Increasing Early Opportunities in Engineering for Advanced Learners in Elementary Classrooms: A Review of Recent Literature

Abstract

Present and future challenges in our society demand a solid science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) knowledge base, innovative thinking, and the ability to ask the right questions to generate multiple solutions. To prepare innovators to meet these challenges, we must recognize and develop their talents. This advancement and growth can be encouraged through classroom activities, special schools, afterschool or summer programs, competitions, and informal learning opportunities that focus on STEM curricula and authentic experiences. Purposeful introductions, early exposure, and continuous development with science and engineering concepts can affect retention and sustain interest in STEM fields. This article describes how both in-school and informal science opportunities can provide authentic and experiential opportunities to stimulate students’ interests in science and engineering and foster their curiosity through problem-based investigations. In addition, the authors recommend appropriate STEM-focused professional development for teachers to provide engaging experiences for their students.

Keywords

science education professional development problem-based learning gifted learners advanced science students

Recently, there has been a push in education to infuse more technology and engineering practices into science instruction than has historically been utilized (Blackley & Howell, 2015; Bybee, 2013; National Research Council [NRC], 2011, 2013). These experiences not only prepare students for a progressively technical workplace (NRC, 2011, 2013) but also equip them with the critical thinking and problem-solving skills for jobs that have yet to be created (Milano, 2013). Integrating science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) opportunities at the elementary level during a time when they have the “most favorable attitude toward science” (Subotnik, Edmiston, & Rayhack, 2007, p. 35) has unprecedented benefits (DiFrancesca, Lee, & McIntyre, 2014). However, with mathematics and literacy being the main foci in the elementary grades, it has become increasingly important for learners to participate in STEM practices outside their classrooms to further develop learners’ positive dispositions toward STEM, and create social settings that promote lifelong learning. In essence, capitalizing on an interest in science, engineering, and technology may illustrate that STEM is comprised of more domains than simply mathematics.

Mechanisms are in place that provide teachers the opportunity to address STEM content in their classrooms. For example, crosscutting engineering themes are weaved throughout the Framework for K–12 Science Education, the foundation for Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). The increased emphasis on engineering symbolizes a shift in science education with engineering design, practices, and core ideas being acknowledged as essential understandings to meet present and future challenges. The intention of the framework is to deepen students’ understanding of science concepts that occur in daily life, to promote interest in STEM ideas and careers, and to better prepare them for complex problems they may face in the future (NRC, 2012). By providing opportunities to engage in problem solving and inquiry-based instruction, students can apply science and engineering practices that translate to societal and environmental problems they experience throughout their lives.

Future challenges will demand a solid STEM knowledge base, innovative thinking, and the ability to ask the right questions to generate multiple solutions (Roberts, 2011). “To keep an edge in technological and scientific endeavors, we must engage, encourage, and develop talents of adolescents with interests in STEM” (Subotnik et al., 2007, pp. 28–29). Furthermore, teachers should view themselves as “talent developers,” thus providing all students, and particularly gifted and high-ability students, with varied opportunities for investigative experiences in STEM (Roberts, 2010).

To prepare high-ability students to be innovators, the first step is to recognize and develop their talents. This advancement and growth can be encouraged through classroom activities, special schools, afterschool or summer programs, competitions, and informal learning opportunities that focus on STEM curricula and authentic experiences (Subotnik et al., 2007). Through investigative thinking, problem solving, and creative thinking experiences, students cultivate and sharpen science and engineering knowledge/skills and build perseverance (Roberts, 2010). Purposeful introduction, early exposure, and continuous development with science and engineering concepts can affect retention and sustain interests in STEM later in students’ school careers and fields of study (Roberts, 2010).

To address the need to improve STEM and engineering education among all students, and particularly among high-ability students, the authors conducted a review of recent literature focused on addressing barriers to integrating engineering in elementary classes, engineering experiences within in-school and afterschool programs, and quality and innovative professional development to support teachers in engineering instruction.

