an accepted definition for K–12 engineering complicates the choices for teacher
professional development (Chandler et al., 2011). Honey et al. (2014) suggested creating oppor-
tunities for collaboration by teachers, administrators, and curriculum coordinators. This
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 58

collaboration is essential for building teachers’ knowledge of the subject matter and the
pedagogical content knowledge relevant both to individual STEM subjects and to making
connections between and among them. Yasar et al. (2006) proposed collaboration between
teachers and engineers to improve teachers’ understanding of what engineers do in a global
community and what skills are required for becoming an engineer. Pinnell et al. (2013) studied
the impact of a partnership between a school of engineering and a school of education,
concluding that it was very beneficial for advancing STEM education. Hence, researchers
support collaborative partnerships between engineering professionals in the field and teachers for
STEM integration. Teachers need to know that engineering skills go beyond competence in math
and science and include literacy, communication, people skills, creativity, innovative thinking,
and more (Mann et al., 2011; Pinnell et al., 2013; Yasar et al., 2006).
Induction
Wilson (2011) noted that many induction programs focus on generic help and provide no
support with content knowledge. Teachers who instruct in different fields might need qualita-
tively different support with subject specific knowledge requiring targeted professional devel-
opment opportunities. The critical importance and great need for professional development to
teach content and subject matter are evident in the literature (Shober, 2012; Wilson, 2011).
However, similar support for novice teachers through induction programs is rarely discussed or
addressed. The research is unclear regarding whether the limited subject focus in induction
programs is due to beginning teachers’ preparation for subject matter instruction or more
pressing issues requiring support, such as classroom management and organization.
Poom-Valickis (2014) supported other researchers’ findings regarding the importance of
preservice teachers’ efficacy for their effectiveness in their first year in the classroom. His study
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 59

of 58 novice teachers who moved from the university experience to full-time teaching found that
beginning teachers with high self-efficacy had more positive experiences. Relevant skills and
knowledge with respect to content and pedagogy helped novice teachers to cope with the chal-
lenges of the 1st year. Moreover, the successful first year led to a positive outlook for the career
in teaching (Poom-Valickis, 2014). The analysis of novice teachers’ professional development
during the induction year demonstrated an increase in self-efficacy from the beginning to the end
of the first year. Poom-Valickis (2014) associated this finding with mastery experiences in the
induction year and school practices, such as presence of a mentor teacher.
Allen (2009) suggested that “the new teacher, once in schools, is incorporated rapidly
into the dominant patterns of pedagogical and curriculum practices of the past” (p. 648). Those
practices lead to teacher-centered approaches rather than student-teacher approaches encouraged
by preservice teacher education programs (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005). Wubbels and
Korthagen (1990) proposed reflective teaching to address this problem. Calling reflection “a key
concept within the inquiry-based paradigm of teacher education,” they underscored the benefits
of reflective approach for prospective teachers and linked it with teachers’ inclination toward
innovation (p. 29). Feiman-Nemser (1990) argued that “reflective teacher education is not a
distinct programmatic emphasis but a generic professional disposition” (p. 21). Teacher
education programs designed to promote reflective teaching train preservice teachers to reflect
on their experiences, goals, attitudes, and feelings. Moreover, future teachers are encouraged to
reflect on subject knowledge, pedagogy, collaboration with others, and their own decision
making (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005; Wubbels & Korthagen, 1990). Korthagen (2004)
concurred that the “concept of [personal and professional] self is indeed crucial to a proper
understanding of how teachers function” (p. 82). Although Korthagen (2004) suggested that
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 60

reflection on self-concept may have a “conservative effect,” others have concluded that reflective
teaching helps with professional growth and capacity building (Brouwer & Korthagen, 2005;
Wubbles & Korthagen, 1990). STEM integration requires an inclination for innovation and
invention. Hence, preservice teacher training programs would benefit from integration of
reflective approaches. The challenge with STEM integration through engineering is real due to
underdeveloped school infrastructure and supportive culture necessary for its fulfillment. Hoy
and Spero (2005) agreed that the lack of proper support during the induction year may result in
decline of teacher self-efficacy despite significant increases during student teaching. The
researchers highlighted the importance of collective efficacy of schools, which calls for ongoing
effective professional development for STEM integration through engineering.
Ongoing Professional Development
Some researchers have expressed concern regarding inservice teachers’ reluctance to
participate in professional development opportunities (Honey et al., 2014; Yasar et al., 2006).
Many teachers view ability and intelligence to be fixed traits, which hinders their motivation to
build their expertise for effective STEM integration (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1989; NSF,
2010). Their reluctance may be attributed to subject orientation preparation, fear of the unknown
disciplines, or low self-efficacy. Yasar et al. (2006) noted that K–5 teachers are not a
homogeneous group and need different approaches and support at different points in their career
to continue to develop their skills for STEM integration (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1989;
Yasar et al., 2006).
Professional development must be sensitive to the multiple demands placed on teachers
and should be structured to address the issues of time. It should also make explicit that
learning to infuse DET (Design-Engineering-Technology) into the curriculum is not an
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 61

additional task for the teachers, but is rather a way to make easier what they are already
required to do. (Yasar et al., 2006, p. 214)
Avery and Reeve (2013) claimed that the growing demand for well-prepared and effec-
tive STEM teachers who know how to develop a quality STEM program can be met by provid-
ing professional development opportunities for training teachers how to integrate engineering
design with math, science, and technology. Their qualitative study of the effects of a professional
development course to infuse engineering into STEM instruction found “facilitated teaching,
increased student motivation, continued student engagement with the subject matter, increased
student appreciation for science and math, improved student thinking and problem-solving skills
and improved learning” (p. 63). The four inservice teachers who participated in that study
reported effectiveness of the educational model that the professional development activities
offered for integrating theories into their classroom practice. The researchers noted that
providing a strong rationale for engineering design in the classroom and supportive environment
secured teacher buy-in to STEM professional development efforts (Avery & Reeve, 2013).
Elementary Teacher Self-Efficacy in Engineering
The relationships among teachers’ beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and their actual instruc-
tional practices have been long studied. Compared to the amount of research on outcomes of
teacher self-efficacy, little focus has been given to sources of self-efficacy beliefs. In addition,
the majority of research on teacher self-efficacy has been conducted on inservice teachers
leaving significant gaps in knowledge about the self-efficacy of preservice teachers (Oh, 2011).
Presumably, to date, even less research has focused on preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach
engineering as a new subject and a way of integration in elementary grades.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 62

Self-Efficacy Beliefs
Recognizing the reciprocal relationship between teaching and learning and developing
pedagogical thinking are the main goals of teacher education. In transition to pedagogical
thinking, prospective teachers change old ways of thinking, acquire new understanding, and
develop professionally (Feiman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1989). Teacher self-efficacy is an
important indicator of teachers’ preparation and professional development and is critical for
effective instruction. Plourde (2002) suggested that preservice elementary teachers start their
student teaching experience with already established beliefs and attitudes that, for the most part,
stem from their own experiences as learners in K–12 and other educational settings preceding
their entry into the teaching profession. Their educational philosophy is also influenced by
pedagogical knowledge gained through methods courses in a teacher preparation program.
“What teacher candidates learn in the education courses, depends not only on the knowledge
they encounter but also on the way those encounters are structured and messages they convey
about teaching and learning to teach” (Fieman-Nemser & Buchmann, 1989, p. 368). Plourde
studied the influence of student teaching on preservice elementary teachers’ science self-efficacy
and outcome expectancy beliefs. The researcher found more significant impact of the student
teaching experience on outcome beliefs rather than on personal self-efficacy. Plourde (2002)
attributed the insignificant positive change in preservice teacher self-efficacy to firmly
established beliefs and attitudes regarding science instruction that the preservice teachers gained
in their K–12 and undergraduate experiences.
Yeh (2006) investigated the construct of self-efficacy in critical thinking as a new
standard for teacher education. Yeh’s quantitative study of 178 preservice teachers who
completed an interactive teaching experience via a computer simulation for teaching critical
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 63

thinking skills found self-efficacy to be correlated with mastery experience and reflective
thinking. The habit of reflective thinking helps to address the challenges of teaching and move
beyond the status quo (Cole & Knowles, 1993). Well-designed guided practices played a critical
role in developing the targeted skills that led to enhanced self-efficacy. Keeping in mind that
teachers’ beliefs form early and tend to self-perpetuate, Yeh (2006) recommended looking at
attributes other than reflective thinking and mastery experience to create opportunities for
increased self-efficacy in preservice teachers.
Studies have shown that preservice teachers have more positive attitudes and higher
interest in integrative approaches than inservice teachers (Honey et al., 2014; Sanders, 2009).
However, their self-efficacy is strongly affected by limited preparation in subject matter, lack of
confidence in their ability to teach engineering, and lack of ability to instruct for connected
learning across disciplines (Honey et al., 2014). Evans and Tribble (1986) argued that, although
preservice and novice teachers’ subject matter competence is important for effective teaching, it
is “less critical than pedagogical and group management skills for immediate survival in many
classrooms” (p. 84).
Yesil-Dagli et al. (2010) studied early childhood preservice teachers’ beliefs about math
and science before and after an integrated method course designed to improve their perceptions.
The authors reported a positive impact of the course on teachers’ beliefs about content areas of
math and science, in addition to improved skills for integrative practice. They concluded that
preservice teachers with stronger efficacy beliefs can do more about the problems and challenges
at hand (Evans & Tribble, 1986; Yesil-Dagli et al., 2010). The literature suggests building strong
efficacy beliefs before preservice teachers enter the work force, where they need to persist with
the challenging task of integrated instruction.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 64

Velthuis, Fisser, and Pieters (2014) studied preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach
science in elementary grades. The study of 292 participants from two teacher preparation
programs in the Netherlands examined primary teachers’ self-efficacy to teach science over 4
successive years in the program including an internship. The researchers concluded that teachers’
high ratings of their own subject matter knowledge were related to higher levels of reported self-
efficacy to teach that subject. They also found a correlation between frequency of practice in
primary school during internship and self-efficacy rates, emphasizing the importance of actual
classroom practice for improving pedagogical skills (Velthuis et al., 2014).
Onafowora (2004) argued that teachers need time in the classroom to develop their peda-
gogical expertise. The researcher also suggested that the development of affective and cognitive
capabilities of novice teachers is often uneven, as each develops in a natural process of balancing
theory with practice. In their study of two samples (272 and 180 participants) of undergraduate
preservice teachers, Duffin et al. (2012) found that beginning preservice teachers did not distin-
guish between various latent constructs, whereas ending preservice teachers did so. That study
focused on preservice teachers’ efficacy for student engagement, instructional strategies, and
classroom management. The researchers concluded that ending preservice teachers have had
sufficient experiences to form perceptions of their abilities (Duffin et al., 2012).
Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes greatly impact development of student beliefs and atti-
tudes. Schoon and Boone (1998) studied the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs to teach
science and alternative conceptions of science, such as “dinosaurs lived the same time as cave
men and planets can be seen only with a telescope” (p. 559). The study results suggested associ-
ation of low self-efficacy with alternative conceptions of science. The researchers concluded that
teachers’ holding of alternative conceptions of science interferes with students’ learning,
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 65

resulting in many students leaving high school carrying those alternative conceptions (Schoon &
Boone, 1998). Similarly, given the situation with misconceptions of engineering among public
and educators, alternative conceptions of engineering may be a barrier to STEM integration
through engineering.
Experts Versus Novices
Experts navigate the design process very differently from novices, due to prior strong
conceptual knowledge. Novices who are acquiring the content knowledge while learning the
design and scientific processes are challenged by the lack of prior background that alters their
interpretation of the results (Brophy et al., 2008). In addition, beginning teachers must master the
content pedagogy to deliver lessons in an integrative manner.
Hmelo-Silver, Marathe, and Liu (2007) compared seventh-grade students with preservice
teachers and two types of experts in their study focusing on differences in understanding. Using
two systems, the aquarium ecosystem and the human respiratory system, they found minimal
differences between experts and novices in their understanding of structures but a much larger
gap in the understanding of functions. The participants’ understanding of causal behaviors was
the most distinct, indicating that a higher level of cognition was required for seeing connected-
ness between elements within a system. The researchers observed few differences among
seventh-grade students and preservice teachers, describing both groups as novices, although the
teachers demonstrated a more holistic approach to this process (Hmelo-Silver et al., 2007). The
findings of that study are consistent with other works comparing experts and novices and their
understanding of systems.
The NGSS framework (Achieve, Inc., 2013) is designed around core ideas with the
intention to enable learners to become more like experts in scientific and engineering practices.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 66

Experts understand the core principles and theoretical constructs of their field, and they
use them to make sense of new information and tackle new problems. Novices, on the
contrary, tend to hold disconnected and even contradictory bits of knowledge as isolated
facts and struggle to find a way to organize and integrate them. (Achieve, Inc., 2013, p. 4)
For successful integration efforts, preservice teachers, while being novice classroom practition-
ers, should act like experts in their discipline or disciplines. The levels of disciplinary compe-
tence and integration are yet to be defined.
What level of disciplinary expertise is the most optimal for integrative approaches? Alex-
ander (2003) discussed three levels of competence in developing expertise in academic domains.
The model of domain learning recognizes the stages of acclimation, competency, and proficiency
in developing academic expertise. According to Alexander (2003), in the initial stage of accli-
mation, learners have fragmented and limited understanding of the domain. Domain-specific
tasks present a challenge and result in surface-level strategies due to a lack of cohesive and well-
integrated domain knowledge. Both qualitative and quantitative changes are required for moving
to the phase of competence marked by foundational knowledge of the domain, which is both
more cohesive and structured. At this stage, learners apply both “surface-level and deep-
processing strategies” (p. 12), thus allowing for more interconnected approaches. The final profi-
ciency or expertise level is defined by broad and deep domain knowledge, in addition to
development of new knowledge in the domain (Alexander, 2003). Experts push the boundaries
of the domain by exclusively applying deep-processing thinking.
Sousa (2011) differentiated four levels of competence. At the first level, unconscious
incompetence, learners are unaware of a skill area and their own deficiencies. At the second
level, conscious incompetence, learners are aware of the existence of the skill set or concepts and
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 67

hence are aware of their own lack of knowledge in the area. The third stage, conscious compe-
tence, describes the learners’ knowledge of the skill and proficiency to perform it without
assistance. The highest level of expertise defines unconscious competence, which is the
automaticity level. The skill becomes “second nature” or instinctual and, therefore, difficult to
teach or explain. Experts are challenged to break down complex concepts or skills into manage-
able chunks for learners (Sousa, 2011). The described model suggests that the level of compe-
tence or conscious competence is best suited for effective instructional practices in most
domains, including integrated STEM.
The “inquiry as a stance” conception assumes that experts and novices should continue
their professional development regardless of their level of expertise and participate in similar
cognitive tasks (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999).
Expertise implies certainty and state-of-the-art practice. Lifelong learning, on the other
hand, implies tentativeness and practice that is sensitive to particular and local histories,
cultures, and communities. The expert-novice distinction serves to maintain the
individual in-the-head model of teacher learning that highlights individual differences
among teachers. An across-the-life-span perspective on teacher learning is more
relational—making salient the role of communities and intellectual projects of groups of
teachers over time. (p. 293)
Theoretical Frameworks for the Study
Systems Thinking
Engineering design is a complex cognitive process that has systems thinking as its fun-
damental part (Lammi & Becker, 2013). Despite the lack of agreed definition of engineering
design, it is mostly interpreted as “a process of devising a system, component or process to meet
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 68

the desired needs” (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology [ABET], 2007, p. 3).
As defined by Dym et al. (2005), “Engineering design is a systematic, intelligent process in
which designers generate, evaluate, and specify concepts for devices, systems, or processes
whose form and function achieve clients’ objectives or users’ needs while satisfying a specified
set of constraints” (p. 103). Engineering and STEM integration require a new type of analytical
thinking that allows working with systems and seeing interdependence and connectedness of
several domains. The next generation of college graduates is expected to have a global systems
approach in their thinking and practice in order to be ready for the competitive and complex
global market. They are expected to be thoughtful problem solvers who find innovative solutions
to ill-defined workplace problems. Design is an open-ended and complex form of problem
solving. It can be applied to integrated instruction as a sum of individual subject matter instruc-
tion, which is what STEM constitutes (Katehi et al., 2009).
From the previous discussion it is evident that STEM integration necessitates strong
understanding of each discipline, the components of a system, their connections and interactions,
and ways to present them effectively. Systems thinking is viewed as “the ability to understand
the components of a system and their interactions and resulting outputs” (Lammi & Becker,
2013, p. 57). It involves identifying parts, determining their function, uncovering relationships,
discovering how they work together, and identifying ways to improve their performance (Katehi
et al., 2009; Silk & Schunn, 2008). Hence, STEM integration can be viewed as a system requir-
ing a systems approach or systems thinking.
As an important concept of engineering design, systems thinking has broad and
expansive implications (Lammi & Becker, 2013). Mella (2012) referred to systems thinking as a
“discipline for effective and efficient thinking” (p. 1) that builds coherent and logical models in a
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 69

constantly changing and evolving world to find nonstandard solutions for new environmental and
societal problems. Systems thinking may “improve our intelligence and construct our existence”
(Mella, 2012, p. 1).
Social Cognitive Theory
Another theoretical framework that was well suited for this study is Bandura’s social
cognitive theory. This theoretical framework is particularly useful in studying preservice teach-
ers' self-efficacy because it focuses on a presumption of a future capability. Bandura (1977)
defines self-efficacy as “beliefs in one’s capability to organize and execute the courses of action
required to produce given attainments” (p. 197). Individuals integrate and apply their cognitive,
behavioral, and social skills to tasks through self-efficacy that partly determines their actions.
Bandura called intentionality in actions human agency, which he noted has a critical role in
carrying out a course of actions for intended outcomes. He argued that personal efficacy beliefs
determine human persistence in trying to produce desired results.
Bandura (1997) described the human mind as “generative, creative and proactive” and
entertained ideas about people becoming “producers of thoughts that may be novel, inventive or
visionary” (p. 5). He suggested that people bring cognitive images into reality by intentionally
practicing agency through self-perception and self-reflection. The use of self-reflective thought is
requisite to self-correction and cognitive self-regulation. Bandura discussed differences in
behavior and cognition in an efficacious frame of mind and an inefficacious frame of mind. In an
efficacious mindset, people make choices that apply self-reflective exercises and persistence to
the task at hand. Complex cognition in systems thinking calls for an efficacious frame of mind.
Bandura extended the analysis of human agency by discussing group efficacy and defined it as a
“product of coordinative and interactive dynamics” (1997, p. 7) that is necessary for change and
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 70

