An official website of the United States government
Engineering outreach programs have the potential to significantly influence precollege youth; university-led engineering programs reach approximately 600,000 K-12 students each year in the United States. Despite the prevalence of these outreach programs, little is known about the nature of the discursive interactions between outreach ambassadors and participating youths and the ways in which these interactions support youths’ progress in engineering. Understanding the ways in which outreach ambassadors support youth to learn engineering is critical to furthering the effectiveness of these programs and contributes to greater understanding about how to support engineering in K-12 settings. Often, these programs are facilitated by undergraduate and graduate engineering ambassadors who themselves are developing as engineers and educators. In the context of an engineering outreach program for elementary students, this study examines the teaching moves of outreach ambassadors, adds to the understanding of their teaching moves, and offers preliminary conjectures about the impact of these moves on students. This study asks: What kinds of discursive teaching moves do outreach ambassadors enact when interacting with elementary student design teams? In the focal outreach program, pairs of university students facilitated engineering design challenges in elementary classrooms for one hour each week throughout the school year. We selectively sampled and analyzed four such sessions in four fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms. We used discourse analysis and a lens of ambitious teaching to classify the teaching moves employed during interactions between ambassadors and small groups of students who were engaged in engineering design challenges. We identified a range of moves, including ambitious, inclusive, and conservative teaching moves, across the four sessions. From class to class, we observed variation in distribution of each category of teaching move and we hypothesize that activity design and outreach ambassador orientations toward teaching influence this variation. Particularly promising for engineering teaching and learning, we observed ambassadors making bids to elicit student ideas, pressing for evidence-based explanations, and revoicing students’ design ideas. These moves are characteristic of ambitious instruction and have the potential to support students to engage in reflective decision-making and to guide students toward productive, more expert engineering design practices. Our analysis suggests that engineering outreach ambassadors notice and respond to students’ ideas, engaging in ambitious teaching practices which can be expected to support elementary students in making progress in engineering design. This analysis of outreach ambassadors’ discursive interactions with elementary student design teams adds to the growing conversation of ambitious instruction in engineering.
more »
« less
Characterizing engineering outreach educators' talk moves: An exploratory framework
Abstract BackgroundDespite the prevalence and potential of K–12 engineering outreach programs, the moment‐to‐moment dynamics of outreach educators' facilitation of engineering learning experiences are understudied. There is a need to identify outreach educators' teaching moves and to explore the implications of these moves. Purpose/HypothesisWe offer a preliminary framework for characterizing engineering outreach educators' teaching moves in relation to principles of ambitious instruction. This study describes outreach educators' teaching moves and identifies learning opportunities afforded by these moves. Design/MethodThrough discourse analysis of video recordings of a university‐led engineering outreach program, we identified teaching moves of novice engineering outreach educators in interaction with elementary student design teams. We considered 18 outreach educators' teaching moves through a lens of ambitious instruction. ResultsIn small group interactions, outreach educators used ambitious, conservative, and inclusive teaching moves. These novice educators utilized talk moves that centered students' ideas and agency. Ambitious moves included two novel teaching moves: design check‐ins and revoicing tangible manifestations of students' ideas. Ambitious moves offered students opportunities to engage in engineering design. Conservative moves provided opportunities for students to make technical and affective progress, and to experience engineering norms. ConclusionsOur work is formative in describing engineering outreach educators' teaching moves and points to outreach educators' capability in using ambitious moves. Ambitious engineering instruction may be a useful framework for designing engineering outreach to support students' participation and progress in engineering design. Additionally, conservative teaching moves, typically considered constraining, may support productive student affect and engagement in engineering design.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1657509
- PAR ID:
- 10406910
- Publisher / Repository:
- Wiley Blackwell (John Wiley & Sons)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Engineering Education
- Volume:
- 112
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 1069-4730
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 337-364
- Size(s):
- p. 337-364
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Responsive teaching, a pedagogical approach that foregrounds and builds instruction on student ideas, requires teachers to attend to and build on student resources. However, teachers’ interpretations of student resources, especially during live teaching, remain understudied. In this study, we examined in-the-moment interpretations, teachers’ real-time sense-making of and reflection on students’ epistemic and emotional resources, and explored how teachers’ in-themoment interpretations can support their responsive teaching talk moves and knowledge. Employing a convergent mixed-methods research design, we designed and implemented a generative artificial intelligence (AI)-supported virtual simulation as a pedagogical sandbox for 40 preservice teachers (PSTs) to practice teaching with virtual students, interpret student resources, and act on these interpretations in real time. Linear regression analysis was conducted and found that PSTs’ in-the-moment interpretations are significant predictors of their responsive teaching talk moves and knowledge. Qualitative thematic analysis identified themes that corroborated and extended the findings of the quantitative component. Implications for teacher education and simulation design are discussed.more » « less