Literature Review

Barriers to Integrating Engineering With Elementary Students

Increasing opportunities for students to engage in engineering design practices is promising, but there are several obstacles that need to be addressed. For example, elementary teachers often do not have the time, knowledge, skills, or confidence to provide students investigative opportunities in science (Banilower, Smith, Pasley, & Weiss, 2006; Dailey & Robinson, 2016; Fulp, 2002; Murphy, Neil, & Beggs, 2007). Furthermore, teachers face various struggles with the addition of engineering design practices (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008) as a requirement of NGSS (Achieve, Inc., 2014). In a study by Hsu, Purzer, and Cardella (2011), elementary teachers recognized the importance of teaching engineering design, but they did not feel prepared to integrate engineering into their own classrooms. Teachers in the study indicated that they had not received enough support and training in engineering instruction through preservice or in-service experiences. Furthermore, teachers reported common barriers of time, training, and knowledge when attempting to integrate engineering into their curriculum (Hsu et al., 2011). Despite teacher trepidations toward teaching engineering, Hsu and colleagues found that teachers were eager to learn more about engineering instruction through professional development experiences and peer training. In response to their findings, Hsu and colleagues suggested participation in summer institutes with yearlong sustained support could improve teachers’ willingness and knowledge in engineering instruction. In addition, other researchers found that engaging teachers in design challenges as students and providing them opportunities to work with students during professional learning increased their efficacy for engineering instruction (Lesseig, Slavit, Nelson, & Seidel, 2016; Yoon, Diefes-Dux, & Strobel, 2013).

With barriers to engineering instruction in mind and consideration of quality professional development, it is necessary to consider transformational and innovative teacher learning opportunities. For example, providing teachers experiences with students in informal learning environments coupled with professional development provided by STEM professionals in the field could equip teachers with the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed to engage high-ability and gifted students in science and engineering design practices. To sustain these changes in and beyond a teacher’s classroom, Hsu et al. (2011) and Lesseig et al. (2016) stressed the importance of administrative support when adding engineering to the curriculum. One common barrier to science and engineering instruction is material costs (Dailey & Robinson, 2016); therefore, administrative support is necessary when trying to fund an engineering program.

In-School Opportunities for Engineering

Scheduling demands due to testing requirements often cause elementary teachers to limit science instruction. In a study by Sandholtz and Ringstaff (2011), 56% of teachers reported that time was their greatest obstacle to teaching science, and they often would eliminate science instruction once testing preparation for state-mandated tests began. Similarly, Griffith and Scharmann (2008) found that 56% of teachers reduced science time to focus on mathematics and literacy instruction. To address time constraints, teachers should consider integrating science and engineering into mathematics and literacy content. Educators can often see the connection between mathematics and science content, but may have a more difficult time integrating science into literacy. However, Romance and Vitale (2011) suggested that integrating science into literacy instruction was beneficial to students and it often addressed teachers’ concerns about time. In fact, Romance and Vitale found that integrating science into the literacy block not only increased science scores but also increased literacy scores on state-mandated tests. In the literacy block, students were engaging in hands-on science experiments, reading and writing about science, journaling about their experiences, and creating concept maps. Blueprints for Biography is another curriculum model that crosses the disciplines of language arts, history, and science. STEM Blueprints are a series of teacher curriculum guides focused on eminent scientists and inventors for whom exemplary children’s biographies exist in trade book form (Robinson, Adelson, Kidd, & Cunningham, 2017). In a recent randomized control study with gifted learners, teachers implemented STEM Blueprints to augment gifted students’ curriculum in conjunction with a problem-based learning science unit. At the conclusion of the study, Robinson and colleagues found increased achievement in science concepts, content, and process skills among gifted students in the experimental group as compared with students in the control group (Robinson, Dailey, Cotabish, & Hughes, 2014).

When integrating science and/or engineering into literature, Buchanan and Dailey (2017) suggested that students identify problems and seek solutions to the problems presented in the stories. With early grade standards focused on fiction stories, fairy tales can engage students in the engineering design process. Fairy tales have multiple problems, thereby, giving students multiple opportunities to identify and solve problems. Buchanan and Dailey described how Goldilocks and the Three Bears could guide students in a study of heat energy by identifying and solving the problem of keeping the temperature of the porridge just right. To solve the problem, students design a device to keep the porridge at the optimum temperature. In the study of fairy tales or other fictional stories, Buchanan and Dailey suggested that advanced students find their own problem in the story and use the engineering design process to develop solutions to the problem. Fictional stories can also be used in upper grades. Consider the Hunger Games and the countless problems that could be identified and solved through the engineering design process. For example, food was scarce in the districts due to issues such as poor climate and nutrient-deficient soil. Students could design a food producing plant that could grow in adverse conditions. Through this problem, students not only utilize the engineering design process but also investigate environmental factors that affect plant life. In summary, by understanding the barriers teachers face when implementing science and engineering instruction, such as time, we can attempt to support them with curricular options and resources to help them meet multiple content standards and engage students in learning science and engineering. In turn, teachers capitalize on students’ interest to fulfill learning needs.

