Integrating Engineering, Science, Reading, and Robotics across Grades 3-8 in a STEM Education Era

Abstract

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) entered the general lexicon in the United States within the last ten years. Both Presidents Obama and Trump emphasized STEM education as a priority for the United States because the number of college graduates with STEM degrees is perceived as an important factor contributing to the global competitiveness of the United States. STEM refers to four disciplines but the acronym is generally interpreted to mean science or math rather than technology or engineering because only science and mathematics are included oftentimes in the school curriculum. In this paper, we describe our attempts to teach integrated STEM units to grades 3-8 students based on five different articles. The first two articles describe how we engaged grades 3-5 elementary students, in two different engineering design challenges (soda can crusher design and trash grabber design) by using our engineering design model. The third article summarizes how we taught epistemological aspects of engineering using picture books within an engineering design challenge. The fourth article illustrates how students in groups of two or three created biomimetic robots with coding. The fifth article details how students built an animatronic zoo showcasing a particular biome and animals living in it by using computational thinking.

Keywords

• STEM
• computational thinking
• engineering design
• nature of engineering
• robotics
• coding

References

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Akerson, V. L., Burgess, A., Gerber, A., Guo M., Khan, T.A., & Newman, S. (2018). Disentangling the meaning ofSTEM: Implications for Science Education and Science Education Research. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 29(1), 1-8.
3. Beheshti, E., Weintrop, D., Swanson, H., Orton, K., Horn, M., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Computational Thinking in Practice: How STEM Professionals Use CT in Their Work. Paper presented in the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association. Paper retrieved from https://par.nsf.gov/servlets/purl/10026245
4. Bybee, R. W. (2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: Q11 NSTA Press.
5. Conderman, G., & Woods, S. (2008). Science Instruction: An Endangered Species. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 44(2), 76- 80.
6. Dillon, S. (March 26, 2006). Schools push back subjects to push reading and math. New York Times. http://nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
7. Duke, N. & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In Farstrup, A. E. & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp.205-242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
8. Johnson. C. C. (2012). Implementation of STEM Education Policy: Challenges, Progress, and Lessons Learned. School Science and Mathematics, 102(1), 45-55.

9. Keefe, B. (2010). The perception of STEM: Analysis, issues and future directions. Entertainment and Media Industries Council.
10. Kemple, J. J., Corrin,W., Nelson, E., Salinger, T., Herrmann, S., & Drummon, K. (2008). The Enhanced Reading Opportunities Study: Early Impacts and Implementation Findings (NCEE 2008-4015). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
11. Gamse, B.C., Jacob, R.T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., and Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First Impact Study Final Report (NCEE 2009-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20094038.pdf
12. Lederman, N.G. (2007). Nature of science: Past, present, and future. In S.K. Abell, & N.G. Lederman, (Eds), Handbook of research on science education, (pp. 831-879). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. McMurrer, J. (February 20, 2008). NCLB Year 5: Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects. Center on Education Policy. https://www.cepdc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=309
14. McNeill, N. J., Douglass, E. P., Koro-Ljunberg, M., Therriault, D., & Krause, I. (2016). Undergraduate students’ beliefs about engineering problem solving. Journal of Engineering Education, 105(4), 560-584.
15. NGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
16. National Resource Council (1996). National Science Education Standards, Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
17. National Research Council. (2000). Inquiry and the national science education standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. Pratt, H. (2007). Science education’s overlooked ingredient: Why the path to global competitiveness begins in elementary school. NSTA Press. http://science.nsta.org/nstaexpress/nstaexpress_2007_10_29_pratt.htm Accessed November 14, 2013.
19. Swanson, H., Anton, G., Bain, C., Horn, M., & Wilensky, U. (2017). Computational thinking in science classroom. Paper presented in the International Conference on Computational Thinking Education. Retrieved from https://www.eduhk.hk/cte2017/doc/CTE2017%20Proceedings.pdf
20. Vasquez, J., A., Sneider, C., & Comer, M. (2013). STEM Lesson Essentials: Integrating Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
21. Weintrop, D., Beheshti, E., Horn, M., Orton, K., Jona, K., Trouille, L., & Wilensky, U. (2016). Defining computational thinking for mathematics and science classrooms. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 25(1), 127- 147.
22. Wheatley, K. F. (2002). The potential benefits of teacher efficacy doubts for educational reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 5-22.
23. Wilensky, U., Brady, C. E., & Horn, M. S. (2014). Fostering computational literacy in science classrooms. Communications of the ACM, 57(8), 24-28.
24. Wing, J. M. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33–35.