Three years ago, in August of 2012, EiE launched a new research project called “Exploring the Efficacy of Elementary Engineering,” or E4 for short. It’s what researchers call a “gold standard” efficacy study—a controlled research study designed to tease out exactly what it is that makes an elementary engineering curriculum effective. The large-scale investigation is supported by a $3 million grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF).

This month, our research team wraps up the “field work” phase of the E4 investigation. Our crew has been collecting data from nearly 600 classrooms in three states (Maryland, Massachusetts, and North Carolina). In other words, we're following more than 14,000 students as they have their first experiences with classroom engineering.

Recently on this blog we introduced a college professor who uses EiE curriculum units as textbooks for preservice teachers. Today, meet a faculty member who’s innovating with EiE in a different way: her students get experience teaching engineering activities in a local afterschool program.

Kim Case is a lecturer at California State University – Fullerton whose students do their observations and student teaching at Rio Vista and Melrose elementary schools in Placentia - Yorba Linda Unified School District; both schools have significant numbers of English language learners and students from low-income households. The story begins with Case’s students creating practice lessons for elementary students at the two schools.

If you ask someone to draw a picture of a scientist, chances are, they’ll sketch a figure wearing a white lab coat. Ask someone to draw an engineer, and they might sketch a figure wearing . . .  a white lab coat.

Scientists and engineers do have a lot in common, but they also have significant differences. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) create new expectations that classroom teachers will integrate engineering with science instruction. But many teachers, and elementary teachers in particular, feel poorly prepared for this challenge.

With this need in mind, we've created a short video for our Spotlight series, a collection of videos that illuminate effective classroom practices for teaching elementary engineering with the EiE curriculum. “The Difference Between Science and Engineering” takes concise look at the connections between the two subjects, how they’re different, and why it’s important to teach them together in elementary school. 

The word “theory” has a precise meaning for scientists . . .  and often a different meaning for politicians (“An evidence-based explanation of a phenomenon” versus “Oh, it’s just a hunch”). In much the same way, the word “failure” seems to have one meaning in the engineering workplace and another in school (“Failure is normal, it helps you learn” versus “You got a failing grade”).

“As we bring engineering into elementary classrooms, we are bringing in a new way of thinking and speaking about failure,” says Dr. Pam Lottero-Perdue, an associate professor of science education at Towson University with a background in engineering. “Teachers will need to understand BOTH ways of thinking about failure—to become guides who help students navigate that border crossing.”

Recent changes in Massachusetts academic standards mean that teachers in the state will be integrating more engineering content and practices with the science lessons they teach.This new expectation for STEM instruction can be uncomfortable for elementary teachers, who don’t usually take engineering coursework as part of their teacher preparation.

A recent grant to the Museum of Science, Boston by the information technology company Oracle will help 20 Massachusetts educators boost their classroom engineering skills as they learn to use the award-winning Engineering is Elementary curriculum, developed at the Museum's National Center for Technological Literacy®