Informal Learning Opportunities for Engineering

In addition to in-school science and engineering, it is especially beneficial for advanced learners to have out-of-school opportunities (informal learning) in STEM to develop their talent (Houseal, Abd-El-Khalick, & Destefano, 2014; Leblebicioglu, Metin, Yardimci, & Cetin, 2011; Metin & Leblebicioglu, 2011; Riedinger, 2015). Although the majority of reform efforts have focused on schools, children of school age spend only 20% of their waking hours in schools; the other 80% is spent outside of school, including in supervised out-of-school programs that meet after school hours, on weekends, and during the summer (Stevens, Bransford, & Stevens, 2005). Informal learning programs enrich student learning in a risk-free environment designed to increase their interest, talent, and confidence in the subject matter (Leblebicioglu et al., 2011; Metin & Leblebicioglu, 2011; Roberts, 2010, 2011). Typically, informal learning programs provide students opportunities to explore and engage in topics that are often avoided in school. Strategies that support STEM learning, such as hands-on learning experiences, inquiry-based pedagogy, and connecting STEM to everyday life are widely applied in many out-of-school STEM programs (Dierking et al., 1997; STEM Education Coalition, 2016). Out-of-school STEM programs leverage common structural features such as hands-on activities, ungraded or unassessed activities, multiage groupings, and fluid uses of time to spark, sustain, and extend young people’s interest, and to develop students’ understanding and commitment to STEM (Afterschool Alliance, 2013).

Informal learning programs can be especially enriching for students from underrepresented groups, providing them with opportunities to develop their interest and, possibly, talent in a specific field of study (Denson, Lammi, White, & Bottomley, 2015). By targeting communities with low-income diverse populations, informal learning programs can serve students who do not typically participate in summer enrichment opportunities or Saturday sessions. Programs that engage students in motivating and fun activities (e.g., robotics, tinkering, or engineering design) and are focused on relevant issues can bolster low-income students’ confidence in STEM and engineering and possibly lead them to entering a STEM field as a career choice (Bryant Davis, & Hardin, 2013). However, even with free or low tuition costs for programs, it can be difficult to attract low-income learners to attend the camps (Dailey, Jackson, Cotabish, & Trumble, 2017). Low-income families often face transportation issues when trying to get their children to camps. To alleviate this problem, programs could consider providing transportation to and from the camp or offering the camp in a centralized location such as a community center (Bryant Davis & Hardin, 2013).

In recent years, STEM-focused camps that engage young learners in the practices of science and engineering have become readily available. One such example, STEMulate Engineering Academy, offers unique engineering design experiences to engage students in scientific research and investigation to find evidence-based solutions to real-world questions. The program is located at a midsize university in a southern state and serves as a practicum experience for teachers seeking a gifted and talented certificate. Through collaboration with engineers, STEMulate Engineering Academy students experience engineering problems firsthand and take on an engineer’s identity to investigate and find answers to problems just like engineers in the field (Houseal et al., 2014; Riedinger, 2015). This experience helps students develop a realistic understanding of engineering principles (not just a subject or something studied in class) and, possibly, influence students to discover their interest and talents in a STEM discipline (Leblebicioglu et al., 2011; Riedinger, 2015). Despite the limited number of contact hours, students made significant gains in science and engineering knowledge the past 2 years (Dailey et al., 2017). Other anecdotal evidence from the camp included the impact on student engagement, student enthusiasm for engineering, and overall parent satisfaction with the camp. These findings suggest that learning in an informal setting makes a difference (Dailey et al., 2017) and may spark student interest in STEM that could lead them to a promising career in a STEM field (Leblebicioglu et al., 2011; Riedinger, 2015).