human adaptation. This approach is essential for understanding the change that appears to be
necessary in the way in which preservice teachers learn and adapt to the new requirements of
21st-century classrooms.
Preservice teachers have limited classroom experience. However, based on their percep-
tions of teaching practices, their disciplinary knowledge, and their experience with classrooms
during student teaching, they are able to make a priori judgments about their future capability to
teach engineering in elementary classrooms. Often, teachers are familiar with general instruc-
tional practices from their own experience as a student. This is not the case with instructional
strategies with systems thinking, interdisciplinary connections, and integration of knowledge and
skills. A new pedagogy and educational philosophy are emerging with engineering and STEM
integration surfacing in modern education. New essential general practices are being developed
and established for equipping teachers with strategies and tools for integrative instruction.
Teacher self-efficacy is critical for future choices about effort and persistence with tasks. This is
a key factor as the field of education will be continuously transforming to meet the demands in
the world with increasing globalization. Schools need adaptable, open-minded, and efficacious
teachers to rise to the challenge of educating students for the future global economy.
Bandura (1977) identified four sources of information for self-efficacy: (a) performance
or mastery, (b) vicarious experiences, (c) verbal or social persuasion, and (d) physiological
and/or emotional states. Performance or mastery refers to teachers’ experience in terms of
success and failure. The most powerful source is enactive mastery, which serves as evidence of
teacher’s performance in classroom. With limited classroom experience, preservice teachers may
base their judgment on previous educational experience in the field. Vicarious experiences occur
through observation of others and assessment of personal ability by comparing oneself with
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 71

others in similar situations. Preservice teachers have ample opportunities to observe their
instructors in the program, master teachers in their student teaching experience, and fellow
classmates for comparisons. Verbal persuasion refers to activities, such as course work, discus-
sions, training workshops, and feedback about achievement. As students in teacher preparation
programs, preservice teachers have an abundance of experiences to draw from to assess this
element of self-efficacy. Physiological and/or emotional states affect how people interpret their
physical and emotional reactions. Tensions and stress are demonstrated signs of a lack of ability
or poor performance. Preservice teachers’ emotional state could speak to their perceived capa-
bility to perform the given task of teaching.
Chapter Summary
The chapter examined the literature relevant to the topic of preservice teacher self-
efficacy to teach integrative STEM through engineering in Grades K–5 to establish a need for
conducting the study. As an imperative for 21st-century education, STEM integration has been at
the fore of the national agenda and policy resulting in new standards. As expected by CCSS and
NGSS, STEM integration and engineering should become more explicit in classroom practices
of elementary teachers. The current school infrastructure and teacher preparation are not aligned
with the national goal of examining the barriers and challenges on the way to bringing the vision
of STEM into reality.
Preservice teachers’ self-efficacy has a significant impact on their persistence with chal-
lenging tasks. As a challenging cognitive process, STEM integration through engineering builds
on strong content knowledge of the STEM disciplines, pedagogy of the content, confidence in
applying integrative approaches, and understanding of the cognitive demands of interdisciplinary
integration. An efficacious mindset is necessary for supporting complex cognition in integrative
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 72

STEM. The development of preservice teachers’ effectiveness for STEM integration through
engineering rests on a well-designed progression of teacher professional education and teacher
preparation experience that help to develop the necessary knowledge, skills, and habits of mind
for effective STEM integration.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 73

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY
This study examined preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach engineering in general
education classrooms. It explored how preservice teachers perceived that their undergraduate
major and teacher preparation program influenced their self-efficacy for integrative STEM
instruction through engineering.
This chapter outlines the methodology for conducting the study. It explains the research
design and describes the study site and the participants. The chapter introduces the conceptual
framework that guided the study. Data collection procedures and the instruments are described.
Validity, reliability, and ethical considerations are discussed.
Research Questions
Two research questions were posed to guide the study of how preservice teachers’ self-
efficacy is shaped by their choice of a major in the undergraduate program and their teacher
preparation courses for a multiple subject credential.
1. How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major influence their perceived self-
efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
2. How do the current instructional practices and field experiences in teacher preparation
programs for a multiple subject credential shape preservice teachers’ perceptions of efficacy to
teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
Research Design
The research method for data collection was chosen to address the research questions
with appropriate depth. “Qualitative researchers are interested in understanding how people
interpret their experiences, how they construct their worlds, and what meaning they attribute to
their experiences” (Merriam, 2009, p. 5). Qualitative data analysis was deemed to be the best
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 74

method for the purpose of this study in order to obtain first-hand accounts of participants’ expe-
rience as preservice teachers. The qualitative design was implemented to generate vivid descrip-
tions of the participants’ experiences that helped to shape their efficacy beliefs.
Maxwell (2013) recommended a “coherent design” that ensures an “empirical” rather
than a “logical” connection between the research questions and the methods developed to
address them (p. 116). In other words, the methods developed for the study provided the
researcher with the data to address the questions about the studied phenomenon. The data
collection methods used in the study were intended to allow preservice teachers to provide
insight, personal thoughts and beliefs, and self-judgment of their anticipated capabilities to teach
engineering as part of integrative approach to STEM disciplines. Qualitative research design
allows a study to be conducted in a flexible manner in response to evolving conditions in the
process of the study (Merriam, 2009).
Sample and Population
Setting
Qualitative researchers go through an inductive process by observing things in their natu-
ral setting and interpreting what was observed to develop understanding (Merriam, 2009). The
most common form of nonprobability sampling, purposeful sampling, was selected for this
study. Purposeful sampling allows selecting information-rich cases to gain maximum depth in
understanding the issues raised by the research questions (Merriam, 2009; Patton, 2002). The
purpose of this study called for a setting in which access to the appropriate participant was likely.
The study was conducted in one of the commonly selected teacher preparation programs
in Los Angeles. The selection of the site stemmed from the researcher’s positive experience with
graduates of the program who were well prepared for the challenges of current elementary
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 75

education. The goal was to investigate how a successful teacher preparation program for a
multiple subject credential addressed the challenge of STEM integration in K–5 as a new NGSS
requirement.
Gaining Entry
Initial entry was gained by contacting the lead person in the teacher education program at
the study site. Establishing a rapport with the “gatekeeper” opens doors to a cultural system that
is about to be studied by a “stranger” (Creswell, 1998). The associate dean of the teacher
preparation college selected the groups of potential study participants upon granting approval to
conduct a study in the program for a multiple subject credential. The main criterion for a sample
selection was the teacher candidate’s enrollment in student teaching at the time of the data
collection. The lead person may have targeted certain groups of students who had already
completed all STEM related courses offered in the program. The researcher had no access to that
information and derived relevant conclusions based on survey participants’ responses.
The potential participants received a recruitment letter (Appendix A) as an invitation to
participate in the study. All preservice teachers who expressed interest in participating in the
study were provided a copy of the survey (Appendix B). The survey results targeted a small
sample size of preservice teachers who reported higher self-efficacy on the survey instrument.
The study participants were selected from the pool of survey respondents who replied by the
given deadline.
Participants
Qualitative study design requires a clear rationale for sample selection (Creswell, 1998).
Maxwell (2013) discussed five possible goals for purposeful sampling. The study participants
were selected to meet the first goal of purposeful sampling: representation of typical individuals
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 76

and settings for the study, in this case preservice teachers in large teacher preparation programs
in the state university system. The second goal of purposeful sampling is to capture a “range of
variation” or “heterogeneity in the population” based on the most important, clearly established
dimensions of it (Maxwell, 2013, p. 98). The second goal may have not been met in this study, as
the main purpose for the sample selection was to study preservice teachers at a particular stage in
the teacher preparation program in which they have had the maximum variance of experiences
offered by the program before entering the work force. These preservice teachers were volunteer
participants, which potentially limited heterogeneity of the studied group. The third goal for pur-
poseful sample selection is to test theories developed in the study. Reflected in the efficacy
reports by the participants, the study results confirmed the emerging theory of insufficient
preservice teacher preparation for STEM integration through engineering gained in the
undergraduate major and teacher education program. The fourth goal of purposeful sampling is
to compare similar settings and individuals for differences. This study did not intend to make
comparisons between preservice teachers within or between selected teacher preparation
programs. The fifth goal of purposeful sampling is to choose participants with whom strong
relationships are likely. Maxwell (2013) argued that meeting the fifth goal enables the researcher
to collect rich data for addressing the research questions. Building relationships with potential
study participants was the focus, from gaining entry to actual data collection. However, the study
site was not selected based on pre-existing relationships, which would be an indicator of a
convenience sample selection.
The study participants were preservice teachers in the last semester of a teacher prepara-
tion program. Selecting participants through purposeful sampling was a key decision for the
purposes of this study to explore the phenomena brought to light by the research questions. Pur-
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 77

poseful sampling allowed selecting preservice teachers who had completed the coursework and
were gaining classroom experience through student teaching. The selection of the final partici-
pant group was guided by the initial survey (Appendix B) results. From a relatively large sample,
four participants who demonstrated higher self-efficacy on the survey results were selected. The
rationale for the selection of the four participants for this study was to inquire into preservice
teachers’ perceptions of readiness to integrate engineering with other subjects after earning a
credential through the teacher preparation program. The study also analyzed the participants’
perceived preparation through field practicum for instructional practices in the elementary
classroom related to STEM integration with the emphasis on engineering. The small sample size
permitted collecting rich descriptions of the participants’ personal experiences and perspectives.
The participant profile is presented to provide detailed description of the participants. For ethical
reasons, actual participant names are replaced by pseudonyms: Amy, Angie, Lilly, and Molly.
Participant Profile
The four participants were purposefully selected from a larger group of preservice teach-
ers to examine the impact of their undergraduate major and the current practices of the teacher
preparation program in which they were enrolled on their perceived ability to teach engineering
as part of STEM integration in general education classrooms. All participants agreed to partici-
pate in one or two interviews to share their beliefs and experiences. They also agreed to partici-
pate in one or two observations to develop an understanding about how their field experiences
shaped their perceived self-efficacy for instructional practices during student teaching as it
related to engineering instruction for STEM integration in K–5.
Out of 18 survey respondents, nine volunteered to participate further in data collection
via interviews and observations. This relatively small number of volunteers presents a limitation
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 78

for this research. The Likert-type scale used in the survey instrument was translated into three
levels of self-efficacy: low, moderate, and high. The responses of Not at all and Very little
indicated low self-efficacy, the response of Fairly well indicated moderate self-efficacy, and the
responses Well and Very well indicated high self-efficacy. Six of those nine volunteers reported
higher self-efficacy for instructing integrated STEM through engineering at the elementary level.
None reported high self-efficacy in all three criteria: (a) efficacy for instructional strategies to
teach integrated STEM through engineering, (b) student interest and motivation in the STEM
disciplines and engineering, and (c) student collaboration during STEM lessons. Table 1
illustrates the survey participants’ self-reported efficacy for instructional strategies, student
interest and motivation, and student collaboration, according to the participant’s undergraduate
major.
Table 1

Survey Participants’ Responses to Indicate Self-Efficacy Levels

Early
Urban Liberal Childhood Political
Psychology English Education Studies Education Science
(n = 1) (n = 5) (n = 3) (n = 7) (n = 1) (n = 1)
L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H L M H

Instructional strategies 0 1 0 2 2 1 2 1 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Student interest and motivation 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 1
Student collaboration 0 0 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 1

Note. One person from each major volunteered for further participation via interviews and observations.

Four of the six volunteers who had higher self-efficacy ratings and distinct educational
backgrounds were selected as key participants to gain insight into their path of becoming an
elementary teacher. The selection of the final four participants was guided by the goal of having
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 79

as many backgrounds as possible from those participants who reported higher self-efficacy.
Various undergraduate majors offered more distinct than similar educational experiences that
may have contributed differently to the participants’ self-reported efficacy to teach integrated
STEM through engineering in general education classrooms.
Table 2 reports the self-efficacy level of the four key participants in the three criteria: (a)
efficacy for instructional strategies to teach integrated STEM through engineering, (b) student
interest and motivation in the STEM disciplines and engineering, and (c) student collaboration
during STEM lessons. The participants reported lowest in efficacy for STEM instructional
strategies and highest in student collaboration for STEM. They reported in the moderate to high
range on their perceived efficacy for student interest and motivation for student collaboration for
STEM integration through engineering.
Table 2

Participants’ Self-Reported Self-Efficacy

Instructional Student interest Student
Participant strategies and motivation collaboration

Amy High High High
Angie Low Moderate High
Lilly Moderate High Moderate
Molly Moderate Moderate High

At the time of the data collection, all four participants were in their last semester in the
teacher preparation program at a state university in California and were student teaching in an
elementary classroom at a public school in the Los Angeles area. The participant interviews
revealed details about their understanding of engineering and its role in an elementary classroom
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 80

as one of the STEM disciplines required by the NGSS. The participant observations during math
or science lessons aided in examining the participants’ ability to apply their knowledge, skills,
and understanding of integrated instruction for the STEM disciplines, engineering included.
The participants’ ages ranged from early 20s to mid-30s and their educational attainments
varied from a combination program of a bachelor’s degree with a teaching credential to a
master’s program with a multiple subject credential. Their educational background helped to
shape their understanding and beliefs about teaching and learning, which they spoke about in the
interviews. The participants recalled their paths to becoming a preservice elementary teacher,
discussing their strengths, passions, preferences, and disliked subject areas. They also spoke
about their previous professional experience that had contributed to their identity of an elemen-
tary teacher. Their stories helped to create the participant profile shown in Table 3.
Table 3

Participant Profile

Grade level for
student teaching
Participant assignment Program type Undergraduate major

Amy First Master’s credential program Early Childhood Education
Angie Fifth Bachelor’s credential program Urban Learning
Lilly Fourth Master’s credential program Political Science
Molly Second Master’s credential program Psychology

Amy received a designated subject credential as a first step in her path to becoming an
elementary teacher. Her bachelor’s degree in Early Childhood Education earned in 2002 and
master’s degree in Family Studies helped her to build understanding and skills to be an effective
teacher in a general education classroom. Having worked as a substitute teacher, Amy realized
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 81

that her passion was elementary teaching and returned to school to earn a multiple subject
credential. As a former practitioner in the professional fields of child development and family
studies, she had an in-depth understanding of developmental milestones, family culture and
values for child development, and motivational aspects of academic success. She favored the
older early childhood education courses. The least favorite subjects in her undergraduate
program were history and politics.
Angie has always had a passion for elementary teaching. However, she did not pursue
this path immediately after high school. A Computer Science major at a community college ini-
tially seemed to be a good choice for someone with a reserved personality who shied from
people and had a fear of public speaking. The math and science disciplines required for the major
were not her strengths, and she chose to pursue an English major, hoping that it was a better fit.
In the middle of the last semester at the community college, Angie decided to pursue her true
passion and become a teacher. Transferring to a 4-year university, she enrolled in a combined
program for a bachelor’s degree and a multiple subject credential. At the time of participation in
the study, she was in the last semester of the program and was planning to become a classroom
teacher as early as the next school year. According to Angie, in the process of student teaching,
she has significantly improved her public speaking skills. Her favorite course in the undergradu-
ate program was Cultural Anthropology because she found the subject matter to be fascinating.
Her least favorite class was the Chicano Studies course because the instructor was conducting
research at the time and class instruction was limited to students critiquing the articles that the
instructor had written for her study.
Lilly had earned a bachelor’s degree with a Political Science major and an Education
minor in 2008. At the time of the data collection for this study she was in the last semester of a
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 82

teacher preparation program for a multiple subject credential and a master’s degree. Lilly liked
the classes for her major, especially her honors courses. She became a tutor in an afterschool
program while in high school. As a tutor, she worked with peers who had not passed the
California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) and helped them to improve their skills before
retaking the exam. Lilly liked helping other high school students to achieve academically; in the
11th grade she made a decision to become a teacher. She continued to tutor in college, where she
realized that she enjoyed working with adolescents just as much as she enjoyed working with
younger children and decided to pursue a single subject credential in the discipline about which
she was passionate: social sciences. In the last semester of student teaching, Lilly was also
working on earning single subject certification in social sciences through a series of required
tests. The courses that she liked most in the undergraduate program were upper division courses
that were instructed in an integrated manner by two or three professors from different fields. Her
least favorite courses were math courses, especially the statistics course.
Molly chose Accounting as her major when she started in college. However, the number
of math classes that were required did not appeal to her and she changed to a Psychology major
with an emphasis on child development, which she earned in 2003. At the time, Molly was not
thinking about teaching and, instead, pursued a career as a behavior interventionist. She worked
for a private agency that contracted with public schools and her focus group was students with
autism. Throughout 8 years in which she worked with special needs students, Molly spent time
in several classrooms, observing both effective and ineffective teaching. The variety of
experiences in different communities and cultural environments helped to shape her educational
philosophy and led her to want to work in the field. When Molly made that decision, she left her
job as a behavior interventionist and became a preschool teacher. After 2 years in that job and 10
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 83

years after her undergraduate program, Molly enrolled in a graduate program with a multiple
subject credential and a single subject credential in English. Her favorite courses in the
undergraduate program were psychology courses. The least favorite course was statistics because
it was related to math.
The participants’ accounts revealed their path to becoming preservice elementary teach-
ers, along with their preferences and dislikes for subject matter. None of the four participants
named any of the STEM disciplines as their favorite subject in the undergraduate program. Two
explicitly stated that math was a weakness and that they had disliked it enough to consider a
different major in order to avoid taking college-level math courses. The time that elapsed
between the year when the participants earned their undergraduate degrees and the data
collection for this study may have influenced their reports. The data collection happened 13
years after earning the undergraduate degree for Amy, 12 years later for Molly, 7 years later for
Lilly, and in the last semester of the undergraduate program for Angie. The participant profile
clearly demonstrates the study participants’ lack of confidence with math that led to their reluc-
tance to pursue a degree that included more math than general education requirements.
Instrumentation
The instruments for this study were developed to address the research questions.
Although observation provides a direct and powerful way of learning about people’s
behavior and the context in which this occurs, interviewing can also be a valuable way of
gaining a description of actions and events—often the only way—for events that took
place in the past or for situations to which you can’t gain observational access. (Maxwell,
2013, p. 103)
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 84

