Graduate Biomedical Engineers Teaching Interdisciplinary Science Through Design at the K-12 Level

The purpose of this study is to determine how engineering doctoral fellows enact reform-based methods in secondary science classrooms. As engineering fellows near employment in the role of faculty members, they are well prepared in science, math, and engineering content and practice, however, they generally lack training in student learning and instruction. A pragmatic approach guided the investigation lead by three research sub-questions related to: a) practice alignment with the United States Next Generation Science Standards; b) knowledge of reformbased teaching practices; c) how fellows implement biomedical engineering research into secondary science classes. Surveys, interviews, and lesson plan documents were utilized to analyze the phenomenon from three perspectives in the form of an instrumental collective case study. The National Science Foundation GK-12 program, the context of the study, operated as a community of practice and supported and promoted the utilization of reform-based teaching practices with the help of mentor teachers and university faculty. Reform-based teaching practices, as defined here, are those instructional strategies that facilitate student learning within inquiry learning environments. According to constructivists’ views of learning, students gain a deeper understanding of concepts when actively engaged with science content and practice. At the premier level reform-based teaching practices refer to student-centered exercises pertaining to the investigation of scientific phenomenon and/or the design of products and processes. Inquiry-based practice is a common phrase employed to differentiate this level. The passive dissemination of information in the form of lecture-based strategies exemplifies traditional teaching, a teacher-centered approach. Instructional teaching strategies lie along a continuum from teacher-centered to student-centered. The former features pure lecture without student questioning, and the latter showcases students’ active engagement with investigation or design as the instructor facilitates. The findings reveal the warranted assertion that engineering fellows communicate biomedical engineering research with science and engineering practices through a belief about student learning. It was an individual personal belief about student learning that determined how fellows constructed modules; activities that represent or parallel dissertation work, and planned related pursuits to facilitate student understanding of the content and practice associated with biomedical engineering. The three participants chosen for explication signify varying approaches to teaching and each are positioned along the traditional/reform-based teaching practices continuum at different locations dependent on specific learning objectives. Consideration for student learning within a particular context directed how fellows approached lesson planning and module creation. The science and engineering practices were evident and interpreted differently by each fellow. Further investigation into how engineering fellows formulate engineering design tasks for secondary science students could provide insight as to how teachers could approach the Next Generation Science Standard’s engineering practices. In addition this study may inform institution leaders about possible options for faculty predevelopment. Introduction Rationale The aim of this investigation is to explore the experiences of three participants, in relation to the interpretation and enactment of U.S. reformed-based teaching practices. So, why examine this issue? The answer to this question is two-fold. First, post-secondary teaching practices are rarely reform-based, relying heavily on lecture due to lack of time attributed to faculty research responsibilities. In the future, engineering doctoral fellows will likely teach undergraduate and graduate courses. An understanding of reform-based practices could empower fellows to be thoughtful about selecting appropriate learning opportunities in their own practice. The findings present an opportunity for institution leaders to consider implementing strategies favorable to pre-faculty development. Secondly, science educators, untrained in the field of engineering, are baffled by the addition of the engineering practices contained within the U. S. Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). Knowledge of how engineers execute engineering design tasks could inform the application of engineering activities at the K-12 level. Faculty Teaching Practices University science, mathematics, and engineering faculty are inclined to use lecture and recitation on a regular basis as a means of providing students with course content and relevant practices. Some instructors at research institutions tend to value research activities over spending time preparing lessons in hopes of manuscript publication. Junior faculty and those who received pedagogical training in graduate school are more likely to employ reform-based teaching practices and seek outside sources for ideas about instructional innovation. New faculty members are likely to be very teacher-centered relying on PowerPoint to disseminate course content. Sadler illustrated that faculty may make small adjustments to teaching over time, with pedagogical training. These changes included posing questions and facilitating dialog among students, and between instructor and student. Instructors were motivated to use reform-based teaching practices when they felt comfortable with the class. Sadler describes this as “a shift in their way of thinking” (p. 154). This shift moves the instructor toward a philosophy of facilitation and away from the notion of instructor as disseminator of knowledge. Junior faculty, classified as part of the establishment stage of scholar development, include faculty who spend most of the time teaching and grading. A feeling of immense pressure drives junior faculty to seek a mentor in hopes of gaining a counselor, someone with years of experience willing to help while refraining from judgment. Mentoring from within the department or between departments initiates dialog promoting collegiality and supports respect, integrity, perseverance, and trust among faculty members. As a result of this support, faculty progress toward the advancement stage where they are more autonomous. Achieving a balance between teaching and research responsibilities generally defines this phase. Once tenure has been attained the scholar reaches a plateau and can gain a sense of relief. Achieving this milestone enables faculty more free time and stability both in work and life. Faculty members in the maturation stage have a wealth of knowledge. Individuals nearing retirement enter the withdrawal stage and are primarily responsible for teaching before they eventually leave the profession. In order to permit the cycle to continue, professors in the maturation and withdrawal stage frequently mentor new faculty members. For this relationship to be successful, the mentor and mentee must fully commit to the goals of the partnership for the bond to be successful. This investigation tries to simulate these mentor-mentee relationships, but instead of senior-junior faculty partnerships the study utilizes teacher-faculty-fellow associations because graduate students are not yet employed faculty members. Within engineering education Froyd, Borrego, Cutler, Henderson, and Prince established research-based instructional strategies (RBIS), also known as reform-based teaching practices or evidence-based practices, were attempted, but frequently terminated. Faculty felt RBIS took too much class and preparation time. In addition, faculty did not perceive RBIS to enhance student learning. According to Borrego, Froyd, Henderson, Cutler, and Prince faculty reported using some type of active learning; practices they describe as, “[a] very general term describing anything course-related that all students in a class session are called upon to do other than passively watch, listen and take notes”, within engineering science classes (p.1459). Active learning, situated in the middle of the traditional/reform-based teaching practice continuum, represents a combination of traditional and reform-based teaching strategies. Apparently, engineering faculty believe basic concept courses, also called engineering science courses, warrant more lecture and less active engagement. In some cases faculty are unsure how to structure courses and lessons to incorporate more higher-order reform-based teaching strategies. For example, faculty who value integrating problem-solving skills do permit group work during class. However, they are unable to conceptualize a different way to support problem-solving skills. If they know how they would be willing to try another method. The next section describes how U.S. teachers have had success with problemand design-based learning and student populations. The addition of these reform-based movements could benefit post-secondary science instruction, and therefore it would be advantageous for new faculty to be introduced to these strategies. Engineering Design and the Recent U.S. National Science Standards Engineering design tasks have the potential to connect science specific knowledge and overarching scientific concepts and to link functional design and creative innovation. Engineering design tasks encourage divergent thinking and stimulate creative solutions to novel problems. These tasks embed factual and conceptual knowledge of core ideas across scientific, mathematical, and technical fields within a specific context. The integration of content and practice enables one to function at higher orders of thinking. Similar to Problem Based Learning (PBL), Design Based Learning (DBL) unites science, math, and engineering practices in a context that induces problem solving skills within a cooperative learning environment. An example might be to design a heating system