Professional Development to Support Teachers in Engineering

As previously indicated, teachers face multiple barriers when implementing science and engineering instruction including knowledge and skills that contribute to their confidence and self-efficacy for teaching (Banilower et al., 2006; Dailey & Robinson, 2016; Fulp, 2002; Murphy et al., 2007). To assist teachers with implementing science and engineering, they need support for addressing these barriers, including quality professional development opportunities (Hsu et al., 2011). Duschl, Schweingruber, and Shouse (2007) indicated that quality professional development should include sustained follow-up support, learning using classroom-specific curriculum, information on how students learn science, and models of how to teach science. Professional development should model exemplary instruction differentiated to meet the needs of all learners and utilize classroom-specific curricula (Duschl et al., 2007). In a recent study by Dailey and Robinson (2016), teachers indicated they preferred to take the role of the student as the professional development instructor guided them through their classroom-specific unit lessons. Teachers appreciated the opportunity to view the perspective of the student by completing the activities designed for their classroom. Professional development also should provide teachers contexts to integrate engineering practices into science or other disciplines (Guzey, Tank, Wang, Roehrig, & Moore, 2014). Integrating engineering into other subject areas allows teachers to add a real-world component to their science instruction (Roehrig, Moore, Wang, & Park, 2012), which in turn, increases student engagement and conceptual understanding (Drake & Long, 2009).

One way to design an effective and coherent learning experience for teachers is to establish a system that includes identifying specific engineering processes and linking them to real-world professional development activities (Cotabish, Garimella, & Boshears, 2017). Farmer and Klein-Gardner (2014) have identified standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering that are aligned with current research in professional development and teaching and learning, and have been adopted by the American Society of Engineering Education. From this effort, they developed the Matrix for Assessing and Planning Engineering Professional Development (MAPEPD; see link to Matrix in “References”). Organized as a rubric, the MAPEPD describes each process around four levels of emphasis: high emphasis, moderate emphasis, low emphasis, and no emphasis for the five standards they developed. These standards are as follows:

Standard A: Engineering Content and Practices

Standard B: Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching Engineering

Standard C: Engineering as a Context for Teaching and Learning

Standard D: Curriculum and Assessment

Standard E: Alignment to Research, Standards, and Educational Practices

MAPEPD allows professional development facilitators the opportunity to identify specific processes and levels of emphasis associated with each engineering standard. The matrix can guide professional development designers in their efforts to deliver competent engineering professional development. According to the authors of the MAPEPD, “these standards are intended to inform the design of future professional development offerings and, while not evaluative, may be used informally as a tool for describing the content and characteristics of professional development programs” (Farmer & Klein-Gardner, 2014, p. 45). The self-assessment component of the matrix will enable providers and consumers of engineering professional development to determine the extent to which a given program focuses on each of those standards (Reimers, Farmer, & Klein-Gardner, 2015).

STEM-focused peer coaching for embedded professional development

To increase the effectiveness of the professional development, teachers need sustained and embedded support through models such as peer coaching (Dailey & Robinson, 2016). Peer coaching allows the teacher to work with a mentor or coach in the context of the classroom by helping and providing support as the teachers transfer newly acquired learning and skills from the workshop or training to their classroom (Joyce & Showers, 1981). Overall effectiveness of the professional development program increases when peer coaching is utilized. For example, in a randomized control trial, Neuman and Cunningham (2009) found statistically significant results in teacher instructional activities when peer coaching was combined with a 3-hour professional development course, whereas those only enrolled in the course had no significant changes. To increase the effectiveness of the peer-coaching program, Appleton (2008) recommended that coaches focus on enhancing the science pedagogical knowledge of teachers and providing resources for teachers to obtain needed content knowledge. He found that, although teachers may not have become experts in science, they could access the knowledge they needed to teach their lessons.

Bug-in-the-Ear (BIE) technology and peer coaching

Although STEM-focused peer coaching appears to be a viable solution to providing teacher professional development, content expertise may not be readily available in one’s school. However, a recent innovation may provide a low-cost solution to this barrier. In a recent study, a virtual coaching innovation utilizing Bluetooth devices enabled university supervisors to provide immediate corrective feedback to nontraditional teacher candidates during a semester-long internship experience (Wake, Dailey, Cotabish, & Benson, 2016). Specifically, the intervention employed on-demand corrective feedback utilizing Skype Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and BIE Bluetooth technology. Participants reported their perceptions and concerns about participating in the virtual coaching intervention. Findings suggested that the innovation was not disruptive and enabled participants to redirect their instructional practices and behaviors immediately. The implications of the study have relevance to both teacher education and embedded teacher professional development, particularly to STEM-focused disciplines where content expertise is often lacking in classrooms serving high-ability learners. Essentially, content expertise can be sought remotely across school buildings, districts, within a state, or across borders—eliminating unnecessary borders that prevent collaboration. Simply put, one teacher would be equipped with an inexpensive Bluetooth earpiece and would connect with another teacher (content expert) via Skype (or another VoIP provider). The content expert would coach through the earpiece. Students are not distracted and are often unaware that the teacher is being coached. The innovation shows promise in an education climate of diminishing dollars and limited time for teachers to be away from their classrooms.