The rationale for developing the interview protocol with open-ended questions, the survey, and
the observation protocol was to validate the results of the study and to allow for different types
of access and triangulation with different data collection methods. The instruments were
designed to collect rich data to understand the phenomenon focused in each research question.
Survey
The intent of the survey (Appendix B) was to identify participants who reported to have
higher self-efficacy in the cohort of preservice teachers in their last year in the teacher education
program. The survey included questions about teacher experiences in the undergraduate major
and teacher program. It used a Likert-type scale of Not at all to Very well for responses to
questions in three categories addressing teachers’ perceived capability to provide instruction for
STEM integration through engineering, to increase student motivation and engagement in engi-
neering and integrative STEM, and to create opportunities for student collaboration in STEM
lessons.
Interview Instrument
The interview protocol (Appendix C) for teachers was designed to understand the partici-
pants’ beliefs regarding their anticipated capability to provide integrated instruction through
engineering in general education classrooms. Interviewing was the main data-gathering tool for
this study, as it is the best way to collect information about a topic that is not easily observable
(Merriam, 2009). Maxwell (2013) suggested asking the interviewees “real” questions that would
elicit answers to question in which the researcher is interested. The interview questions for this
study addressed the teachers’ definition of engineering as a subject or content area, understand-
ing of its importance in elementary grades, types of training that they had received, and the sup-
port that teachers need for effective STEM integration. Thus, the interview covered a range of
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 85

question areas, such as experience and behavior, opinion and values, feelings, and knowledge
(Merriam, 2009). The first two questions were intended to establish rapport and ease potential
tension. The interview questions were asked in a progressive order from broad to specific, with
additional probing questions at times to clarify information that the interviewees provided,
resulting in a semistructured interview design (Merriam, 2009).
Observation Instrument
The observation protocol (Appendix D) had a semistructured format and was comprised
of both clear key points and a free-write section in order to target what was important for the
corresponding research question and to avoid limitations (Bogdan & Biklen, 1998). Not limiting
the observation to a preset format was important for this study, as not everything observed would
fit in the given format. Being a new concept for most teachers, engineering instruction might not
have been explicitly present in the novice teachers’ classroom practice, although elements of it
could have been extrapolated after observing a math or science lesson. For most sections of the
protocol, lines for free write were provided to capture the happenings in the classroom for
meaningful analysis after the observation.
Good observation notes should include descriptions of the physical setting, participants,
activities, interactions, conversations, subtle factors, and even the researcher’s behavior (Mer-
riam, 2009). Post-observation notes written down while fresh in the observer’s memory allowed
for detailed description and added a significant amount of important information. After all, the
success of a research study depends on how detailed, accurate, and extensive the field notes are
(Bogdan & Biklen, 1998).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 86

Data Collection
Data collection in a qualitative study is “a series of interrelated activities” designed to
gather ample information about the problem under examination (Creswell, 1998, p. 110). Survey,
interview, and observation were used for this study to ensure a sufficient number of data
resources for triangulation, which increases the validity of the findings (Merriam, 2009). Tri-
angulation allows gaining strong understanding of the phenomenon being investigated and
“reduces the risk that [the researcher’s] conclusions will reflect only the biases of a specific
method” (Maxwell, 2013, p. 102). The information from participant interviews and field notes
provided rich descriptive data that helped to convey what was learned about the phenomenon
(Creswell, 1998). Protocols were developed and the logistics of the recording process were
examined.
Access to study participants was gained with the help of the associate dean of the teacher
college, who shared the initial survey with students in the teacher preparation program who were
in student teaching at the time. Eighteen preservice teachers completed the survey by the
requested deadline and those who were interested in further participation provided contact
information. Out of nine volunteers who expressed interest in participating in interviews and
observations, six reported higher self-efficacy. Four of the six volunteers who expressed interest
in participating in interviews and observations were selected.
Table 4 illustrates how the instrumentation was utilized for collecting rich data to address
the research questions. The initial survey aided in selection of the study participants who had
reported high self-efficacy. The potential study participants who received the survey via email
were given a week to respond and express interest in participation in the study. The interviews
with all four respondents were scheduled in the 2 weeks following the survey deadline. The
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 87

Table 4

Research Questions and Instrumentation

Research question Survey Interviews Observations

1. How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major
influence their perceived self-efficacy to teach engi-
neering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms? X X
2. How do current instructional practices and field
experiences in teacher preparation programs for a
multiple subject credential help shape preservice
teachers’ perception of efficacy to teach engineering
as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms? X X X

interviews investigated their self-efficacy beliefs and provided understanding of their anticipated
capability to instruct integrated STEM in elementary classrooms. Within approximately two
weeks after each interview, an observation was scheduled with each participant. The
observations facilitated data collection to address the second research question by examining
how the preservice teachers’ self-reported self-efficacy to teach integrated STEM through
engineering correlated with their instructional practice during student teaching. The observations
were followed by a brief unstructured interview to discuss what had been observed. The data
collection process took 5 to 6 weeks, as anticipated.
Validity, Reliability, and Ethics
The validity threat or “how [the researcher] might be wrong” is an important issue in
research design (Maxwell, 2013, p. 123). In this qualitative study, two potential validity threats
were considered: researcher bias and reactivity. In order to understand how the researcher’s
beliefs and perceptions may have influenced the research process and the conclusions of the
study, several strategies were used. To reduce the validity threat, the methods for data collection
were aligned with the research questions to elicit rich data for triangulation purposes. As
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 88

suggested by Maxwell (2013), “long-term” participant observations were conducted to gather
detailed information. Repeated interviews and observations helped to rule out premature
conclusions and erroneous associations. To address the validity threat of reactivity, systematic
feedback was solicited from the participants. Member checks with participants reduced the pos-
sibilities for misinterpretation of what the participants said in the interviews (Maxwell, 2013;
Merriam, 2009).
Reliability issues are more problematic. If repeated, the study may not yield similar
results because human behavior is not static and changes over time (Merriam, 2009). The strate-
gies used to increase the validity of the findings positively affected the reliability of the study. In
addition, the data sources were peer reviewed to reduce the reliability threat. Merriam (2009)
asserted that the impossibility of replicating a qualitative study with similar results does not dis-
credit the findings of the study. The consistency of the results with the data gathered is more
important (Merriam, 2009).
Ethical considerations are critical in qualitative design, as both validity and reliability are
largely dependent on ethics (Merriam, 2009). Despite the established rules and codes of ethics,
ethical practice during the research process depends on the researcher’s values and beliefs. The
researcher was acutely aware of the potential ethical dilemmas that could surface during data
collection and dissemination of findings. Therefore, the researcher was careful to secure
informed consent and to protect the privacy of the participants.
Data Analysis
Creswell (1998) described qualitative data analysis as “a process of moving in analytic
circles rather than using a fixed linear approach” (p. 142). As advised by Maxwell (2013), data
analysis started immediately after collecting information through the survey, interviews, and
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 89

observations (see Figure 1). This decision was part of the design and was planned before actual
data collection began. The initial process of exploring the data started with a general review of
the information. As an inductive process of making sense, data analysis started with an inventory
of the data sets (Step 1). As described by the conceptual framework, this phase focused on
preparing the information to begin analysis.
The information from the survey was the first set of data analyzed in order to identify the
study participants who reported high self-efficacy. The interviews were audio recorded and, im-
mediately upon completion of the participant interviews, listened to as the first opportunity for
analysis (Step 2). The Function, Behavior, Structure (FBS) framework presents this phase as the
analysis of information at hand that is expected to lead to improved understanding of the
intended outcomes. Following the initial step of data analysis, the interviews were transcribed.
During listening, notes were taken, patterns were noted, and tentative ideas about categories
started to emerge (Step 3). At this stage, the field notes from the observations were read and
memos were added about what was seen. Maxwell (2013) recommended use of memos
throughout the data analysis process because they “ not only capture [the researcher’s] analytic
thinking about data, but also facilitate such thinking, stimulating analytic insight” (p. 105).
Detailed notes and memos helped to gain understanding of the potential outcomes and supports
with the development of themes for planning the narrative, as explained by the FBS framework.
Developing codes and organizing the information into categories helped to reduce the
interview data. As a main strategy for sorting collected data, coding facilitated the process of
comparing things within the same category and helped with development of broader themes
(Step 4). “Consolidating, reducing, and interpreting” were used to identify and analyze the data
for responding the research questions (Merriam, 2009, p. 176). Per FBS, the next step is structure
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 90

Figure 1. Creswell’s model for qualitative data analysis. From Research Design: Qualitative,
Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, by J. W. Creswell, 2003, Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
development, which was completed after identifying the main themes and the plan for the data
findings presentation. Upon identifying the broad themes and supporting details, decisions were
made about how to present the narrative of the data findings to provide rich descriptions of the
participants’ beliefs, perceptions, and experiences (Step 5). A clear structure was developed for
organizing the narrative into main sections and subsections. In the final step (Step 6), the
findings were interpreted to make meaning of the collected data. The FBS framework identifies
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 91

it as the formal plan for implementation or the final product that was carefully designed and
developed.
Maxwell (2013) made a distinction between organizational categories and substantive or
theoretical categories and suggested using the latter. Substantive categories or themes describe
the participants’ beliefs and concepts; organizational categories reflect the researcher’s concepts
or thinking. The benefits of using substantive or theoretical categories are that they capture the
data that do not fit into any of the organizational categories and maximize the use of available
information (Maxwell, 2013). This study used substantive categories to capture the participants’
words and concepts.
Conceptual Framework
The FBS framework is well suited for describing systems thinking because it explains
human cognition in complex systems. To ensure effective teaching of engineering as part of
STEM integration, teachers must be able to create ideas, identify expected behaviors, and
synthesize them into structures. Hence, the FBS cognitive analysis framework allows for
effective understanding of elementary teachers’ reasoning about their instructional methodology
for STEM integration through engineering in K–5. Researchers have suggested that
implementation of content pedagogy with systems thinking helps students to discover the
purpose and realize the achievement of goals (Lammi & Becker, 2013; Silk & Schunn, 2008).
Engineering design is a creative process that can take several forms. Figure 2 shows the
relationship between the engineering design and the FBS framework. It depicts one of the
models in which the initial phase of design requires information, analysis, and understanding of
the intended functions. Conceptual design and embodiment design phases demonstrate the
creative process for behavior planning and structure development. In the detailed design phase
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 92

Figure 2. Relationship between the function, behavior, structure framework and the design
process. Source: “Describing the Creative Design Process by the Integration of Engineering
Design and Cognitive Psychology Literature,” by T. J. Howard, S. J. Culley, & E. Dekoninck,
Design Studies, 29(2), 160-180.
engineers produce formal plans for implementation (Howard et al., 2008). Similarly, in the initial
phase of lesson or activity design, teachers identify the goals, find needed information, analyze
it, and build an understanding of what lesson should be designed. The function of the instruc-
tional piece is established. The conceptual planning and embodiment design helps to develop
teacher behaviors and expected student behaviors in order to create an appropriate structure.
With the constant feedback loop among all three phases, the final product or plan is produced for
implementation in the classroom.
Chapter Summary
This chapter described the research design and the methodological approach used in this
qualitative study. It described the data collection process and tools, as well as he data analysis to
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 93

address the research questions. The goal of the methodology and the instruments was to create
the best possible structure and approach within existing limitations to gather richly descriptive
data about the studied phenomenon.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 94

CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS, ANALYSIS, AND DISCUSSION
This chapter presents the findings of this qualitative study based on the data from the
survey, interviews, and observations. The goal of the study was to examine preservice teachers’
self-efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5. Eighteen preservice
teachers in their last semester of a teacher preparation program participated in the initial survey.
From those, four participants who reported relatively higher self-efficacy on the survey instru-
ment were selected for interviews and observations. Two interviews and one observation session
were conducted with each of the four study participants. The results of the inquiry are reported
by research question.
Two research questions defined the frame of the study. The data collection protocols
were designed to address the following research questions:
1. How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major influence their perceived self-
efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
2. How do the current instructional practices and field experiences in teacher preparation
programs for a multiple subject credential shape preservice teachers’ perceptions of efficacy to
teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
Data were analyzed, interpreted, and triangulated to increase the validity and the reliabil-
ity of the findings. Detailed analysis and discussion follow the findings for each research
question.
Data Findings for Research Question 1: Undergraduate Degree of
Preservice Elementary Teachers
The first research question investigated the impact of preservice elementary teachers’
undergraduate major on their perceived self-efficacy to teach engineering as a subject along with
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 95

the other STEM subjects and as a way to integrate several disciplines. The undergraduate degree
of perspective elementary teachers is an important indicator of their content knowledge in the
STEM disciplines. Three major themes regarding the elementary teacher undergraduate major as
it related to STEM integration through engineering emerged from the data: (a) a lack of back-
ground in the STEM disciplines, (b) limited understanding of engineering, and (c) minimal
exposure to integrated instruction.
Elementary Teacher Background in the STEM Disciplines
The path to becoming a teacher shapes interests and builds competencies that prospective
elementary teachers eventually bring into their classrooms and pass on to their students. Teach-
ers’ values, beliefs, interests, and strengths help to shape the same very constructs for their
students. None of the preservice teachers who participated in the initial survey had chosen a
STEM major, which is consistent with the literature on the topic. Three of them reported low to
moderate self-efficacy for instructional strategies for STEM integration through engineering due
to limited disciplinary knowledge. The same participants reported lower self-efficacy for instruc-
tional strategies than for student interest, motivation, and collaboration for STEM integration
through engineering. The literature on the topic indicates that most elementary teachers have
taken few subject courses in STEM disciplines. The study participants reported to have taken
very few math, science, or technology courses and no engineering courses in their undergraduate
program. Johnson et al. (2013) stated that most elementary teachers have limited technical
backgrounds (5% of elementary teachers have a degree in science and 4% in mathematics).
Chandler et al. (2011) found this to be a frequently encountered obstacle as the limited math and
science content knowledge of preservice teachers lays a weak foundation for providing engi-
neering instruction at any level.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 96

Table 5 illustrates the number of courses in STEM disciplines that the study participants
reported having taken in their undergraduate program.
Table 5

Participant Background in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

Disciplines

Participant Math Science Technology Engineering

Amy 1 3 0 0
Angie 1 3 0 0
Lilly 1 2 3 0
Molly 3 2 1 0

Math and science. The study participants reported limited background in the STEM dis-
ciplines. Three of the four participants had taken only one math class in the undergraduate
program as a general education requirement. Some spoke about math not being their forte and
being the reason not to pursue a technical degree. One participant said,
I took college algebra. Had to take it twice. The first time I failed it because I had a not so
good teacher. The second time I passed with a B. And that was it for math because I don’t
like the higher math. I find it too complicated and I don’t understand it too well.
Another participant shared,
For math, I had to take prerequisites for the major. So in the beginning, my major was
accounting. I would have to take math classes and changed my major to political science.
For that, I had to take only statistics.
The participant who had more math courses in the undergraduate program had a better under-
standing of STEM, yet she also admitted that technical subjects were not her strength:
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 97

STEM is intimidating. Up until high school, those were not my strong suits. I didn’t think
I was good at math. I got a lot of compliments on English from my parents and teachers
until I felt really strong in different subjects other than math and science. . . . Now that I
think about STEM, I realize that my teachers weren’t very good at making it relevant to
us and making it something that was problem solving and that was hands-on. It was more
textbook, and it just was irrelevant to me. I didn’t see the real-world applications of those
subjects.
Out of four STEM disciplines, science was the most common subject for all participants.
However, in their interviews they discussed how they took various types of science with minimal
recognition of connections among them. The disciplinary integration was limited in their experi-
ence with science. Lilly shared that, as part of general requirements, she had to take life science
and physical science. Angie took marine biology. Amy took an entry-level life science course,
Biology 101, and two physical science classes. “I was surprised how little math and science we
had to study in order to get a bachelor’s degree.”
Technology and engineering. Only two study participants had taken a technology course
in the undergraduate program. Most of those courses were focused on the basic operation of
technology for students’ needs in the given program. Amy could not recall taking any technology
courses in her undergraduate program.
But I do have a designated subject credential and career and technical education, so I did
have to take classes through Los Angeles County ROP at Los Angeles County of Educa-
tion. I took some classes there, but no technology courses in my undergraduate major.
None of the participants had taken an engineering course in the undergraduate program.
Lack of exposure to engineering had prevented them from building a conception of engineering
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 98

in an academic setting. Lilly explained, “I didn’t take any engineering. I didn’t have to. My
major was not related to engineering, so I did not take any.” Similarly, the other three partici-
pants, who had not majored in engineering, were not required to take engineering courses and
had limited understanding of the field due to lack of experience in the discipline.
Understanding of Engineering
The second theme that emerged from the data analysis was the preservice teachers’
understanding of engineering as a subject, a way of integration, and a way of thinking. Teachers’
limited understanding of engineering concepts and the lack of defined knowledge and abilities in
engineering make STEM integration through engineering a significant challenge (Bybee, 2011).
The participants’ understanding of engineering was similar to the opinions of the general public
in the sense that none of them mentioned a connection of engineering with necessary 21st-
century skills, such as creativity and innovation. However, unlike the common beliefs about
engineers, the participants emphasized teamwork and collaborative problem solving as necessary
for engineering design activities.
Definition of engineering. A clear definition of engineering is necessary to facilitate
STEM integration though engineering and to help students to develop cognitive skills as life-
long learners. The study participants had difficulty in defining engineering in general and in the
context of elementary education in particular. Amy defined engineering as “the planning of any
construction, technology and electronics that is in our physical world.” Angie expressed an even
more general idea of engineering: “What comes to mind in regards to engineering is machinery
and the building of different things humans use in everyday life.” Lilly described engineering as
“the science of building designs.” Molly provided a more academically accurate definition of
engineering: “Engineering is the ability to solve problems and accomplish goals by system-
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 99

atically designing objects, processes, and systems to meet human needs and wants.” Clearly
defined knowledge base, activities, and skills appropriate for teaching and learning engineering
in K–5 are critical because teachers’ perceptions of engineering shape how they design lessons
(Chandler et al., 2011; Roehrig et al., 2012; Wang et al., 2011). Engineering has a unique poten-
tial to increase student understanding of STEM disciplines and design thinking (Brophy, 2008;
Honey et al., 2014). However, teachers’ conceptual understanding of STEM integration and their
ability to use systems thinking and engineering design process are precursors for student learning
and are currently underdeveloped.
Concept and skill set of engineering. Various conceptions of engineering among
preservice teachers participating in the study gave evidence of a lack of a systemic framework
for pre-engineering (Chandler et al., 2011). During the interviews, the participants were asked to
explain the concepts and the skill set of engineering. Their responses revealed very broad under-
standing of the topic if they had no personal experiences with engineering or very narrow under-
standing based on personal encounters with engineering as content or a skill set. For example,
Amy shared her experience of participating in engineering courses with her husband, who was
pursuing engineering as a major:
There are so many different branches of engineering. My husband was an electronics
engineer major, so anything that has to do with understanding the interior of any kind of
mechanisms that is in electronics, to understand what is going on inside the wiring, the
way it works, which is not my strongest subject. I do understand what engineering means,
but again, it is not one of my strongest subjects.
Molly described the concept of engineering as “math and science related and project
based.” She explained that she had started seeing the interdisciplinary connections when taking a
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 100