-
This case study reports on the perceptions and dialogic behaviors of 15 preservice K-12 teachers engaging in simulation-based teaching practice with AI-powered student agents. Data included transcripts of text-based classroom dialogue, interviews, observations, and conversation logs. Using mixed-methods analyses and a framework of ambitious science teaching, we identified two key findings that are important to Human-AI interaction researchers and teacher trainers. First, AI-powered student agents exhibit naturalistic discourse behavior, with ambitious talk moves leading to more rigorous student contributions and conservative talk moves leading to low rigor contributions. And second, preservice teachers’ dialogue was responsive to the AI-powered students’ contributions.more » « less
-
Abstract Preparing preservice teachers (PSTs) to be able to notice, interpret, respond to and orchestrate student ideas—the core practices of responsive teaching—is a key goal for contemporary science and mathematics teacher education. This mixed‐methods study, employing a virtual reality (VR)‐supported simulation integrated with artificial intelligence (AI)‐powered virtual students, explored the frequent patterns of PSTs' talk moves as they attempted to orchestrate a responsive discussion, as well as the affordances and challenges of leveraging AI‐supported virtual simulation to enhance PSTs' responsive teaching skills. Sequential analysis of the talk moves of both PSTs (n = 24) and virtual students indicated that although PSTs did employ responsive talk moves, they encountered difficulties in transitioning from the authoritative, teacher‐centred teaching approach to a responsive way of teaching. The qualitative analysis with triangulated dialogue transcripts, observational field notes and semi‐structured interviews revealed participants' engagement in (1) orchestrating discussion by leveraging the design features of AI‐supported simulation, (2) iterative rehearsals through naturalistic and contextualized interactions and (3) exploring realism and boundaries in AI‐powered virtual students. The study findings provide insights into the potential of leveraging AI‐supported virtual simulation to improve PSTs' responsive teaching skills. The study also underscores the need for PSTs to engage in well‐designed pedagogical practices with adaptive and in situ support. Practitioner notesWhat is already known about this topicDeveloping the teaching capacity of responsive teaching is an important goal for preservice teacher (PST) education. PSTs need systematic opportunities to build fluency in this approach.Virtual simulations can provide PSTs with the opportunities to practice interactive teaching and have been shown to improve their teaching skills.Artificial intelligence (AI)‐powered virtual students can be integrated into virtual simulations to enable interactive and authentic practice of teaching.What this paper addsAI‐supported simulation has the potential to support PSTs' responsive teaching skills.While PSTs enact responsive teaching talk moves, they struggle to enact those talk moves in challenging teaching scenarios due to limited epistemic and pedagogical resources.AI‐supported simulation affords iterative and contextualized opportunities for PSTs to practice responsive teaching talk moves; it challenges teachers to analyse student discourse and respond in real time.Implications for practice and/or policyPSTs should build a teaching repertoire with both basic and advanced responsive talk moves.The learning module should adapt to PSTs' prior experience and provide PSTs with in situ learning support to navigate challenging teaching scenarios.Integrating interaction features and AI‐based virtual students into the simulation can facilitate PSTs' active participation.more » « less
-
Abstract BackgroundElementary educators are increasingly asked to teach engineering design, motivating study of how they learn to teach this discipline. In particular, there is a need to examine how teachers reason about pedagogical situations and dilemmas in engineering—how they draw on their disciplinary understandings, attention to students' thinking, and pedagogical practices to support students' learning. Purpose/HypothesisThe purpose of our qualitative study was to examine elementary teachers' pedagogical reasoning in an online graduate program. We asked: What stances do teachers take toward learning and teaching engineering design? How do these stances shift over the course of the program? Design/MethodWe identified two teachers, Alma and Margaret, who exhibited productive shifts in their pedagogical reasoning during the program. Drawing on interviews and videos of their teaching, we developed case studies characterizing their stances toward teaching and learning engineering. ResultsAlma shifted in her reasoning about teaching the design process, from treating it as linear, discrete steps to recognizing the dynamic, overlapping nature of design practices. Similarly, Margaret shifted in how she reasoned about failure and iteration, recognizing the need to help students analyze unexpected design performances to learn from and iterate on their designs. For both teachers, these shifts were dynamic and nonlinear, reflecting both context‐sensitivity and growing stability in their reasoning. ConclusionsEngineering teacher educators should provide opportunities for teachers to reason about the specific pedagogical dilemmas in engineering and consider how teachers integrate disciplinary understandings with attention to students' reasoning and actions and pedagogical practices.more » « less