Conclusion

Engagement in science-based inquiry, participation in problem-based learning, exposure to STEM-related careers, and positive experiences in STEM are driving components that will likely increase student interest in science and engineering. These factors are arguably some of the most critical factors for raising the bar and challenging gifted and high-ability learners who demonstrate an interest in STEM disciplines. Both in-school and informal science experiences provide authentic and experiential opportunities to stimulate students’ interests in science and engineering and foster their curiosity through problem-based investigations that are powerful, meaningful, and relevant. Beyond the classroom, informal science learning experiences have the ability to reverse negative or uncomfortable attitudes toward science, encourage exploration in scientific practices, and provide memorable experiences outside the formal classroom (Leblebicioglu et al., 2011; Metin & Leblebicioglu, 2011). However, teachers must be prepared to provide learning experiences matched to student needs. Appropriate STEM and engineering-focused professional development must be made available, which may require innovative approaches to delivery. Whether the delivery mechanisms in place include traditional workshops, face-to-face coaching, or virtual peer-coaching experiences, student outcome-based planning is required and essential for increasing early opportunities in engineering for advanced learners in elementary classrooms.

Because the NGSS is relatively new, there is little research focused on engineering interventions, specifically with gifted students. As more states adopt NGSS or similar science standards, additional research should be produced. A relatively new project, STEM Starters Plus, was awarded a Jacob K. Javits grant in 2014, and it focused on engineering education with gifted students (Robinson, Kidd, & Adelson, 2017). Through programs such as STEM Starters Plus, research-based evidence for engineering instruction with gifted learners will soon be available.

Finally, educators interested in integrating engineering into their curriculum can find multiple resources (see Table 1) to assist them with curriculum changes and should seek professional development support through traditional or innovative means (virtual) to meet their training needs. To assist in curriculum development, common components of quality engineering curriculum should focus on student interests, provide opportunities for rigorous challenges, and incorporate an integrated approach addressing multiple content standards (Buchanan & Dailey, 2017). For those interested in out-of-school experiences, informal learning opportunities should include the suggested foci on the curriculum and provide students opportunities for in-depth study in an area of their choice while offering students opportunities to collaborate with professionals.

Table 1.

Resources for Engineering Instruction.

Engineering Education: Museum of Science Boston (http://www.mos.org/eie)

Engineering by Design, International Technology and Engineering Educators
Association (http://www.iteea.org/STEMCenter/EbD.aspx)

Kids Invent! (http://www.kidsinvent.org)

Invent Iowa (http://www2.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/Students/inventia)

Invent Now, Inc. (http://www.inventnow.org)

PBS Kids Design Squad Global (http://pbskids.org/designsquad/parentseducators/workshop/resources.html)

PBS LearningMedia Teaching NGSS Engineering Design Through Media (http://www.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/ngss-eng)

Project Lead the Way (https://www.pltw.org)

Teach Engineering: Curriculum for K–12 Teachers (https://www.teachengineering.org)

TryEngineering Lesson Plans (http://tryengineering.org/lesson-plans)

Note. NGSS = Next Generation Science Standards.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article.

ORCID iD

Debbie Dailey

Author Biographies

Debbie Dailey, EdD, is an assistant professor of teaching and learning at the University of Central Arkansas where she is the coordinator for the Gifted and Talented Program and director of STEMulate Engineering Academy. She has authored and coauthored multiple publications including journal articles, books, book chapters, and products focused on K–12 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and gifted education. She currently serves as the secretary for the Council for Exceptional Children–The Association for the Gifted (CEC-TAG).

Alicia Cotabish, EdD, is an associate professor of teaching and learning at the University of Central Arkansas. She is the immediate past president of the Arkansas Association of Gifted Education Administrators. She has authored, coauthored, and contributed to five books and a number of journal articles, book chapters, and products focused on K–20 STEM and gifted education.