STEM course in the teacher preparation program. Lilly thought that the concept of engineering
was to “build or design something by looking into different options.” Molly stated that the skill
set for engineering included “a firm basis in math, science, the scientific method and the ability
to solve problems.” Critical thinking was the only cognitive skill that she mentioned to be neces-
sary for engineering. Lilly agreed that critical thinking is necessary for engineering and assumed
that engineering also requires “making a plan or designing something, or testing, like scientific
testing, or coming up with ideas like in brainstorming.” Angie agreed with her colleagues in
thinking that the skill set for engineering included strong background in math and the ability to
teach math well. According to Angie, critical thinking and “being imaginative” were cognitive
skills necessary for engineering.
All four participants reported higher self-efficacy for student interest and motivation than
for instructional strategies for STEM integration through engineering. They explained this pref-
erence by reflecting and sharing their personal interest in engaging activities. Engineering activi-
ties are motivating because they tap into the curiosity and excitement of creating something new
(Becker & Park, 2011). Amy related, “I would be motivated and engaged myself.” Molly shared
her excitement about things that she learned:
There are things I have read in my STEM book that just sound amazing. A teacher doing
a roller coaster theme, where they are integrating math and engineering and students are
building their own ramps. They are using science to test out how high the ramp needs to
be or what kind of care they need to use. Those are amazing lessons, but I need to take
baby steps.
Amy recognized the need for scientific experimentation to present concepts and practice in an
integrated way and to solve complex problems, but she expressed doubt about her current capa-
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 101

bility to design such lessons for her students. Molly clearly realized that her students had no
opportunities for developing understanding of increasingly complex systems and their functions
due to lack of exposure. Lilly did not elaborate on this topic in her explanation of the three
criteria for preservice teachers’ self-efficacy.
In the discussion of cognitive skills needed for engineering, the participants did not
explore the possibility of using systems thinking or engineering design and were more focused
on broad analytical thinking skills and the scientific inquiry process. This information confirms
that engineering design is an exception or a nonexistent practice in elementary classrooms rather
than a rule, as Jaramillo (2013) suggested. All four participants mentioned the four C’s (critical
thinking, creativity, communication, and collaboration) as cognitive skills needed for engineer-
ing. However, higher-order thinking skills, such as application, analysis, and synthesis, were not
discussed, especially as components of design thinking. The participants did not perceive these
skills to be prerequisite for the innovative thinking required for solution of ill-defined problems.
Interdisciplinary Instruction
The third theme that emerged with regard to preservice teacher experiences in the under-
graduate program revealed minimal exposure to integrated instruction. The integration of disci-
plines is challenged by the fragmented knowledge base of elementary teachers and the inability
of teachers to see connections among the disciplines (Lederman & Lederman, 2013). Yet, the
demand in modern K–12 education goes beyond integration of the STEM disciplines.
Accreditation and university professors’ perceptions of integration help to shape preservice
teachers’ attitudes toward integration and create one of the major obstacles to integrating engi-
neering in K–12 settings (Brophy et al., 2008; Chandler et al., 2011; Pang & Good, 2000). The
literature also suggests that teachers need to learn through experiences that are similar to those
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 102

that they will be providing for their students (Ernst, 2013; Honey et al., 2014). The findings of
this study are consistent with the findings of scholars who researched teachers’ ability to provide
multidisciplinary, integrated instruction. Most participants had had limited exposure to integrated
courses as students and were greatly influenced by the experiences that they had in their educa-
tional career.
Exposure to integration. The theme of minimal exposure to integration permeated all
interviews. Angie shared that, of all courses that she had taken in the undergraduate program,
only one was presented in an integrated manner. “None of my classes really intersected in
subject matter. Only one course integrated different subjects and it was because of the professor,
not the course requirements. My professor understood the importance of weaving different
subjects together.” Similarly, Molly expressed a lack of experience with integrated courses as a
student. “The math class I took was not interdisciplinary by any means. It was very much
textbook, lectures on the board; take a test at the end to assess. It was not project-based, just very
straight-forward teacher directed learning for math.” Lilly explained that the only interdisci-
plinary courses she had in the undergraduate program were “honors courses at UCLA that inte-
grated research, technology and science.” An integrated approach to instruction must be explicit
and lead to subject relevance for teachers and cross-disciplinary connections in education (Honey
et al., 2014). Lilly related that
the course was on technology, but included communication and security. We also got the
take of a medical professor. He dealt a lot with technology and security, and there was
another professor who did a lot of research on it in terms of international relations and
things that happen outside of the country with security. We had a lot of fun field trips.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 103

We visited the Getty Museum and got to look at their security system. The class was very
meaningful, and I always remember it.
Amy did not volunteer any examples for integrated instruction from her experience in the
undergraduate program. She could not recall any situations where objectives from more than one
discipline were presented in any given lesson or activity. Hence, she could not attest to having
experience with integrated instruction in her undergraduate program, which could be due to
latency.
Understanding integration. STEM integration is an interdisciplinary approach with no
clear borders among the four disciplines (Wang et al., 2011). The literature on the topic suggests
that teachers need to learn through experiences similar to those that they will be providing to
their students (Ernst, 2013; Honey, et al., 2014). A common example shared by the participants
for integration was the use of informational text in language arts instruction, as expected by the
CCSS. In Amy’s opinion,
one of the best ways [to integrate], which is something that we are focusing on right now,
is to incorporate science into the language arts lessons. So the material that they are
reading is not just literature, but also information text that we provide to the children. I
can bring in any kind of material that I want to teach the students that are in the science
subject area, but use it as part of their language arts development.
The preservice teachers’ understating of integration stemmed from their experience in
their own academic experience and in the field of elementary education during student teaching.
The observations did not provide any evidence of integrated instruction, as all lessons were
focused on an objective from only one discipline: math or science.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 104

Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 1
The data findings confirm that the pool of perspective elementary teachers consists of
college graduates who lack prerequisite skills to pursue the career option of an elementary
teacher who is required by NGSS standards to implement effective practices for STEM integra-
tion and engineering instruction. Sanders (2009) questioned the feasibility of teacher licensure
programs to provide sufficient content knowledge along with content pedagogy for effective
STEM integration. Hence, ensuring aspiring teachers’ content knowledge in the STEM disci-
plines before their entry into a program may allow teacher education programs focusing on
developing strong content pedagogy for higher self-efficacy and effective instruction for STEM
integration through engineering.
A clear definition of engineering, as well as its concepts, skill set, and cognitive demands,
is imperative for developing understanding that is consistent for all preservice teachers irrespec-
tive of their backgrounds (Bybee, 2011). Limited understanding of design thinking calls for
explicit instruction with engineering design and systems thinking for prospective teachers to help
them to break down complex problems or systems into smaller functional components in order to
identify connections and interrelationships among them. Engineering and STEM integration
require a new type of analytical thinking that becomes a necessity for all college graduates with a
potential for innovation.
CCSS and NGSS require integrative approaches to STEM disciplines and beyond for a
systemic solution for creating pathways to college and career readiness (Katehi et al., 2009;
Lederman & Lederman, 2013; Mann et al., 2011). Concurrently, NGSS demonstrates a commit-
ment to integrating engineering design into science education. This approach is essential for
effective instruction for STEM integration through engineering, but also for CCSS and NGSS
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 105

fulfillment. In that regard, minimal exposure of aspiring teachers to integrated instruction is a
barrier to STEM integration on a large scale in K–5 and to laying a foundation for developing an
innovative human capital. Understanding of integration and its various meanings are important
for teachers’ cognition of purposeful integrated lesson design. Depending on the objectives for a
given lesson, they should be able to select among discipline-specific, content-specific, process,
methodological, or thematic integration and plan lessons or instructional units for the most
effective outcomes (Davison et al., 1995).
Data Findings for Research Question 2: Practices of the Teacher
Preparation Programs
The second research question examined the current instructional practices and field
experiences of teacher preparation programs for a multiple subject credential that helped to shape
preservice teachers’ self-efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5.
Honey et al. (2014) suggested that limited background in the STEM disciplines and poor
pedagogy strongly affect preservice teacher self-efficacy to teach STEM. The absence of
engineering in elementary schools makes preparation of general education teachers problematic
(Chandler et al., 2011). Research has shown that accreditation is another major obstacle to
integrating engineering in K–5 settings. Similar to these, three types of barriers to successful
STEM integration through engineering were identified in the current practices of teacher
preparation programs: (a) poor pedagogy of integrated instruction, (b) unclear goals and
expectations of teacher candidates as they relate to STEM integration through engineering, and
(c) a lack of practice for lesson planning with integrated STEM or engineering.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 106

Pedagogy of Integrated Instruction
The public education system in the United States has been teaching subjects in isolation,
valuing each one as a knowledge base. Current standards and textbooks have separate presenta-
tions of individual disciplines, leading to teaching practices that are inconsistent with the
requirements of CCSS and NGSS (NRC, 2005). The participants aptly noted traditions created
by NCLB that still dominate in public education and teacher preparation programs.
Methodology courses. Most participants had limited training on how to provide interdis-
ciplinary classroom instruction. Lilly, who was in the last quarter of the teacher preparation
program and was scheduled to graduate in late March elaborated:
STEM was only discussed in one of the classes that I took, where it was only ever men-
tioned. He [the instructor] never really went in depth and discussed STEM. That was the
curriculum instruction of science that I took. But with STEM what we had focused on
was how to integrate other subjects into science. Like how to do a math and science
lesson together, how to do a language arts and a science lesson together. That’s pretty
much all we did with STEM. That’s the farthest we went with STEM.
The other three participants did not report having had any training for interdisciplinary,
integrated instruction.
The methodology courses offered the pedagogy of math and science as isolated disci-
plines:
The one science class that I had to take was called the curriculum and teaching of
science. It was teaching us how to teach a science lesson. . . . The math class was similar
to science. It was about how to teach math in different ways. It was pretty much a basic
math class that taught us different strategies that are used for the math that you do in ele-
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 107

mentary school. Like how there’s a more than one way to do an addition or a multiplica-
tion problem.
The limited experiences that the study participants had with methodology courses for
integrated instruction did not allow them to elaborate on the topic during discussions. All four
participants had difficulty in speaking to various types of integration and ways of planning,
structuring, and delivering to elementary school age students.
Exposure to engineering. Engineering is viewed as a natural way to integrate the STEM
disciplines and beyond because it encompasses ideas, skills, and practices from math, science,
technology, and literacy (Honey et al., 2014). Pang and Good (2000) suggested that teachers
should be helped to conceptualize integration by providing arguments that include effects of
integration on students’ conceptual and cognitive development. Teachers are unaware of the
benefits of an integrated approach due to a lack of comprehensive data regarding its effects
(Becker & Park, 2011). Teachers need to understand how their instruction and expectations
affect student achievement in the disciplines and shape their career interests.
Unlike the findings reported by Pang and Good (2000) and Becker and Park (2011), the
findings of this study indicated that preservice teachers were aware of the new requirements in
the NGSS and CCSS and understood the importance of STEM integration and engineering
instruction at a young age. “There is a need for it [engineering] in the classroom.” They regretted
that their current program had not prepared them well to take on that challenge with confidence.
“That is something that gets forgotten.” In response to the question, What kind of training or
academic course have you been provided in your teacher preparation program to teach engi-
neering along with math and science? Angie sighed, “Nothing. Nothing to do with engineering
at all.” Lilly echoed, “To teach engineering, I did not receive any training. We had to take a
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 108

course for science, teaching science, teaching math, but specifically in engineering – nothing.”
Amy explained it best:
Not a lot of engineering courses in our program right now. Again, maybe just a little bit
now coming on with the Common Core that we do need to incorporate, by we haven’t
really been given the training and the classes that are needed. We do an introduction to
engineering. It’s one of our requirements to make sure we incorporate that into the
classroom, but honestly I have not sat through one class teaching us exactly how to
incorporate engineering into our classroom. I have not experienced that.
The observations confirmed the absence of engineering in the classrooms of the study
participants’ student teaching placements. Each taught a lesson on either math or science with no
discipline-specific, content-specific, process, methodological, or thematic integration.
Expectations of Teachers
Despite the lack of nationally adopted engineering standards, CCSS and NGSS have
identified certain engineering design skills and concepts as graduation requirements that should
be included in the national curricula (Bybee, 2011). However, teacher education is only begin-
ning to take the first steps in the direction of preparing teachers who will be taking on that chal-
lenge. As reported by one of the participants, the program offered a STEM class to prepare them
for interdisciplinary instruction. All four participants were unclear regarding the goals of the
multiple subject credential program with regard to teacher preparation for STEM integration.
These preservice teachers agreed that the expectation of them for STEM integration was to have
“a little bit of introduction.” Molly elaborated:
I am not sure what the objectives are, but I do know from the assignments that we’ve
been doing, and from our reading, it’s to get a general idea of what STEM is and how to
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 109

apply it in the classroom as a teacher and what that should look like. We have done a
couple of lesson plans that have been related, but, like I said, they have been just math or
just one subject and haven’t been very interdisciplinary. So it is kind of going against
what we are being taught in class.
Amy concurred, “I really haven’t seen that in the standards, as part of [university]
requirements.” In the meantime, Molly suggested that offering a specific STEM class to
preservice teachers is already a step in the right direction. “They thought that is was important
enough to take the time to have a specific class just on STEM.” However, Molly wondered in her
response whether the instruction in her STEM class met the goals of the course:
It is odd having a STEM class where they do talk about blending the fields together so
that you are able to create a lesson that covers everything and it is real world based. I
think they have done a very poor job of expressing that in our actual class. We have sepa-
rated math and science, which is interesting. I think it has a lot do with the requirements
for our teaching credential and that is just the way they had to do it. We have essentially
gone over math. We have some technology that has been placed in there, but we haven’t
really talked about science or engineering.
Similarly, STEM standards were not evident in the classrooms. All four rooms had lan-
guage arts standards posted. One of the rooms had weekly standards posted for language arts,
math, science, and social studies. The second had daily standards for the same subjects. The third
room had no visible standards for any subject other than language arts. The daily schedule did
not reflect an integrated class or an engineering class. Three of the four classrooms had a daily
schedule that allotted time blocks for language arts, math, and alternating science and social
studies.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 110

Lesson Planning
All four study participants met the course requirements for math and science in the
teacher education program, as well as the state requirement for the subject examination. Lilly
elaborated that in her methods courses for math and science she had to develop lesson plans and
design activities that required a significant amount of research. To satisfy the content knowledge
requirements, she also took the California Subject Examinations for Teachers (CSET) for math
and science. Clearly, the teacher candidates did not receive preparation for engineering
instruction, either as a separate subject or as an infused domain in integrated STEM. The
findings confirm the view presented by the NSF (2010) that STEM refers to math and science
with the “T being slightly visible and E being invisible.”
Planning for integrated instruction. All four teacher candidates taught a lesson with
objectives from only one discipline. They contended that planning for integrated STEM follows
the same sequence of lesson planning as for a single discipline. The first step is to identify the
standards that are required to be taught and to create all steps of the lesson plan. Multi-step
instructions “work really well when you integrate more than one subject,” clarified Amy. As an
example, she shared a scenario in which an interdisciplinary instruction was provided:
You divide students up into four different groups in the classroom and you give each one
of them a topic to research and to come up with all the information that they can. For
instance, one of them can be on just some chemical forms, another one could be on some
energy sources, and so on and so forth. Then bringing back the students as a whole class
to share what each group got, and this takes a process of several days. The other groups
take notes as to what each group learned and discovered, and then they put all of that
together into some kind of a portfolio so that they have different information that they
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 111

learn from different disciplines into one portfolio that they can go back to for summative
assessment if needed.
Amy was unable to clarify what type of integration this procedure would constitute and
had only a vague idea of what the ultimate goal of the project would be. Angie stated that com-
bining math, science, and technology would be relatively easy. “I find those easy to integrate. I
always had to write lesson plans for math and science with the use of technology. Science and
math can be easily put together because they are very much related and connected.” However,
her instruction during observation focused on one discipline. The science lesson on ecosystems
that Angie planned with her mentor was teacher centered and textbook based. Most of the
questions asked during the instruction had answers provided in the textbook and were assessing
students’ factual knowledge. Students were mainly asked to find in the textbook examples of
biotic and abiotic factors for each of the biomes discussed in the lesson: desert, pond, rainforest,
coral reef, and tundra. The opportunity for collaboration by students during the lesson was lim-
ited to partner work in finding the answers in the book.
Lilly confirmed that, to plan an integrated STEM lesson or an engineering lesson, she
would “have to go beyond, research and prepare for it” because she had not been exposed to it.
She shared her approach for planning and delivering an integrated lesson for the STEM disci-
plines:
I would engage the students. I would model whatever the concept or the learning goal is.
For that, I usually use the projector or the white board. I would do guided practice with
them. Then we would do independent work, but I would check with them. That is how
we usually do with math and science. With science, we sometimes do demonstrations and
experiments.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 112