Nykela Jackson, PhD, is an assistant professor of teaching and learning at the University of Central Arkansas. She earned a PhD (higher education administration) and MEd (gifted education) from the University of Southern Mississippi. She has worked in public schools (elementary/middle levels, gifted education, and instructional technology) and education administration (curriculum and assessment). Her research interests include culturally responsive teaching, differentiated instruction, and STEM education.

References

Achieve

Inc

. (2014). Next Generation Science Standards. Washington, DC: Author.

Afterschool Alliance. (2013). Defining youth outcomes for STEM learning in afterschool. Retrieved from http://www.afterschoolalliance.org/STEM_Outcomes_2013.pdf

Appleton

(2008). Developing science pedagogical content knowledge through mentoring elementary teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 19, 523–545. doi:10.1007/s10972-008-9109-4

Banilower

E. R.

Smith

P. S.

Pasley

J. D.

Weiss

I. R.

(2006). The status of K–12 science teaching in the United States: Results from a national observation survey. In Sunal

Wright

(Eds.), The impact of state and national standards on K–12 teaching (pp. 83–122). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Blackley

Howell

(2015). A STEM narrative: 15 years in the making. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(7), 101–112.

Brophy

Klein

Portsmore

Rogers

(2008). Advancing engineering education in P–12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97, 369–387.

Bryant Davis

K. E.

Hardin

S. E

. (2013). Making STEM fun: How to organize a STEM camp. Teaching Exceptional Children, 45(4), 60–67.

Buchanan

Dailey

(2017). Engineering design for high-ability learners. In Dailey

Cotabish

(Eds.), Designing innovative engineering instruction for high-ability learners in K–8 classrooms (pp. 121–138). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Bybee

R. W.

(2013). The case for STEM education: Challenges and opportunities. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

10.

Cotabish

Garimella

Boshears

(2017). Professional development for teachers of engineering. In Dailey

Cotabish

(Eds.), Designing innovative engineering instruction for high-ability learners in K–8 classrooms (pp. 181–188). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

11.

Dailey

Jackson

Cotabish

Trumble

(2017). STEMulate engineering academy: Engaging students and teachers in engineering practices. Manuscript submitted for publication.

12.

Dailey

Robinson

(2016). Elementary teachers: Concerns about implementing a science program. School Science and Mathematics, 116, 139–147. doi:10.1111/ssm.12162

13.

Denson

Lammi

White

T. F.

Bottomley

(2015). Value of informal learning environments for students engaged in engineering design. Journal of Technology Studies, 41(1), 40–46.

14.

Dierking

L. D.

Falk

J. H.

Holland

Fisher

Schatz

Wilke

(1997). Collaboration: Critical criteria for success. Washington, DC: Association of Science-Technology Centers.

15.

DiFrancesca

Lee

McIntyre

(2014). Where is the “E” in STEM for young children? Engineering design education in an elementary teacher preparation program. Issues in Teacher Education, 23(1), 49–64.

16.

Drake

K. N.

Long

(2009). Rebecca’s in the dark: A comparative study of problem-based learning and direct instruction/experiential learning in two fourth-grade classrooms. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 1–16.

17.

Duschl

Schweingruber

H. A.

Shouse

(2007). Taking science to school: Learning and teaching science in grades K–8. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

18.

Farmer

Klein-Gardner

(2014). K–12 teachers of engineering—Professional development matrix. Retrieved from https://www.asee.org/documents/papers-and-publications/papers/outreach/K-12_Teachers_of_Engineering-Professional_Development_Matrix.pdf

19.

Fulp

S. L.

(2002). Status of elementary school science teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved from http://2000survey.horizon-research.com/reports/elem_science/elem_science.pdf

20.

Griffith

Scharmann

(2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.

21.

Guzey

S. S.

Tank

Wang

H. H.

Roehrig

Moore

(2014). A high-quality professional development for teachers of grades 3–6 for implementing engineering into classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 114, 139–149.

22.

Houseal

A. K.

Abd-El-Khalick

Destefano

(2014). Impact of a student teacher scientist partnership on students’ and teachers’ content knowledge, attitudes toward science, and pedagogical practices. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 51, 84–115.

23.

Hsu

M. C.

Purzer

Cardella

M. E.

(2011). Elementary teachers’ views about teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Pre-college Engineering Education Research, 1, 31–39. doi:10.5703/1288284314639

24.

Joyce

Showers

(1981). Transfer of training: The contribution of coaching. Journal of Education, 163, 163–172.

25.

Leblebicioglu

Metin

Yardimci

Cetin

P. S.

(2011). The effect of informal and formal interaction between scientists and children at a science camp on their images of scientists. Science Education International, 22, 158–174.

26.

Lesseig

Slavit

Nelson

T. H.

Seidel

R. A.

(2016). Supporting middle school teachers’ implementation of STEM design challenges. School Science & Mathematics, 116, 177–188. doi:10.1111/ssm.12172

27.

Metin

Leblebicioglu

(2011). How did a science camp affect children’s conceptions of science? Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 12(1), 1–29.

28.

Milano

(2013). The Next Generation Science Standards and engineering for young learners: Beyond bridges and egg drops. Science & Children, 51(2), 10–16.

29.

Murphy

Neil

Beggs

(2007). Primary science teacher confidence revisited: Ten years on. Educational Research, 49, 415–430. doi:10.1080/00131880701717289

30.

National Research Council. (2011). Successful K–12 STEM education: Identifying effective approaches in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

31.

National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K–12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

32.

National Research Council. (2013). Monitoring progress toward successful K–12 STEM education: A nation advancing? Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

33.

Neuman

S. B.

Cunningham

(2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 532–566.

34.

Reimers

J. E.

Farmer

C. L.

Klein-Gardner

S. S.

(2015). An introduction to the standards for preparation and professional development for teachers of engineering. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 5(1), Article 5. doi:10.7771/2157-9288.1107

35.

Riedinger

(2015). Identity development of youth during participation at an informal science education camp. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 10, 453–475.

36.

Roberts

J. L.

(2010). Talent development in STEM disciplines: Sparking innovators. NCSSSMST Journal, 15(2), 7–9.

37.

Roberts

J. L.

(2011). Talent development in STEM disciplines: Developing talent that leads to innovation. NCSSSMST Journal, 16(2), 10–11.

38.

Robinson

Adelson

J. L.

Kidd

K. A.

Cunningham

C. M.

(2017). A talent for tinkering: Developing talents in children from low-income households through engineering curriculum. Gifted Child Quarterly. Advance online publication. doi: 10:1177/0016986217738049

39.

Robinson

Dailey

Cotabish

Hughes

(2014). The effects of a STEM intervention on gifted elementary students’ science knowledge and skills [Special issue]. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25, 189–213. doi:10.1177/1932202X14533799

40.

Robinson

Kidd

Adelson

(2017). Engineering in formal and informal environments: Engineering is elementary—Considerations when implementing for high-ability learners. In Dailey

Cotabish

(Eds.), Designing innovative engineering instruction for high-ability learners in K–8 classrooms (pp. 207–208). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

41.

Roehrig

G. H.

Moore

T. J.

Wang

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, 31–44.

42.

Romance

N. R.

Vitale

M. R.

(2011). A research-based instructional model for integrating meaningful learning in elementary science and reading comprehension: Implications for policy and practice. In Stein

N. L.

Raudenbush

S. W.

(Eds.), Developmental cognitive science goes to school (pp. 127–142). New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Sandholtz

J. H.

Ringstaff

(2011). Reversing the downward spiral of science instruction in K–2 classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 22, 513–533. doi:10.1007/s10972-011-9246-z

44.

STEM Education Coalition. (2016). The case for investing in out-of-school learning as a core strategy in improving science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. Retrieved from http://www.stemedcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/The-Case-for-Informal-STEM-Education-Final-April-2016.pdf

45.

Stevens

Bransford

Stevens

(2005). The LIFE Center’s lifelong and lifewide learning diagram. Seattle, WA: LIFE Center.

46.

Subotnik

R. F.

Edmiston

A. M.

Rayhack

K. M.

(2007). Developing national policies in STEM talent development: Obstacles and opportunities. In Sermely

Korlevic

Sulyok

(Eds.), Science education: Models and networking of student research training under 21 (pp. 28–38). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: IOS Press.

47.

Wake

Dailey

Cotabish

Benson

(2016, April). The impact of virtual coaching and on-demand corrective feedback on teacher candidates’ clinical experiences. Paper presented to the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Washington, DC.

48.

Yoon

S. Y.

Diefes-Dux

Strobel

(2013). First-year effects of an engineering professional development program on elementary teachers. American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 67–84.