She taught a math lesson with an objective to understand and compare decimals. She used a
white board and projector to model for students. She provided visual models for decimals, which
helped students to compare them. Lilly’s questions measured student factual knowledge of frac-
tions and decimals. The partner activity was intended for collaborative thinking to provide real-
world examples for the use of multiplication with decimals.
Molly’s lesson was focused on a science objective of learning about fossils. As had her
colleagues, she provided visual models to help students to conceptualize what fossils were. The
students were provided a three-column note taker where they recorded three new things that they
had learned about fossils as the student teacher read the lesson on fossils from the textbook. The
lesson did not include student collaboration or integration of objectives from the other STEM
disciplines.
Planning for engineering instruction. Integrative approaches are underdeveloped in
elementary school instructional practices (Sanders, 2009). Amy emphasized the importance of
engineering at a young age, lamenting that minimal attention is given to it. “Our focus is so
much on language arts and math that we put the engineering and science lesson that are so inter-
esting and students love so much on a back burner.” However, she contended that, even within
the constraints, it is possible to create opportunities for young children. In the first-grade class-
room of her student teaching assignment, she tries to use manipulatives in math lessons or to
create origami for an art lesson that could be considered basic elements of engineering. “I think
just providing Popsicle sticks for students to build something is an entry-level approach to engi-
neering.” Amy also reminded of the importance to practice problem-solving skills by asking
open-ended questions. “If we only had time to go outside every day, we could do gardening, for
instance, and work on how to get water from one point to another for irrigation.”
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 113

Despite her confidence in math, science, and technology integration, Angie was unclear
on possible ways to integrate engineering with the other STEM disciplines:
I don’t know exactly what you mean by saying engineering in the context of elementary
schools. It would be helpful to know more about engineering so I can think of integration
with other subjects. I define engineering as building things and know that is math and
science related, but I am not sure it is enough to plan and deliver instruction.
Poor understanding of engineering as a subject prevented Angie from clear
conceptualization of what engineering instruction might look like in K–5. She openly expressed
a need for better understanding of engineering in general and as a content area in elementary
education. Her response demonstrated a void in her experience as a preservice teacher as it
related to engineering integration in elementary schools. Lilly and Molly did not elaborate on
this topic.
Field Experience
The field experience influences preservice teachers’ perceptions of self-efficacy as it
relates to engineering instruction for STEM integration at the elementary level. The preservice
teachers’ practice was observed in the classroom of the student teaching placement. The goal of
the observations was to see common practices in the respective elementary classrooms instead of
specially planned lessons for the observation of a university supervisor or the school
administration. All four preservice teachers had assumed responsibility for at least one content
area to teach and were providing daily instruction in one or more subjects. Two math lessons and
two science lessons were observed, with the intent to extrapolate elements of engineering. No
engineering or technology lessons were planned in the window of the data collection. In fact, an
engineering lesson was not even discussed at any time during their student teaching experience.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 114

Technology integration was encouraged but was often delimited to the preservice teachers’ use
of technology to model for students. The data analysis brought to light the three themes related to
the field experiences teacher that candidates had in the teacher preparation program: (a) the
influence of the student teaching placement on preservice teachers’ perceptions of efficacy for
STEM and engineering instruction, (b) limited support and mentorship for STEM integration
through engineering, and (c) a lack of opportunities for practice with integrated STEM.
Student teaching placement. Student teaching placement is highly influential for
preservice teachers’ preparation as it helps to shape their professional identity (Brouwer &
Korthagen, 2005; Cartaut & Bertone, 2009; Hong, 2010; Le Cornu, 2009; Moulding et al., 2014;
O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012; Wideen et
al., 1998). Student teachers with quality field experience report feeling more confident and
efficacious and better prepared for the challenges of the teaching profession. Student teaching
placement must be strategically selected to provide a variety of quality experiences for building
competence and efficacy in all departments of elementary education. The culture of the site,
support systems, availability of resources, and especially the cooperating teachers’ quality are the
key factors to be considered when assigning preservice teachers for the field experience. A
strong tradition of effective collaboration of university professors and supervisors with school
administrators and master teachers is also an advantage (Le Cornu, 2009; Putnam & Borko,
2000).
Availability of resources. Availability of resources may potentially present a challenge
for STEM integration through engineering in elementary classrooms. All four classrooms for
student teaching practicum had several computers for student use and one for teacher use and
were equipped with a document camera and projector. The schools also offered mobile carts with
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 115

iPads
®
and Chromebooks™ that were available on a rotational basis. The technology integration
was limited to the use of a document camera and a projector for teacher modeling during all four
observations. Two or three computers in each observed classroom were turned off or not in use.
Molly expressed regret that in her assigned classroom the only readily available resource for
STEM integration was the computer. Her instruction would be Internet based as it relates to ideas
and plans for STEM instruction, with some modifications to make it appropriate for her students:
I don’t have a solid base of ideas. The curriculum used in this classroom does not provide
it either, therefore I don’t have a good pool of topics that I might be able to use. Besides,
I look around the classroom and don’t see it being very science or engineering based.
You don’t see an area for lab work or you don’t see a chart with a scientific method on
the board. Most classrooms are literacy and math based. I think the limited opportunities
also have to do with such deficiencies in the classrooms.
Lilly shared her peer’s concern regarding lack of resources. She was unsure whether
teachers had a budget to purchase materials for planning and delivering effective STEM instruc-
tion through engineering. She cited the lack as one of the major barriers to implementation in
general education classrooms in public schools. Angie also observed the lack of resources in her
setting. “If I need any resources, I would have to either ask my coworkers or go find myself.
Right now I have no idea.” Amy speculated that parents could support with materials and
resources. “I am lucky to be in a district where most children are not from low-income families.
We get a lot of parent support and could get donations from them if we only ask.”
Another type of limitation that Lilly discussed was the lack of an adopted curriculum for
STEM integration and engineering instruction in K–5:
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 116

No curriculum is provided for you. You are not given any information. So the teacher has
to research, find lesson plans, projects and materials in order to make it work. I haven’t
seen anything maybe because I am a student teacher, but I think teachers are on their own
in regards to STEM and engineering.
Amy agreed, “As a student teacher, I haven’t seen teacher resources for engineering. But because
we have the World Wide Web and we are in the information age, I think that information is pro-
vided to us through the Internet.” Molly and Angie shared similar concerns but did not elaborate
on the approach to finding solutions.
Classroom environment. Three out of four participants reported high self-efficacy for
student collaboration in integrated lessons. They based their assumption of future capability to
create a collaborative environment for STEM integration through engineering on their beliefs
that value collaboration and communication of students. Lilly thought that engineering requires
research activities with students that should be completed in groups and have a presentation as a
result. She noted that, by participating in such projects, students communicate in the process and
share accountability for the final product. Angie suggested moving student desks into a
configuration where they could work in groups for an engineering lesson. She also mentioned
that the classroom should be inviting, warm, and colorful. Molly described the classroom
environment conducive for STEM integration and engineering instruction to be more aligned
with 21st-century goals and CCSS and NGSS requirements.
I think being able to have a classroom that is more fluid and not so rigid that students
come in and sit down at their desks would be helpful. It would create a classroom envi-
ronment that allows students to talk to teach other a little more, be more inviting to group
ideas and collaborative thinking. I think once the students are talking to each other, they
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 117

are comfortable and know each other, it is much easier to have them learn what their
strengths are. For example, “Sally is amazing at drawing, so why don’t we have her do
the art for the project our group is doing, or she can build a diagram of the car.” I think
they need to be able to communicate. It is our job as a teacher to facilitate that in the
classroom.
As a solution, Amy envisioned centers for math, science, and engineering with necessary
materials to support exploration and experimentation. She stated that literacy skills are developed
in those contexts because students are engaged and interested in completing a writing assignment
when it is relevant to their hands-on projects. Amy also advocated for providing a variety of
electronic tools for students to disassemble and learn through discovery:
Sometimes we are so afraid of giving them tools. Supervised sessions where we let
students take apart an old telephone or a computer and see what is inside and the engi-
neering of it would be a great opportunity for students. You can even get into
architectural engineering and design things. What is inside the wall? How does the light
turn on? Just getting them to think and see what they come up with. Sometimes they even
surprise you with what they know.
Most rooms had standard manipulatives and tools for primary classrooms, including
blocks, multilink cubes, place value counters, sticks divided into ten equal parts, hundreds
squares, digit cards, dice, dominos, play money, and so forth. Amy was the only participant who
used cubes, ten sticks, and hundreds squares in her math lesson to teach counting by ones, tens,
and hundreds. She used the manipulatives to model with the document camera but did not
provide them for students during guided or independent practices. The other preservice teachers
used only a textbook, workbook, and worksheets in their math or science lessons.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 118

Support and Mentorship
Increasing preservice teacher self-efficacy for effective STEM integration through engi-
neering requires significant support on multiple levels. Angie emphasized the knowledge base in
the discipline and its pedagogy as a potential barrier. “I don’t know what I would be teaching,
how, and what engineering entails.” All participants mentioned targeted professional develop-
ment, ample time for lesson planning, and collaboration with colleagues, in addition to adminis-
trative support, as necessary in their first year in the classroom. Lilly underscored support by
school administration as an essential condition for success. “Administrators need to work with
you in terms of bringing all of that into existence and making funding and resources available.”
According to Molly, planning for project-based learning takes significant mental effort and time
investment in collaborative groups of grade-level teachers:
For teachers to be able to have time to really think about project-based learning or to be
able to think about how to integrate these really elaborate lesson plans that are not easy to
do takes a lot of preparation.
For decades, teacher education was focused on individual disciplines, leading to discon-
nected knowledge bases, narrow practices, and particular habits of mind that impeded students’
college and career readiness for the 21st century. The presence of NCLB legislation with strong
emphasis on language arts and math is still evident in the practices of public schools. These
subjects prevail during the instructional day, limiting emphasis on science and technology
(Honey et al., 2014). Amy brought up a challenge that would indicate a need for a systemic
change.
What if my principal is not supportive of engineering? That is my biggest fear. What if
the administrator walks in and I am teaching engineering again? The language arts and
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 119

math are such a big focus that any time someone walks into my room, I want to be
teaching language arts or math. If the students’ language arts scores are not at the level
that we want them to be, I fear to step away from language arts and teach engineering.
Therefore, she wished that more engineering and STEM was incorporated in content
standards in K–5, as well as in teacher education standards. She was convinced that it should be
part of the requirements in order to get the attention that it deserves. “I want to know that when
teaching engineering I am doing what I am supposed to be doing.” Amy shared her experience at
a preschool that was affiliated with a pharmaceutical company and at a child education center
connected to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, managed by the California Institute of Technology in
Pasadena:
I felt like there was so much more support from parents and the administration. We
would get so many donations of electronic devices, and the parents would do anything so
support engineering. We had an entire big center for engineering materials that the
children could use and explore and build with or do different experiments with.
In addition to STEM and engineering being a clear expectation in the teacher preparation
programs, the participant as preservice teachers expressed a desire for modeling with integrated
STEM and engineering instruction both in methodology courses and during the student teaching
experience. In addition, they wanted time for “creative collaboration” with peers to plan for inte-
grated instruction and share successful ideas and effective lessons.
Professors’ support. Researchers have stressed the significance of the university faculty
and mentor teachers’ individual and joint roles in shaping preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs
(Cartaut & Bertone, 2009; Le Cornu, 2009; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012; Putnam & Borko,
2000). Most participants expressed a need for more targeted instruction and explicit modeling for
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 120

STEM integration through engineering. They were skeptical about their professors’ experience
with integrated STEM and questioned their practices in their own classrooms:
I think my STEM teacher would have to facilitate it. She teaches upper grade math in a
public school district. I am not sure she instructs integrated STEM because she is not at
the elementary level and the lessons that she talked about were specifically math lessons.
I am not sure she implements things the way they are taught in our textbook. . . . Our
program has taught us nothing about engineering and how to teach engineering or how to
incorporate engineering into our classroom. I could probably go back to the professor
who mentioned STEM and ask him for help.
The participants were unsure of the collaboration between the university professors and mentor
teachers in the field to provide joint scaffolding and to design meaningful experiences to support
the preservice teachers’ current level of professional competence.
Mentor teachers. Bandura (1997) highlighted the importance of vicarious experiences
with a competent mentor teacher as a critical condition for improving the observer’s efficacy
beliefs. Related, a lack of opportunities to observe an effective lesson for integrative STEM
limits preservice teachers’ learning through observation. Wilson (2011) questioned the effective-
ness of teacher preparation programs for a multiple subject credential with regard to STEM
integration due to poor mentorship. The participants in this study did not have an opportunity to
observe a STEM lesson or an engineering lesson in the classroom of the student teaching
assignment. Amy stated that her master teacher would be able to model a STEM or engineering
lesson if asked. However, she noted that time constraints do not allow for such modeling. In the
first-grade classroom, the teacher incorporates science informational texts into the language arts
portion. Engineering is not taught in first grade. Lilly observed that the inservice teachers who
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 121

are in a mentor’s capacity working with student teachers need training to supporting mentees. “I
don’t know if teachers are able to understand, teach or integrate engineering. So they might have
to get training.” Molly shared her colleagues’ views.
Quality of the student teaching practicum that includes strong support from mentor teach-
ers is associated with higher levels of preservice teachers’ self-efficacy (Moulding et al., 2014;
Ronfeldt & Reininger, 2012). Mentor teachers’ efficacy to provide meaningful feedback and
appropriate scaffolding in the learning process has a strong positive effect on preservice teach-
ers’ confidence level and efficacy appraisal (Le Cornu, 2009; O’Neill & Stephenson, 2012).
Angie expressed a lack of clarity with regard to the support systems available to her:
My master teacher might know what is supposed to be taught for engineering. I don’t
know if she knows because we haven’t discussed it, but I think she should have a better
understanding than I do because of her experience. For help, I would go to her first, and if
not, I would go the science teacher in the teacher preparation program. I think he would
be able to help.
The participants stated that the lack of inservice teachers’ practice with integrated STEM and
engineering creates limitations for preservice teachers’ exposure to STEM integration through
engineering at the elementary level. Hence, quality field placement, as an influential part of the
preservice teacher preparation, must be carefully considered to ensure adequate support for all
aspects of the practicum, including effective instruction for integrative STEM teaching through
engineering.
Opportunities for Practice
Opportunities to practice with integrated STEM are instrumental to preservice teachers’
instructional effectiveness and high self-efficacy. To promote and to teach STEM and engineer-
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 122

ing effectively, teachers need to understand engineering practices, applications, and careers
(Pinnell et al., 2013). According to Bandura (1997), mastery experiences with integrated STEM
and engineering instruction during student teacher may bolster preservice teachers’ efficacy
beliefs. However, the study participants’ student teaching experience did not include this compo-
nent. The participants agreed that the main focus for elementary education in both theory and
practice was primarily on language arts and math.
Required tasks. Molly explained that they had two major types of assignments to
complete in the practicum courses: Content Area Tasks (CAT) and the Performance Assessment
for California Teachers (PACT). The CAT is essentially an instructional unit planning for one
specific content area that does not require implementation in the classroom. The preservice
teachers were expected to complete separate units for math and science. The PACT represents
more extensive lesson plan units that require implementation. The preservice teachers were
expected to implement at least one lesson from the PACT and videotape. A formal feedback was
given on the PACT performance, which was also true for CAT. Molly explained that the
program selected literacy as a focus for PACT. She was also expected to complete a separate
CAT for science, math and social studies. Amy confirmed that preservice teachers “focus mainly
on language arts and mathematics, and not too much on other subjects” and expressed interest in
being able to plan hands-on experimental projects. Lilly explained that for the student teaching
practicum she was required to develop and implement four lesson plans, but none of them
included engineering. The preservice teachers lamented that the student teaching experience did
not prepare them for integrated STEM instruction. Angie commented, “I don’t think it is
completely available to me because if it is not in the curriculum and not shared by my mentor
teacher, I have to plan on my own.”
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 123

Desired tasks. To the question, What opportunities are created in your teacher prepara-
tion program for you to demonstrate your ability to teach integrated STEM? Amy replied, “As of
right now, no integration happened.” She expressed hope that toward the end of the term she
would have an opportunity to do a project with an integrated approach. Lilly echoed that she
would like to do an engineering design project after she met the requirements of the teacher
preparation program. Molly made a point that the readings in the STEM textbook instilled an
interest to understand what STEM integration entails and to build a capacity for effective imple-
mentation. She remarked that her experiences in class differed from her hopes for structured and
meaningful practice for planning and delivery on integrated instruction. Like her peers, Molly
waited to have time set aside from time-consuming and labor-intensive requirements of the
program to devote to exploring STEM. Angie shared her peers’ excitement. However, she did
not discuss any plans for experimenting with integrated STEM upon meeting the program
requirements. The participants’ views with regard to STEM integration shared in the interviews
may indicate a perception of integration as a topic to add to the existing curriculum (Pang &
Good, 2000). They are yet to discover the unique potential of engineering in increasing student
conceptual understanding of the STEM disciplines as the most natural way to integrate content
knowledge and skills (Honey et al., 2014).
Fears. Experiences with integrated STEM during the practicum are crucial for develop-
ing preservice teachers’ self-efficacy. Preservice teachers’ experiences in the teacher preparation
program influenced the perceptions that they shared in discussions. The study participants spoke
about their fears for planning and delivering engineering lessons and overall anxiety with trying
something new and complex. All four expressed a lack of comfort with STEM, but only Molly
and Amy elaborated.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 124

Molly shared that, although she would be interested in practicing her skills with inte-
grated instruction and even teaching an engineering lesson, she was very uncomfortable with that
idea:
I think that is probably one of the scariest things to think about. I mean to plan something
[for STEM and engineering]. I know that I need to do it in a way that is student-centered
for them to think critically and solve problems. I need to plan for a real problem or a
problem we have in our classroom, something that the students want to talk about, but, I
think, it is the hardest thing for me to do at the moment because I am still learning how to
lesson plan. That takes lesson planning, in my opinion, to another level where it’s just not
basic. The students are directing things at that point. In order to have them direct the
lesson in the classroom, I have to be very prepared and have everything set up in a way
that allows them to be successful. That is super scary to me.
Amy shared similar fears about providing integrated STEM instruction through engi-
neering. She considered the idea to be overwhelming. It seemed to be a challenging task that she
did not know how to approach. Amy considered a number of aspects of delivering such lesson,
from grouping to cognitive demands, and had no experience to refer to or a structure to rely on.
I think the design of it is very challenging. I think having something that comes together,
where the kids are excited about what is happening, where they are focused less on what
subject they are learning and are more focused on the critical thinking aspect of every-
thing is amazing. But for me having to think about how to get students involved, what
kind of focus I would have, how I would integrate the various parts of the lesson to make
it interdisciplinary, how to manage groups at that point is overwhelming.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 125

Feelings of anxiety have been associated to teacher reluctance to engage in respective
activities. Moreover, the time constraints in the condensed combined programs for a degree and a
credential leave minimal time for exploration of anything outside of the scope of the teacher
preparation program.
Analysis and Discussion of Research Question 2
As indicated by the data, most participants had limited opportunities to learn about STEM
integration and engineering in the teacher preparation program and wished that more time had
been dedicated to it. Lack of clarity regarding expectations of preservice teachers for STEM
integration and engineering has created a feeling of loneliness in addressing this challenge. The
participants stated that they were on their own in finding resources, generating ideas, planning
instruction, and implementing lessons in the classroom. They considered starting with some
basic ideas with the tools and resources within their reach, naming the Internet as their main
support for attempting to provide integrated STEM instruction through engineering to their
students. Most references to planning and delivering integrated lessons stemmed from their
knowledge and experience with math and science instruction. The lessons that they taught during
observations had been planned with mentor teachers, and thus they reflected current instructional
practices of teaching isolated disciplines in K–5.
The preservice teachers recognized the importance of STEM integration through engi-
neering at a young age and were willing to make the required effort and time investment. How-
ever, all expressed a need for more information, structure, scaffolding, and professional support
to make it realistic, along with the challenges and the work load that all preservice teachers face.
Establishing programs for engineering teachers in K–5 will help to create a framework
for effective teacher preparation and eventually for a meaningful continuum from elementary to
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 126

college engineering. To help students to develop a wide range of cognition necessary for the
21st-century work force, prospective teachers must gain confidence in interdisciplinary instruc-
tion for the STEM disciplines and beyond. Competent and efficacious teachers will promote
STEM integration in elementary grades, igniting the real potential of STEM education (Sanders,
2009).
Preservice teachers reported overall moderate self-efficacy for STEM integration through
engineering due to the experiences they had with the disciplinary content as well as pedagogy of
the content in the STEM domain. Their perceptions of self-efficacy were influenced by the lack
of mentorship, resources, and STEM-conducive environment of elementary classrooms in public
settings. The student teaching placement of the study participants weakly supported the
development of competencies necessary for integrative STEM. The field practicum lacked
mastery or vicarious experiences for teacher candidates. The study participants wished to have
role models for instructing integrative STEM through engineering to emulate. Basic tools and
underdeveloped curricular resources limited preservice teachers’ opportunities to plan and
deliver integrated instruction. Fixed time that was fully devoted to meeting the multiple subject
credential requirements disregarded the preservice teachers’ potential and the desire for
exploration outside of the scope of the mandated assignments. The absence of STEM and
engineering standards in classroom instruction and teacher preparation program precluded their
presentation and implementation in both settings.
Minimal opportunities to practice with integrative STEM and engineering failed to con-
tribute to development of preservice teachers’ efficacy beliefs for STEM and engineering
instruction. Teachers’ self-efficacy is not constant across disciplines and results in less
instructional time for subjects in which they have low perceived self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 127

Consequently, preservice teachers who start a professional career without strong self-efficacy for
STEM integration will provide minimal to no experiences for their students with integrated
instruction for the STEM disciplines. Low self-efficacy and fear of engineering may result in
reluctance to participate in professional development opportunities for STEM integration through
engineering (Honey et al., 2014). Preservice teachers who lack quality experiences with inte-
grated instruction for engineering and the other STEM disciplines during their student teaching
may limit their participation in professional development for STEM integration.
Chapter Summary
This chapter reported the study findings according to each research question and dis-
cussed the challenges of preservice teachers as related to building strong self-efficacy for STEM
integration and engineering instruction in K–5. The findings indicate that preservice teachers do
not get the experiences throughout their educational career to gain understanding, knowledge,
and skills necessary for effective STEM integration through engineering in elementary class-
rooms. The data responding to the first research question revealed that the undergraduate major
of the majority elementary teacher candidates did not equip them with strong disciplinary
knowledge in the STEM domain. This was reflected in low to moderate self-reported efficacy for
STEM instructional strategies. The study participants had been exposed to a limited number of
technical subjects due to the major of their choice or had intentionally changed their major to
reduce the number of required math and science courses.
The data related to the second research question indicated that the weak background
knowledge of aspiring elementary teachers presented a challenge for teacher preparation
programs in ensuring mastery of pedagogical skills for integrated STEM that included engineer-
ing. In addition, the absence or poor presentation of STEM in the required methodology courses
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 128

in the teacher preparation programs overlooked STEM education and practice of the prospective
elementary teachers. The newly implemented STEM course was poorly designed and misaligned
with the contemporary vision of STEM integration and it failed to provide meaningful experi-
ences for boosting preservice teachers’ self-efficacy for integrative STEM through engineering.
Current practices in public school elementary classrooms with prevailing language arts
and math instruction and strong focus on individual disciplines constrained preservice teachers’
opportunities to explore with STEM and provide integrated interdisciplinary instruction for
applying inquiry skills, complex problem solving, systems thinking, or engineering design. The
teacher candidates fell into dominant patterns of pedagogy in elementary public education.
Guided by master teachers who did not teach integrative STEM, the study participants were
more focused on completing the program requirements that were aligned with current practices
in elementary classrooms.
Nevertheless, the findings revealed the preservice teachers’ interest and desire to experi-
ment with STEM integration and engineering, recognizing their importance and value for
implementation of CCSS and NGSS with fidelity. Their curiosity and excitement about project-
based learning with scientific inquiry and engineering design surfaced in the discussions. They
wished for more time, opportunities, support, and better preparation for integrative STEM
through engineering to reduce their fears and anxiety and bolster their self-efficacy for STEM
integration. Amy concluded, “I hope this study will bring a little bit more STEM and engineering
into our classrooms.”
The implications of the findings are important and should be considered along with what
the data did not reveal. In that regard, Chapter 5 examines the implications of the findings and
makes recommendations for future research in order to identify an optimal path for preparing
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 129

elementary teachers who are efficacious in STEM integration through engineering. Designing a
teacher certification process that is aligned with the national goals, the state standards, and the
aspiring teachers’ interests and desires will serve elementary students well in making them suc-
cessful in their path to college and career readiness in the 21st century.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 130

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS
Researchers have claimed that prospective elementary teachers have insufficient back-
ground in STEM-related courses (Honey et al., 2014; Nadelson et al., 2013). Many teachers lack
subject matter knowledge and can make only superficial connections among disciplines. Ele-
mentary teachers are typically required to take a limited number of subject matter courses, cre-
ating gaps in conceptual foundation necessary for integrative instruction (Nadelson et al., 2013;
Pang & Good, 2000). Some teachers express anxiety due to the novelty of engineering concepts
and lack of comfort with open-ended questions that do not have concrete answers (Katehi et al.,
2009; Mann et al., 2011).
Most scholars have asserted that successful integration is dependent on teachers’ solid
understanding of each discipline and conceptualization of connections among them (Katehi et al.,
2009; Mann et al., 2011; Nadelson et al., 2013; Pang & Good, 2000). Classroom instruction must
develop student knowledge in individual subjects with the implementation of pedagogical strate-
gies that help to recognize connections among disciplines. Nadelson et al. (2013) designed a
successful inquiry-based STEM professional development effort for elementary teachers targeted
to address both teachers’ STEM content knowledge and pedagogy to close the gap with which
teachers enter the work force. This notion raises questions of why the gap exists and how to
minimize or eliminate it. The need for and purpose of an ongoing professional development
should be to provide teachers with emerging technologies, methodologies, and research-based
practices to meet the demands of the time. The closing of the gap is the responsibility of institu-
tions whose job is to ensure future elementary teachers’ STEM content knowledge and peda-
gogy.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 131

To that end, this study sought to identify preservice teachers’ perceptions of how their
undergraduate major and teacher preparation experiences had helped to shape their self-efficacy
and effectiveness to teach integrated STEM through engineering in their first years in the field.
The study participants were well aware of the importance of the integrated approach for
classroom instruction, particularly in relation to STEM integration. However, according to the
preservice teachers’ perceptions as revealed by the data, their educational experiences and the
student teaching practicum had not equipped them with the knowledge, skills, or strategies for
effective STEM integration through engineering.
Purpose of the Study
The NGSS require engineering to be taught along with other STEM disciplines in ele-
mentary classrooms. In order to equip teachers with knowledge and skills for engineering
instruction as required by the NGSS, teacher education must be aligned with this goal. Due to
this demand, it is critical to identify factors that contribute to high self-efficacy to teach engi-
neering as a STEM discipline and to design a pathway for preparing efficacious teachers for
effective STEM integration in elementary classrooms.
This study was guided by two research questions:
1. How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major influence their perceived self-
efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
2. How do the current instructional practices and field experiences in teacher preparation
programs for a multiple subject credential shape preservice teachers’ perceptions of efficacy to
teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
A survey, interviews, and observations were used for data collection. The multiple
sources allowed for triangulation of the data to increase the validity of the research findings and
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 132

overall study results. Prior to this study, research has not focused on exploring preservice teach-
ers’ self-efficacy to teach integrative STEM through engineering by encompassing systems
thinking and engineering design as a theoretical framework. Moreover, no previous study has
brought to light the need for a well-designed progression of an undergraduate degree, the
coursework in the teacher preparation program, and a strategic placement of preservice teachers
for student teaching experience for maximum effectiveness and increased self-efficacy to teach
integrative STEM through engineering in K–5.
Summary of the Findings
A small percentage of surveyed preservice teachers reported high self-efficacy to teach
engineering as part of STEM integration at the elementary level. The results illustrate that those
who reported higher self-efficacy had had a better subject preparation in their undergraduate
program. A background in math and science serves as a solid foundation of the disciplinary
knowledge and allows for focus on developing pedagogical skills for both designated and inte-
grated content instruction in the teacher preparation program.
The task of preparing preservice teachers who are effective in engineering instruction for
STEM integration is difficult and requires a well-designed educational pathway and ample
opportunities to develop competencies necessary for successful STEM integration in elementary
classrooms. As reported by the study participants, the preservice elementary teachers in the
teacher preparation program had limited opportunities to gain disciplinary knowledge, develop
pedagogical skills, and gain practice with an integrated approach for STEM and engineering
instruction.
As predicted by the social cognitive theory, teachers’ self-efficacy is mainly shaped by
vicarious and mastery experiences (Bandura, 1997). The data revealed that preservice elementary
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 133

teachers had had no opportunities to observe integrated STEM or engineering instruction in the
setting of the student teaching practicum. They also lacked opportunities for practice or mastery
experience to instruct integrative STEM through engineering. Consequently, few preservice
teachers had high self-efficacy for instructing STEM through engineering at the elementary
level. Lower self-efficacy in instructional practices for STEM compared to student motivation
and collaboration speaks of poor disciplinary preparation.
Conclusively, preservice teachers have novice-level understanding of the theoretical con-
structs and core principles in the field of integrated instruction. They hold disconnected bits of
knowledge and struggle to find ways to integrate them. Preservice elementary teachers are at the
level of conscious incompetence because they are aware of the existence of the concepts and the
skill set and, therefore, are cognizant of their own lack of knowledge in the field. The relatively
higher self-efficacy for student interest, motivation, and collaboration in STEM is related to
preservice teachers’ overall beliefs about their ability to engage students and create opportunities
for collaboration.
Many teachers neither view nor implement design pedagogy as a mechanism for learning
and as a learning process (Dym et al., 2005). Most lack understanding of holistic instructional
preparation with systems thinking as a framework for planning integrated instruction where each
disciplinary skill and knowledge is part of a whole. Prospective teachers learn the content and the
subject pedagogy in a fragmented manner and practice disciplinary teaching in isolation without
identifying deep connections and interrelationships between functional components of a complex
system such as integrated instruction. As a result, cognitive skills required for innovation and
habits of mind of a systems thinker are underdeveloped. Reflective analysis, as a critical step in
the engineering design process and an effective instructional practice, is imperative for
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 134

improvement and finding new solutions. Engineering design is a process of devising a system,
component or process to meet the desired needs with a constant feedback loop between all stages
(ABET, 2007; Howard et al., 2008). Instructional planning or design is a parallel process that
helps to devise functions, behaviors, and structures for carrying out a desired course of action in
working with systems such as STEM integration with reflective analysis for ongoing improve-
ment. Similar processes were not discussed by the participants and were not evident in the obser-
vations.
As discussed by Bybee (2011), the minimal presence of engineering standards in both
student education and teacher preparation requirements has established instructional practices
that hardly involve engineering as a subject, a way of integration, or a way of thinking. Further-
more, the expectations of preservice teachers with regard to STEM integration through engi-
neering remain unclear to the study participants and, as they perceived, resulted in practices that
did not prepare them well for engineering integration in K–5. The first attempt to incorporate
STEM and engineering in the teacher preparation program presented a weak opportunity for the
study participants to gain the necessary content and pedagogy skills for effective instruction. As
explained by Molly, the course was presented in a confusing manner and posed questions
regarding the alignment between the course objectives and the instruction. The transfer of this
knowledge into future classroom practice was as unclear. Feiman-Nemser and Buchmann (1986)
called this misalignment “a lack of articulation” between the goals and actual experiences and
found it to be “a common problem in teacher education” (p. 376).
Limited opportunities and confusing experiences with integrated STEM led to the study
participants’ feelings of anxiety and fear, as they reported. Teacher candidates have found
planning and delivering integrative STEM and engineering instruction to be overwhelming. This
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 135

complex task that requires an efficacious mind to persevere was not within the realm of their
teacher preparation experience. Failure to prepare efficacious preservice teachers who can carry
out a course of actions for intended outcomes and persist through complex tasks with open-ended
questions and variable solutions may stifle STEM-related innovation in education.
The study revealed preservice teachers’ interest in integrated instruction for STEM and
engineering. Aspiring elementary teachers recognize the importance of relevant and integrated
instructional practices. Connecting with their own experiences as a student, they shared that the
integrated, project-based, iterative learning was relevant and meaningful and had a long-lasting
effect. These preservice teachers shared their perceptions of the experience as lacking structure
and clear goals for STEM integration through engineering and lamented the minimal
opportunities to gain the knowledge, skills, and experience with integrative STEM.
Implications for Practice and Policy
The findings of this study have implications for the studied teacher education program as
a unique descriptive case for preparing credentialed elementary teachers who are efficacious in
their instructional practice for STEM integration through engineering. The study participants
were unclear as to whether teacher education standards were aligned with workplace demands
and state requirements established by the CCSS and NGSS. The findings of the study provide
clear evidence of the limited number of courses for higher-level math and science in the
participants’ educational background, suggesting a need for such courses in teacher preparation
programs, as recommended by Wilson (2011). As requested by the studied sample, creating more
opportunities for exposure to engineering both as a subject and as a way of integrating other
STEM disciplines would help teacher candidates to develop the competencies necessary for
bringing the contemporary vision of STEM integration to reality. A purposeful course of study
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 136

for preservice elementary teachers that ensures appropriate engineering knowledge and skills to
certify teachers of pre-engineering in elementary classrooms would be desirable for teacher
candidates, as the study participants’ reports revealed. Increasing teacher capacity to deliver
integrated STEM instruction in grades K–5 in the beginning years in a general education
classroom will provide students with quality STEM instruction with measurable outcomes. The
preservice teachers’ perspectives confirmed the findings and beliefs expressed by scholars in
regards to the challenges of preparing efficacious elementary teachers for STEM integration.
As described by the social cognitive theory, personal efficacy beliefs determine human
persistence in tasks to produce desired results (Bandura, 1997). Human agency is practiced
through self-perception and self-reflection and is critical for complex cognition required for
engineering design with systems thinking. STEM integration through engineering necessitates an
efficacious frame of mind. To adapt to inevitable changes in the field of education, preservice
teachers need to be equipped with strategies and tools for integrative instruction as a new best
practice in the modern education. The CCSS and the 4 C’s, the NGSS, and the national goal of
growing an innovative human capital continue to infuse a new educational philosophy that
requires a new pedagogy. To align the pedagogy in elementary classrooms with the vision of
STEM integration, the pedagogy in teacher preparation programs should be revisited to change
positively the perceptions held by teacher candidates.
Engineering standards will drive innovation in teacher preparation and training. Devel-
opment of engineering standards for K–12 will provide motivation and incentive for teacher
education colleges to include pedagogy of engineering and integrated instruction in their
programs (Bybee, 2011). Carr et al. (2012) supported the idea of engineering in teacher educa-
tion programs and suggested building an infrastructure to prepare teachers for engineering
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 137

instruction through integrated STEM framework. As a driving force in education reform, engi-
neering standards should be considered by educational policymakers to establish a tradition of
pre-engineering in public schools. This will help teacher education programs to establish clear
goals and teacher expectations with regard to STEM integration through engineering, leading to
development and implementation of effective methodology courses for engineering and integra-
tive STEM with measurable outcomes.
The views of the study participants regarding STEM-based pedagogical courses and the
clinical practice have implications for the studied teacher preparation program. The preservice
teachers’ perceptions indicate a need for careful considerations regarding the design and delivery
of the STEM methodology courses and more targeted support during the field practicum. A more
strategic placement of teacher candidates in the classrooms with effective implementation of
engineering and integrative STEM could help to improve their self-efficacy. The findings of the
study are consistent with conclusions reported by other researchers about the importance of
effective and efficacious role models for STEM integration through engineering that prospective
elementary teachers could emulate. The opportunities for practice with efficacious mentor
teachers who provide meaningful and constructive feedback on preservice teachers’ performance
in integrated STEM instruction through engineering will help to shape stronger self-efficacy
beliefs.
A successful model to consider for implementation is the MST program at the College of
New Jersey. The program serves pre-engineering teachers and includes an engineering compo-
nent in math, science, and technology courses, balancing between breadth of broad-core classes
and depth of disciplinary knowledge in STEM subjects (O’Brien, 2010). Its goal is to educate
STEM and pre-engineering teachers for underrepresented K–5 classrooms by preparing teachers
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 138

of math, science, technology, and engineering along with non-STEM subjects. The awareness of
the professors that they are educating future elementary teachers rather than engineers or scien-
tists has ensured strong disciplinary knowledge and effective pedagogy of integrated STEM
through engineering.
Ongoing professional learning for teachers and administrators is critical for making
incremental and continuing instructional changes in alignment with the NGSS. It is imperative
that school administrators adopt the new vision of integrative STEM and support teachers with
the variety of necessary resources, including a coherent curriculum. Current teacher professional
development opportunities should be augmented to support shifts in the instructional approach to
integrate scientific and engineering practices. Engagement of students in such practices helps to
develop habits of mind of an inquisitive and analytical life-long learner. Opportunities for
connected learning, inquiry-based student tasks, and complex problem solving with variable
solutions may be created by teachers with strong knowledge of the STEM disciplines and
integrated instruction. Hence, teacher professional learning should be focused on all three
dimensions of content as described by NGSS: practices, crosscutting concepts, and disciplinary
core idea (Achieve, Inc., 2013). Such teacher professional learning should also be connected to
the teachers’ instructional practices and build on their current professional competence.
The NRC (2015) suggested that professional learning should offer collaborative oppor-
tunities to deconstruct and analyze various teaching examples to determine their applicability to
the teacher’s own classrooms. Teachers’ active engagement in collaborative tasks will help them
to understand the importance of collaboration by students and encourage them to create purpose-
ful collaborative structures for student engagement and learning. Examples of effective profes-
sional learning programs are Science Teachers Learning from Lesson Analysis (STeLLA),
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 139

Project Lead the Way (PLTW), and Engineering is Elementary (EiE). Structured, targeted,
coherent and ongoing interventions for elementary teachers help to build capacity for integrated
STEM instruction through engineering in K–5 for their own effectiveness as teachers, as well as
for their effectiveness as mentors for preservice teachers during the field practicum.
Approaches that employ peer collaboration within an institution provide mutual support
complementary to their own concepts and pedagogy in the STEM disciplines, as well as collabo-
ration with experts in the field of engineering and integrated instruction, may also be beneficial
(Lederman & Lederman, 2013; Sanders, 2009). Putting together different conceptual and practi-
cal knowledge of different people in a professional group could lead to successful implementa-
tion of STEM integration through engineering. However, strong foundational knowledge,
conceptual understanding, and cognitive skills are necessary for all members of these profes-
sional groups to implement instructional practices with integrity to the contemporary vision of
STEM.
Implementation of aforementioned recommendations could result in stronger content
knowledge in the STEM disciplines, along with pedagogy of integrated instruction. As discussed
by the study participants, effective role models for integrated STEM instruction, well-designed
curriculum, ample planning time and opportunities for practice, strong administrative support,
and availability of resources are the essentials for starting to build STEM-related competence
and higher self-efficacy in prospective elementary teachers. Teacher candidates need to have a
clear understanding of goals and expectations of them in order to receive elementary teacher
certification that is aligned with the demands of modern education with the promise of 21st-
century college and career readiness. Studying the perceptions of student teachers may help this
teacher education program to develop a clear road map for preparing elementary teachers who
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 140

will bring the contemporary vision of STEM integration to reality and educate an innovative
human capital, starting as early as elementary school.
Recommendations for Future Research
Complementary to gaining comprehensive responses to the research questions, the study
identified additional inquiries that suggest further investigation through recommended future
research. The study investigated the perceptions held by prospective elementary teachers about
how their undergraduate major contributed to their self-efficacy for engineering and STEM
integration as it relates to disciplinary knowledge and skills. It also examined their beliefs
regarding current practices of teacher preparation programs that helped shape preservice
teachers’ self-efficacy to teach integrative STEM through engineering in general education
classrooms. Future studies of preservice teachers’ perceptions of efficacy in this specific
program may contribute to improved understanding of what is viewed by teacher candidates as
missing program components for building strong efficacy beliefs of prospective elementary
teachers who graduated from the program. Monitoring the aspiring teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
throughout the program may inform the reflective practices of the program for improved
implementation of STEM-based pedagogical courses.
Studying a larger sample could potentially yield different results due to encompassing a
broader variety of experiences. Enlarging the sample would provide additional evidence for
identifying contributing factors to the commonly reported self-efficacy level for teaching
integrative STEM through engineering by students in multiple subject credential programs.
Conducting research with a sample with strong technical backgrounds would be instructive for
teacher preparation programs as the impact of the teacher education experience would be easier
to determine. Observing how educational and field experiences shape the self-efficacy of
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 141

aspiring elementary teachers who have strong disciplinary knowledge in the STEM domain
would determine whether the most recent experiences in the teacher education program are more
significant and carry more weight for self-efficacy development, as Bandura (1997) suggested.
The findings of such a study could be constructive for recommended shifts in the practices of
teacher education programs.
Conducting a similar study with inclusion of document analysis would provide empirical
evidence of the practices in the teacher preparation program, along with examining the
preservice teachers’ beliefs. Identifying consistencies and inconsistencies between the actual
practices and the teacher candidates’ perceptions would be constructive for potential changes
necessary for shaping stronger efficacy beliefs of prospective teachers. Analyzing curriculum
documents such as course outlines and teacher performance assessments would help to improve
understanding of what STEM-related experiences were offered by the program, how the
preservice teachers performed on them, and how they contributed to development of their
efficacy beliefs.
The views and perceptions of the faculty and administration in the teacher preparation
program were not included in this study and could present a different perspective of the struc-
tures and systems in place for educating future elementary teachers who are ready to implement
effective integrative STEM instruction through engineering in K–5. Studying their beliefs and
understanding regarding STEM integration and engineering instruction in elementary schools in
triangulation with the data collected from preservice teachers in the same program could reveal
other aspects of the researched problem. Investigation of the professors’ own efficacy beliefs and
experiences with integrated instruction in the STEM domain could help to gain understanding of
their cognition in complex systems that serves them in creating ideas, expected behaviors, and
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 142

structures when designing and delivering pedagogical courses for STEM integration through
engineering.
Conducting a study with graduates of the studied program who have been strategically
placed for the field practicum in elementary schools where STEM integration through engineer-
ing is a common practice would help to reveal the influence of the student teaching experience
on prospective teachers’ self-efficacy. Following them on to their first year of elementary
teaching would aid in determining how their efficacy beliefs shaped their instructional practices
in their own classroom. Studying this transition is important, as it is known that teachers spend
less time on subjects in which they have low perceived efficacy because self-efficacy beliefs are
a powerful source for willingness to teach new subjects (Bandura, 1997; Mulholland & Wallace,
2001).
It is recommended to study the student teaching placement sites for preservice elementary
practicum that collaborate with the studied teacher preparation program. Particularly, studying
the mentor teachers’ self-efficacy in STEM integration through engineering at the elementary
level could complement the literature on the topic. Gaining insight regarding their competence
with integrated instruction could reveal potential outcomes for preservice teachers with regard to
STEM integration through engineering. The study could also identify the support and training
that cooperative teachers need to be effective as mentors for future elementary teachers.
The final recommended inquiry would focus on curricular efforts that have been made to
support instructional shifts required by the infusion of STEM integration and engineering in ele-
mentary classrooms. The NRC (2015) suggested that no comprehensive curriculum resources
have been developed to address the NGSS specifically and predicted that it would be several
years before those become available, as designing a quality curriculum is a multiyear process.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 143

Hence, it is important to gain insight into how existing materials are being used or may be used
to support alignment of classroom instruction in K–5 with the requirements of NGSS.
Conclusion
The study was designed to examine the perceptions held by future elementary teachers
regarding their preparation for providing integrative STEM instruction through engineering in
general education classrooms in order to lay a strong foundation for 21st-century skills necessary
for college and career readiness and to develop an innovative human capital for the competitive
global economy. The findings of the study illustrated preservice elementary teachers’ relatively
low efficacy beliefs for strategies in the STEM domain and feelings of fear and anxiety regarding
STEM that do not support development of strong self-efficacy in students in the studied multiple
subject credential program. Building the necessary competencies and offering a program aligned
with preservice teachers’ interests make the educational experience relevant and meaningful and
serve as a requisite for achieving the desired outcomes in elementary teacher preparation for pre-
engineering. The systemic shifts needed to graduate prospective elementary teachers with strong
efficacy beliefs regarding their capability to instruct integrative STEM and engineering
effectively include policy changes in the form of standards, along with methodology instruction
in the domain and practice opportunities during the field experience. Support must come from
policy makers, administrators, and faculty in the teacher preparation programs, as well as from
leaders and mentor teachers at the student teaching sites.
The analysis of the research findings, the discussion of implications for practice and
policy, and the recommendations for future inquiry are presented by a practitioner and researcher
in the field of elementary education with an engineering background. Merging the expertise in
both fields, the researcher has sought to provide an unbiased approach with the intent to con-
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 144

tribute to the literature on the topic and to inform changes in elementary teacher education. It is
anticipated that these findings and recommendations will prove beneficial for increasing aspiring
elementary teachers’ self-efficacy for providing integrative STEM instruction and pre-engineer-
ing in K–5 with measureable outcomes. A coherent systemic framework that includes engineer-
ing standards in K–12, pre-engineering in teacher preparation programs, and support through
induction and ongoing professional learning in the field for STEM integration through engineer-
ing is necessary for teacher certification in the 21st-century public education in the United States.
“Perhaps we should heed to the notion put forth by NAE that precollege engineering could serve
as a catalyst for significantly changing the way we educate our children, and that, if done right,
might precipitate rethinking the whole system” (Chandler et al., 2011, p. 47).
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 145

REFERENCES
Achieve, Inc. (20130). Next Generation Science Standards. Retrieved from http://www
.nextgenscience.org/next-generation-science-standards
Alexander, P. A. (2003). The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to profi-
ciency. Educational Researcher, 32(8), 10-14.
Allen, J. M. (2009). Valuing practice over theory: How beginning teachers re-orient their
practice in the transition from the university to the workplace. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 25, 647-654.
Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. (2007). ABET 2009 requirements.
Retrieved from http://www.abet.org/LinkedDocumentsUPDATE/CriteriaandPP/E001 09-
10EACCriteria.pdf
Avery, Z. K., & Reeve, E. M. (2013). Developing effective STEM professional development
programs. Journal of Technology Education, 25(1), 55-69.
Bairaktarova, D., Evangelou, D., & Citta, C. (2011). Developmental engineering: Using obser-
vation for understanding child behaviors as precursors to engineering thinking. Frontiers
in Education Conference, 2011, T3D-1.
Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher
education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 497-511.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psycho-
logical Review, 84(2), 191.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 146

Becker, K., & Park, K. (2011). Effects of integrative approaches among science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects on students’ learning: A preliminary
meta-analysis. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 12(5-6), 23-27.
Berlin, D. F., & Lee, H. (2005). Integrating science and mathematics education: Historical analy-
sis. School Science and Mathematics, 105(1), 15-24.
Blömeke, S., Suhl, U., & Kaiser, G. (2011). Teacher education effectiveness: Quality and equity
of future primary teachers’ mathematics and mathematics pedagogical content
knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(2), 154-171.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1998). Qualitative research in education: An introduction to
theory and methods. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in
P–12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 369-387.
Brouwer, N., & Korthagen, F. (2005). Can teacher education make a difference? American
Educational Research Journal, 42(1), 153-224.
Busch-Vishniac, I. J., & Jarosz, J. P. (2004). Can diversity in the undergraduate engineering
population be enhanced through curricular change? Journal of Women and Minorities in
Science and Engineering, 10(3), 50.
Bybee, R. W. (2011). K–12 engineering education standards: Opportunities and barriers.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Carr, R. L., Bennett, L. D., & Strobel, J. (2012). Engineering in the K–12 STEM standards of the
50 US states: An analysis of presence and extent. Journal of Engineering Education, 101,
539-564.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 147

Cartaut, S., & Bertone, S. (2009). Co-analysis of work in the triadic supervision of preservice
teachers based on neo-Vygotskian activity theory: Case study from a French university
institute of teacher training. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 1086-1094.
Chandler, J., Fontenot, A. D., & Tate, D. (2011). Problems associated with a lack of cohesive
policy in K–12 pre-college engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education
Research, 1(1), 5.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
ClassicLit.com. (n.d.). Victor Hugo. Retrieved from http://classiclit.about.com/od/
victorhugo/a/Victor-Hugo-Quotes.htm
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher
learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24, 249-305.
Cole, A. L., & Knowles, J. G. (1993). Shattered images: Understanding expectations and realities
of field experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 9, 457-471.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2014). Preparing America’s Students for college and
career. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org
Corcoran, E. (1981). Transition shock: The beginning teacher’s paradox. Journal of Teacher
Education, 32(3), 19-23.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 148

Davison, D. M., Miller, K. W., & Metheny, D. L. (1995). What does integration of science and
mathematics really mean? School Science and Mathematics, 95, 226-230.
Duffin, L. C., French, B. F., & Patrick, H. (2012). The Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale: Con-
firming the factor structure with beginning pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28, 827-834.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design
thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.
Ernst, J. V. (2013). Impact of experiential learning on cognitive outcome in technology and
engineering teacher preparation. Journal of Technology Education, 24(2), 31-40.
Evans, E. D., & Tribble, M. (1986). Perceived teaching problems, self-efficacy, and commitment
to teaching among pre-service teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 80(2), 81-85.
Fantilli, R. D., & McDougall, D. E. (2009). A study of novice teachers: Challenges and supports
in the first years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 814-825.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1990). Teacher preparation: Structural and conceptual alternatives. In W. R.
Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 212-233). New York,
NY: MacMillan.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach lessons from an exemplary support
teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17-30.
Feiman-Nemser, S., & Buchmann, M. (1989). Describing teacher education: A framework and
illustrative findings from a longitudinal study of six students. Elementary School Journal,
89, 365-377.
Greenberg, J., Walsh, K., & McKee, A. (2015). 2014 teacher prep review. Washington, DC:
National Council on Teacher Quality.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 149

Hall, C., Dickerson, J., Batts, D., Kauffmann, P., & Bosse, M. (2011). Are we missing oppor-
tunities to encourage interest in STEM fields? Retrieved from http://scholar.lib
.vt.edu/ejournals/JTE/v23n1/hall.html
Hammer, D., & Schifter, D. (2001). Practices of inquiry in teaching and research. Cognition and
Instruction, 19, 441-478.
Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Marathe, S., & Liu, L. (2007). Fish swim, rocks sit, and lungs breathe:
Expert-novice understanding of complex systems. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16,
307-331.
Honey, M., Pearson, G., & Schweingruber, H. (Eds.). (2014). STEM Integration in K-12 educa-
tion: Status, prospects, and an agenda for research. Washington, DC: National Acade-
mies Press.
Hong, J. Y. (2010). Pre-service and beginning teachers’ professional identity and its relation to
dropping out of the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1530-1543.
Howard, T. J., Culley, S. J., & Dekoninck, E. (2008). Describing the creative design process by
the integration of engineering design and cognitive psychology literature. Design Studies,
29(2), 160-180.
Hoy, A. W., & Spero, R. B. (2005). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of
teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 343-356.
Institute of Play. (2015). Glossary. Retrieved from http://www.instituteofplay.org/about/context/
glossary/
Jaramillo, R. (2013). Real-world design challenges: A crucial component of STEM teaching and
learning. Retrieved from http://www.asee-se.org/proceedings/ASEE2013/Papers2013/
187.PDF
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 150

Jerald, C. D. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring US students receive a world-class
education. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Cummins, M., Estrada V., Freeman, A., & Ludgate, H. (2013).
NMC horizon report: 2013 K-12 edition. Austin, TX: New Media Consortium.
Jonassen, D., Strobel, J., & Lee, C. B. (2006). Everyday problem solving in engineering: Lessons
for engineering educators. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(2), 139-151.
Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K–12 education. Under-
standing the status and improving the prospects. Washington, DC: National Academies
Press.
Kennedy. R. (1998). Robert Kennedy in his own words: The unpublished recollections of the
Kennedy years. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Knoblauch, D., & Hoy, A. W. (2008). “Maybe I can teach those kids”: The influence of con-
textual factors on student teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24,
166-179.
Koehler, C. M., Faraclas, E., Giblin, D., Moss, D. M., & Kazerounian, K. (2013). The nexus
between science literacy and technical literacy: A state-by-state analysis of engineering
content in state science standards. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research,
14(3) [Online]. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-
3102209331/the-nexus-between-science-literacy-technical-literacy
Korthagen, F. A. (2004). In search of the essence of a good teacher: Towards a more holistic
approach in teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 77-97.
Lammi, M., & Becker, K. (2013). Engineering design thinking. Journal of Technology Educa-
tion, 24(2), 55-77.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 151

Le Cornu, R. (2009). Building resilience in pre-service teachers. Teaching and Teacher Educa-
tion, 25, 717-723.
Lederman, N., & Lederman, J. (2013). Is it STEM or “S & M” that we truly love? Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 24, 1237-1240.
Mann, E. L., Mann, R. L., Strutz, M. L., Duncan, D., & Yoon, S. Y. (2011). Integrating engi-
neering into K–6 curriculum: Developing talent in the STEM disciplines. Journal of
Advanced Academics, 22, 639-658.
Matusovich, H. M., Streveler, R. A., & Miller, R. L. (2010). Why do students choose engineer-
ing? A qualitative, longitudinal investigation of students’ motivational values. Journal of
Engineering Education, 99, 289-303.
Mau, W. C. (2003). Factors that influence persistence in science and engineering career aspira-
tions. Career Development Quarterly, 51, 234-243.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Mella, P. (2012). Systems thinking: Intelligence in action. Pavia, Italy: Springer.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Fran-
cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Moulding, L. R., Stewart, P. W., & Dunmeyer, M. L. (2014). Pre-service teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy: Relationship to academic ability, student teaching placement characteristics, and
mentor support. Teaching and Teacher Education, 41, 60-66.
Mulholland, J., & Wallace, J. (2001). Teacher induction and elementary science teaching:
Enhancing self-efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 243-261.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 152

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 elemen-
tary teachers. Journal of Educational Research, 106(2), 157-168.
National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Mes-
sages. (2008). Changing the conversation: Messages for improving public understanding
of engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Academy of Engineering, Committee on Standards for K–12 Engineering Education.
(2010). Standards for K–12 engineering education. Washington, DC: National Acade-
mies Press.
National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2009). Engineering in K–12
education: Understanding the status and improvement prospects. Washington, DC:
National Academies Press.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher
education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers.
Retrieved from http://www.ncate.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket =zzeiB1OoqPk%3D
&tabid=7
National Education Association. (2012). Preparing 21st-century students for a global society: An
educator’s guide to the “4 C’s.” Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/A-
Guide-to-Four-Cs.pdf
National Research Council. (2005). America’s lab report: Investigations in high school science.
Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
National Research Council. (2015). Guide to Implementing the next generation science stand-
ards. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 153

National Science Foundation. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Iden-
tifying and developing our nation’s human capital. Washington, DC: Author.
O’Brien, S. (2010). Characterization of a unique undergraduate multidisciplinary STEM K–5
teacher preparation program. Journal of Technology Education, 21(2), 35-51.
Oh, S. (2011). Pre-service teachers’ sense of efficacy and its sources. Psychology, 2, 235.
Onafowora, L. L. (2004). Teacher efficacy issues in the practice of novice teachers. Educational
Research Quarterly, 28(4), 34-43.
O’Neill, S., & Stephenson, J. (2012). Exploring Australian pre-service teachers’ sense of effi-
cacy, its sources, and some possible influences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28,
535-545.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research,
66, 543-578.
Pang, J., & Good, R. (2000). A review of the integration of science and mathematics: Implica-
tions for further research. School Science and Mathematics, 100(2), 73-82.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Penner, D. E., Giles, N. D., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models:
Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(2), 125-143.
Pinnell, M., Rawley, J., Preiss, S., Blust, R., Beach, R., & Franco, S. (2013). Bridging the gap
between engineering design and PK–12 curriculum development through the use the
STEM education quality framework. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and
Research, 14(4), 28-34.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 154

Plourde, L. A. (2002). The influence of student teaching on pre-service elementary teachers’
science self-efficacy and outcome expectancy beliefs. Journal of Instructional Psychol-
ogy, 29, 245-253.
Poom-Valickis, K. (2014). Novice teachers’ professional development during the induction year.
Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 112, 764-774.
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15.
Quote/Counterquote.com. (2015). An inspiring politician’s more famous version. Retrieved from
http://www.quotecounterquote.com/2011/07/i-dream-things-that-never-were-and-
say.html
Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is adding the E enough?
Investigating the impact of K–12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM
integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44.
Ronfeldt, M., & Reininger, M. (2012). More or better student teaching?. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28, 1091-1106.
Ryan, A. M., Kuusinen, C., & Bedoya-Skoog, A. (2015). Managing peer relations: A dimension
of teacher self-efficacy that varies between elementary and middle school teachers and is
associated with observed classroom quality. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41,
147-156.
Sanders, M. (2009). Stem, stem education, stemmania. The Technology Teacher, 68(4), 20-26.
Schoon, K. J., & Boone, W. J. (1998). Self-efficacy and alternative conceptions of science of
pre-service elementary teachers. Science Education, 82, 553-568.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 155

Shober, A. F. (2012). Teacher quality 2.0 (Special Report 1). Washington, DC: American
Enterprise Institute.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.
Silk, E. M., & Schunn, C. (2008). Core concepts in engineering as a basis for understanding and
improving K–12 engineering education in the United States. Washington, DC: National
Research Council Workshop on K–12 Engineering Education.
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of
relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1059-1069.
Sousa, D. A. (2011). How the brain learns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming
learning powered by technology (National Education Technology Plan 2010).
Washington, DC: Author.
Veenman, S. (1984). Perceived problems of beginning teachers. Review of Educational
Research, 54(2), 143-178.
Velthuis, C., Fisser, P., & Pieters, J. (2014). Teacher training and pre-service primary teachers’
self-efficacy for science teaching. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 25, 445-464.
Wagner, T. (2012). Creating innovators: The making of young people who will change the
world. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Wang, H. H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011). STEM integration: Teacher
perceptions and practice. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education, 1(2), Article 2.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 156

Wideen, M., Mayer-Smith, J., & Moon, B. (1998). A critical analysis of the research on learning
to teach: Making the case for an ecological perspective on inquiry. Review of Educational
Research, 68(2), 130-178.
Wilson, S. (2011). Effective STEM teacher preparation, induction, and professional develop-
ment. Retrieved from http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/
Successful_STEM_ Schools_Homepage. html
Widnshitl, M., Thompson, J., & Braaten, M. (2009, November). The beginner's repertoire: Pro-
posing a core set of instructional practices for teacher preparation. Paper presented at
NSF DR-K12, National Science Foundation meeting, Washington, DC.
Wubbels, T., & Korthagen, F. A. (1990). The effects of a pre-service teacher education program
for the preparation of reflective teachers. Journal of Education for Teaching, 16(1), 29-
43.
Yaşar, Ş., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., Krause, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Development of a
survey to assess K–12 teachers’ perceptions of engineers and familiarity with teaching
design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 205-216.
Yeh, Y. C. (2006). The interactive effects of personal traits and guided practices on pre-service
teachers’ changes in personal teaching efficacy. British Journal of Educational Technol-
ogy, 37, 513-526.
Yesil-Dagli, U., Lake, V. E., & Jones, I. (2010). Pre-service teachers’ perceptions towards math-
ematics and science. Journal of Research in Education, 20(2), 32-48.
Zeichner, K. M., & Tabachnick, B. R. (1981). Are the effects of university teacher education
“washed out” by school experience? Journal of Teacher Education, 32(3), 7-11.
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 157

APPENDIX A
Recruitment Letter
You are being asked to participate in a study because you are currently enrolled in your last
semester of a teacher education program for a multiple subject credential. The purpose of the
study is to better understand the impact your education has on your perceived self-efficacy for
teaching integrative STEM through engineering in a general education classroom.

This study is guided by two research questions:
1. How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major influence their perceived self-
efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
2. How do the current instructional practices and field experiences of teacher preparation
programs for a multiple subject credential shape preservice teachers’ perceptions of
efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?

If you agree to participate, you will be asked to complete three activities over the course of 4-5
weeks: an initial survey (5-10 minutes), 1–2 audio-recorded interviews (30 minutes each) and 1–
2 classroom observations (up to 2 hours each).

You may decline to answer any question you don’t feel comfortable answering. All data
collected will be kept strictly confidential. If you don’t want to be taped, handwritten notes will
be taken. Any results published will be done so in a way which makes it impossible to identify
any participant.

Thank you in advance for considering this invitation.

Alina Vehuni
Vehuni@usc.edu
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 158

APPENDIX B
Preservice Teacher Survey Protocol
General Information
1. What is your undergraduate degree/major?_____________________________________
2. How many mathematics classes did you have in your undergraduate program?_________
3. How many science classes did you have in your undergraduate program?_____________
4. How many technology classes did you have in your undergraduate program?__________
5. How many engineering classes did you have in your undergraduate program?__________
6. What interdisciplinary courses did you have in your undergraduate program?
________________________________________________________________________
7. How were different subjects integrated in your undergraduate program?
________________________________________________________________________
8. How do you define engineering? _____________________________________________
Efficacy for Instructional Strategies
1. I can provide an alternative explanation or example when students are confused about the
engineering task at hand.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
2. I can craft good questions to help students navigate through a design project.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
3. I can implement alternative strategies in my engineering lessons.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
4. I can respond to difficult questions about engineering lessons from students.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 159

5. I can adjust engineering instruction to proper level for student understanding.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
6. I can gauge student comprehension of what I have taught about engineering.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
7. I can provide appropriate challenges in engineering instruction for very capable students.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
8. I can improve the understanding of a student who is failing in engineering.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
Efficacy for Student Interest and Motivation
1. I can explain engineering to make it more interesting to children.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
2. I can help students value learning about engineering.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
3. I can motivate students who show low interest in engineering lessons.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
4. I can assist families in helping their children do well in engineering.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
5. I can help my students think critically.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
6. I can foster students’ creativity in engineering.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
7. I can support the most difficult students in my engineering lessons.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 160

Efficacy for Student Collaboration
1. I can create a classroom environment conducive to learning engineering.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
2. I can make my expectations clear about students’ behavior for engineering lessons.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
3. I can form groups of students to ensure everyone’s engagement and contribution to an
engineering task.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well
4. I can plan and organize an engineering task to promote student collaboration for team
problem solving and design.
☐ Not at all ☐
Very Little ☐ Fairly Well ☐ Well ☐ Very Well

If interested to further participate in the study, please provide your contact information:
Name_________________________________________________________________________
Email_______________________________________________ Phone____________________

TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 161

APPENDIX C
Teacher Interview Protocol
RQ1: How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major influence their perceived self-
efficacy to teach engineering as part of the integrated STEM in K–5 classrooms?
1. Tell me about your path of becoming a pre-service elementary teacher.
2. What course(s) in the undergraduate school did you like the most, if any? Why?
3. What course(s) in the undergraduate school did you like the least, if any? Why?
4. What STEM disciplines were taught in your undergraduate program? To what extent?
5. How would you define engineering as a subject/content?
Probing questions:
a. Describe the concept of engineering
b. Describe the skill set of engineering
6. What kind of cognitive skills does engineering require?
7. What is the difference between a scientist and an engineer?
RQ2: How do the current instructional practices and field experiences of teacher
preparation programs for a multiple subject credential shape preservice teachers’
perceptions of efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5
classrooms?
1. What kind of training/academic course have you been provided in your teacher
preparation program to teach engineering along with math and science?
2. What are the expectations of you in this program in regards to STEM integration?
3. What opportunities are created in this program for you to demonstrate your ability to
teach integrated STEM through engineering?
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 162

4. How do you think you can integrate engineering with other subjects?
5. How do you design a lesson for integrated instruction of the STEM disciplines?
a. How would you teach engineering?
6. How can you structure your classroom environment to teach engineering?
7. What resources might you use to teach engineering?
a. What resources are provided?
8. What challenges might you face when teaching engineering?
9. What kind of support would you need to teach engineering?
a. What kind of support is available to you?
TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 163

APPENDIX D
Teacher Observation Protocol
Teacher ___________________________________________ Date _________________________
Grade/Subject: _____________________________________ Time: ________________________
Research Questions
1. How does preservice teachers’ undergraduate major influence their perceived self-efficacy to
teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?
2. How do the current instructional practices and field experiences of teacher preparation
programs for a multiple subject credential shape pre-service teachers’ perceptions of efficacy
to teach engineering as part of STEM integration in K–5 classrooms?

Classroom Environment
Number of Students
Current student work
on display (science,
math, engineering)

The classroom has
visible manipulatives
and tools (math,
science, engineering)

Grade level standards
are posted (math,
science, technology)

The schedule is posted
with a time block allo-
cated for STEM disci-
plines

Technology is present
(computers, tablets,
smartboards, other…)
Turned on/off, in
use/not in use

TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 164

Additional Classroom Observation Notes

Learning Opportunities for Students
Individual active learning (project-
based)
Learners working individually on a
real-world project, references made
regarding gathering information
outside of school for an assignment,
learning projects that deal with real
problems through exercises, simula-
tions, case studies, hands-on experi-
ences, etc.

Group active learning (project-
based)
Learners working in pairs or small
groups to complete the work same as
above

Group discussion
Teacher plays a less dominant role;
learners ask questions, answer each
other’s questions, explore, express
opinions, agree and disagree

Additional Learning Opportunities Observation Notes

TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 165

Teacher Instructional Strategies
What subject(s) were included in the
lesson? Did the lesson integrate more
than one discipline?

What was the objective of the lesson?
Did the teacher integrate standards/
concepts from other disciplines?

Did the teacher do modeling? How?
How many times?

If a student did not understand, did the
teacher recognized this and find
another way to communicate with that
student or make a plan to follow-up?

Did the teacher ask questions? Were
the questions assessing student factual
knowledge?
Assessing student understanding?
Engaging students in critical thinking?

Did the teacher summarize what the
students had learned at the end of the
lesson?

Additional Teacher Instructional Strategies Observation Notes

TEACHER PREPARATION FOR ENGINEERING 166

Observer’s Comments
What was the learning objective of the
class? Was it clear to you as an
observer? Did it seem clear to the
students? Explain your responses.

Was it an engineering lesson, or
another subject with integration of
engineering? Explain your responses.

Did the teacher seem engaged/
enthusiastic/dynamic or disen-
gaged/bored? Explain your responses.

Did students seem engaged/
enthusiastic or passive/bored? Explain
your responses.

Did the teacher feel comfortable/
confident teaching the lesson? How
could you tell?

What other information is important
to note?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study explored preservice elementary teacher preparation to teach engineering as part of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) integration as required by the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The purpose of the study was to understand how preservice teachers’ undergraduate major and teacher preparation programs for a multiple subject credential influence their self‐efficacy to teach engineering for STEM integration in elementary classrooms. The study informs future practices of teacher preparation programs for equipping elementary teachers with knowledge, pedagogical skills, and strategies for increased self‐efficacy to teach engineering as part of STEM integration at the elementary level. The qualitative design generated vivid descriptions of the participants’ experiences that had shaped their efficacy beliefs. The data collection methods were intended to allow four preservice teachers in the last semester of a teacher preparation program to share insight, personal thoughts, and beliefs, as well as self‐judgment regarding their anticipated capabilities to teach engineering as part of the integrative approach to STEM disciplines. From a relatively large sample, four participants who demonstrated high self‐efficacy on the survey were selected to participate in interviews and observations to inquire into their perceptions of readiness to integrate engineering with other subjects. The study analyzed how the participants’ perceived preparation translated to instructional practices in elementary classrooms related to STEM integration with an emphasis on engineering. The study results revealed aspiring elementary teachers’ subject preparation in the STEM disciplines and practices of teacher education programs as they relate to elementary teacher preparation for pre‐engineering and STEM integration in K–5 classrooms. The dissertation presents implications for policy and future practice of teacher preparation programs for a multiple subject credential. It makes recommendations for further research to identify ways of aligning practices of preservice elementary teacher education programs with requirements of modern elementary education.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

STEM + design thinking training: investigation of perceived changes in self‐efficacy, pedagogy, and conceptual development at the K-5 level

PDF

How are teachers being prepared to integrate technology into their lessons?

PDF

Addressing systemic challenges in elementary-school teacher preparation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics

PDF

Integrating STEM instruction through identifying interest and identity in STEM professionals

PDF

Promoting STEM integration, interest and identity among elementary school students

PDF

One Hawai’i K-12 complex public school teachers’ level of computer self-efficacy and their acceptance of and integration of technology in the classroom

PDF

Impact of participation in STEM organizations and authentic learning experiences on women of color engineering students

PDF

A comparative study of self-efficacy, outcome expectancy, and retention of beginning urban science teachers

PDF

Leadership for K-12 STEM integration: how superintendents champion the advancement of effective integrated STEM education within their districts

PDF

Evaluation study: building teacher efficacy in K8 computer science integration

PDF

The principal's perspective: essential factors when implementing integrative STEM in middle school

PDF

An examination of K-12 STEM integration by combining science inquiry with engineering design

PDF

The Education Teacher Performance Assessment: a model for teacher preparation?

PDF

Examining teacher retention and attrition in novice teachers

PDF

What is the relationship between early childhood teachers' training on the development of their teaching self-efficacy?

PDF

Latinas’ self-efficacy in computer science and potential factors undergirding their perspective

PDF

Pre-service teacher educator perceptions on preparing novice teachers for high quality teaching of K–12 students

PDF

Changing nature of preservice teacher concerns in an accelerated, graduate-level teacher education program

PDF

Integration of STEM and gardening for urban elementary youth

PDF

Developing a computer science education program: an innovation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Vehuni, Alina (author)

Core Title Preservice teacher preparation for engineering integration in K-5

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 07/07/2015

Defense Date 05/04/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag elementary teacher preparation,engineering in K-5,OAI-PMH Harvest,pre‐engineering,STEM integration,teacher self‐efficacy

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Freking, Frederick W. (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony B. (committee chair), Pascarella, John, III (committee member)

Creator Email avehuni@gmail.com,vehuni@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-588066

Unique identifier UC11300358

Identifier etd-VehuniAlin-3557.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-588066 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-VehuniAlin-3557.pdf

Dmrecord 588066

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Vehuni, Alina

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA