359

Engineering Design as a Contextual Learning and Teaching Framework: How

Elementary Students Learn Math and Technological Literacy

Araceli Martinez Ortiz
Tufts University. Medford, Massachusetts, USA


Introduction
The purpose oI this study was to gain inIormation regarding the impact oI an integrated engineering and
mathematics aIter-school program upon children's learning oI engineering concepts, technological
awareness, and understanding and use oI geometry and measurement as contextually related
mathematical concepts.
This study, conducted in rural/suburban Massachusetts in 2005, included sixty elementary students.
Forty-two program participants (girls and boys) were voluntarily enrolled in an intervention program that
was structured as an aIter-school engineering and math club. Students met over a period oI ten weeks
during the school year, working collaboratively in a series oI sessions. Over these sessions, each student-
engineering group completed curriculum activities Irom selected modules oI the "Boston Museum oI
Science Engineering is Elementary" program. In addition, each session included mathematics instruction
in geometry and measurement. A control group oI students participated in only the mathematics
instruction portion oI the program that included an equitable amount oI math instruction as the
intervention program. Pre and post questionnaires were utilized to assess student learning oI the
presented mathematics topics as well as children's understanding oI what engineers do, the engineering
design process, and related elementary engineering technology concepts involving materials and design.
Student understanding was assessed using observation notes and a selection oI videotaped one-on-one
interviews. Quantitative methods include the analysis oI student perIormance assessment tasks in verbal
and written responses in various Iormats. Most participants in both age groups made gains in all oI the
assessed areas oI understanding. In addition, students demonstrated great enthusiasm and creativity
when working on team hands-on projects and were able to make relevant connections between academic
concepts and applied math and science as Iound in the engineering context.
Engineering Design and Technological Literacy at the Elementary Level
In the last decade, preeminent engineering and technology proIessional groups in the US, such as the
International Technology Education Association (ITEA), the American Society Ior Engineering
Education (ASEE), the National Academy oI Engineering (NAE), and the National Science Foundation
through its National Center Ior Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE) have made Iormal and
signiIicant outreach eIIorts that Iocus on engineering and technology education as a vehicle Ior
developing technological literacy Ior all US citizens through outreach, curriculum, and improved
instruction beginning with students at the very youngest levelskindergarten through twelIth grade (K-
12). This considerable interest in the Iield oI K-12 engineering education is also evident in the activities
oI many universities as well as public and private sector groups that have embarked on the development
oI engineering curriculum Ior young children such as City Technology (Benenson, 2001), Children
Designing and Engineering (Hutchinson, 2002), Engineering is Elementary (Museum oI Science, 2003),
and Engineering by Design (ITEA, 2007). Yet, in spite oI all oI this interest, collaboration, and policy
recommendations, there is still sparse research-based evidence regarding the speciIic impact and beneIits
oI engineering and technology education. There are also varying levels oI agreement regarding how to
include engineering and technology as on ongoing component oI the K-12 curriculum, and there is
minimal research on best practices Ior teaching and assessing engineering learning.

360
Engineering Design as a Contextual Learning and Teaching Framework
Contextual teaching and learning is an instructional approach that allows teachers to relate school
subject matter to real world situations (Sears, 2001; Smith & RothkopI, 1984). It is based on situated
cognition theory and brain based research and holds that most people learn best when concepts are
presented in a situation or context that is Iamiliar and relevant to the learner (Caine & Caine, 1997;
Lave, 1991). This instructional and learning approach is based upon premises Irom learning theories that
place the student as central and active in their own learning (BransIord, Brown, & Cocking,1999;
diSessa, 2000), while valuing the social engagement oI peers and environment as supports in this
process(Vygotsky, 1997). Contextual teaching and learning challenges students to make connections to
other academic concepts and provides the means Ior the learner to utilize critical thinking and to create
organizing schemes that make learning eIIective and lasting (Linn & Hsi, 2000). The contextual teaching
approach has been used successIully to teach mathematics (Jacobson & Lehrer, 2000), science (Glynn,
2004), and engineering (CliIIord & Wilson, 2000).
Engineering design can serve as an ideal contextual learning and teaching Iramework Ior subjects such
as math and science since concepts Irom these
content areas can be easily woven into a wide
variety oI engineering design projects. In addition,
the engineering design Iramework oIIers a
structure that calls upon underlying skills and
processes encouraged by national standards Ior
mathematics and science- such as problem
solving, utilizing reasoning and prooI, understand
and recognize connections between math and
science and contexts outside oI math and science,
the use oI inquiry and technology design in
science and the use oI communication and
representation to physically model understanding.
(National Council oI Teachers oI Mathematics,
1989)

Fig. 1 Engineering Design Process - (Massachusetts Department oI Education, 2006)
Many diIIerent engineering design process models may be used, such as the eight step process
recommended by the Massachusetts standards Ior science and engineering (Massachusetts Department oI
Education, 2006), which includes eight steps: steps one and two involve the student in the identiIication
oI the problem or the need coupled by conducting research. Step three and Iour challenge the student to
develop, consider and select the best possible solution in the Iorm oI a plan. Step 5 and 6 involve the
students in the construction, testing and evaluation oI possible solutions and step 7 and 8 call upon the
student to communicate the solution and redesign as necessary. A simpliIied engineering design process
Iramework was utilized in the intervention program described below to simpliIy the intent and number
oI steps Ior the seven and eight year old students involved in the study to be described below.
Children Learning about Perimeter & Area through Construction
Mathematics geometry in particular, is a learning subject that oIIers such rich opportunities Ior children
to engage in creative and selI-motivated learning. However, the manner in which it is taught in the
traditional school classroom oIten Ialls Iar short Irom eliciting creating thinking. Traditional methods in
geometry Iocus on shape recognition, preset deIinitions and Iormulas Ior calculating geometric
characteristics and relationships. This kind oI instruction yields short-term learning and results in the

361
need to 're-teach the same basic concepts year aIter year. In Massachusetts, Ior example, geometry is
taught in every grade and learning objectives regarding shape, perimeter and area are echoed year aIter
year beginning in kindergarten, and spiraling throughout all the Iollowing ten to twelve years oI
academic instruction.
Students can begin to regard mathematics as the creative endeavor that mathematicians practice by
experiencing it as such through opportunities Ior true exploration as suggested by constructivist (Piaget
& Inhelder, 1967), constructionist (Papert, 1980) and situated and physically distributed learning theories
(Lave & Wenger, 1991; and Martin, 2002). These theories hold much in common, especially the idea oI
incorporating both conceptual and physical constructions and reconstructions (Fielker & Tahta &
Brookes, 1979). This idea oI using physical construction is at the core oI the 'constructionist theory
(Papert, 1980) and closely parallels the reconstruction idea oI Piagetian learning theory. In this sense,
construction allows students to internalize an idea, to experience it in context, and thus, to arrive at a
lasting learning oI the essence oI the concept.
Many young children hold misconceptions about the meaning and the processes Ior measuring perimeter
and area (Dickson, 1995 & Hart, 1981). These misconceptions may arise due to the abstract way in
which students are presented these topics in school. These math concept areas are worth Iurther
exploration in a physically distributed learning environment such as that delivered by engineering
design; thus the topic was selected as the mathematics to explore in the study described below.
The Study
In an eIIort to add to the research base oI what children understand about technology and engineering,
and how children develop technological literacy, this research explored the Iollowing questions:
What do young students (seven and eight year olds) understand about technology and
engineering?
Can an engineering design contextual learning Iramework integrate both mathematics and
engineering design and technology instruction?
Do students utilize the learned mathematics concepts in their engineering design project work?
The intervention program was advertised as the 'Engineering and Math Club Ior Kids! Although
students that joined were not required to participate in the study, most students and their parents agreed
and appropriate levels oI consent were given. This was the Iirst time that an engineering and math club
was made available to these students, on site. Over the ten-week period, each student-engineering group
completed engineering curriculum activities Irom two modules oI the 'Boston Museum oI Science
Engineering is Elementary program. Each week included a diIIerent lesson Iocus supplemented with
unique mathematics tie-in lessons based on the Everyday Math |EM| (UCSMP, 2004) series as well as
the Balanced Assessment collection Ior primary and elementary aged students in mathematics (Concord
Consortium, Harvard Graduate School oI Education, 2003).
FiIty students were admitted into the
intervention program. The response was great
and participants represented boys and girls very
evenly. Due to absences, the responses Ior
only Iorty-two students were collected Ior Iinal
analysis.

The control group was a selected second grade
classroom consisting oI eighteen students.
These students received ninety minutes ( 2
class periods) oI mathematics instruction on
Program Participant Description

Intervention Group
Participants 42
Girls 23
Boys 19
Control Group
Participants 18
Girls 8
Boys 10

362
basic geometry (polygons) and measurement
(perimeter and area). The curriculum used was
the standard school curriculum mathematics
program resources and traditional pedagogies
as presented by their regular classroom teacher.

Total Participants 60
Fig.1 Engineering and Math Club Participants


Experimental group participants were asked to complete a written pre-assessment survey to measure
their experience and selI-reported interest in science, technology engineering and math. In addition,
students were administered a Iive question mathematics assessment and the 'What is technology and
'What is an Engineer graphical identiIication tool. Students were asked to again complete these tools as
post-assessments during the last club meeting. Questions were read aloud to account Ior reading level
inconsistencies. The assessment was designed by adapting assessment tools Irom the Engineering is
Elementary curriculum (Boston Museum oI Science, 2005), the Everyday Math curriculum (UCSMP,
2004), and the Balanced Assessment collection Ior primary and elementary aged students in mathematics
(Concord Consortium, 2006).
Over the ten-week program period, each student-engineering group completed curriculum activities Irom
two modules oI the 'Boston Museum oI Science Engineering is Elementary program. In addition, eight
sessions included mathematic instruction, totaling about sixty minutes oI math instruction over those
sessions. Each week included a diIIerent lesson Iocus, as shown below.
Week Mathematics Learning Unit Engineering Design Unit

1 Exploring 2-dimensional shapes Materials Engineering and the Great Wall of China
2 Properties oI Polygons What is Technologv?
3 Properties oI Polygons Materials Engineering and the Great Wall of China
4 Standard Measurement What is an Engineer?
5 Measuring around a polygon Materials Engineering and the Great Wall of China
6 Measuring around a polygon The Engineering Design Process
7 Measuring inside a polygon To Get to the Other Side - Designing Bridges
8 Measuring inside a polygon To Get to the Other Side - Designing Bridges
9 No math instruction To Get to the Other Side - Designing Bridges
10 No math instruction To Get to the Other Side - Designing Bridges

Figure 2. Math and Engineering Curriculum Units

At the beginning oI each session, general topic instruction and project directions were presented to the
entire group Iollowed by small engineering teamwork Ior the second part oI the session. Students were
divided into smaller engineering teams consisting oI Iour to six students. Students were presented with a
Iive-step engineering design process early on as a guide, along with speciIic pre-work sheets and/or data
collection and design worksheets Ior each session. All materials required were set out prior to session
beginning, to maximize the learning time available. During each session some samples oI written work
and video and photographs were collected oI the students at work.
Child/ Classroom Observation
Two types oI observations were recorded under this subtopic. The Iirst Iocused on the overall classroom
teacher/student interaction. An adaptation oI Baylor College`s (2001) team learning classroom
observation Iorm was used. Its purpose was to help the observer capture 'snapshots oI classroom
dynamics at regular intervals taking note oI the changing classroom setting and teaching method as the

363
lesson unIolds. This Iorm was used to measuring the type and level oI instructor and learner activity Ior
each teaching method. The second purpose oI the child classroom observation was to observe one child
at a time Ior their behavioral approach to both individual and collaboration activities. Key interest lies in
the questions that children ask out loud to themselves, to their team members, and to the teacher.

Findings
The Museum oI Science`s instrument called 'What is Technology was used to measure students`
conceptions oI technology. This assessment asks students to mark as many images that are though to
represent technology. This tool has been used on over 6000 students (Cunningham, Lachapelle,
Lindgren-Streicher , 2005). The images on the tool include the Iollowing 'clipart pictures: shoes,
subway, dandelions, cellular phone, oak tree, bridge, television, cup, bird, Iactory, bandage, house,
power lines, bicycle, lightning, books. In prior research, (Knight, M. and C.M. Cunningham, 2004)
students were asked to draw an engineer. This oIten resulted in stereotypical but incomplete
communication oI student conceptions and many younger children`s` ideas regarding engineering
included mechanical things such as machines, cars and engines. In this study, it is not surprising then,
that in the pre-survey, most students in both the control group and the intervention group select images
that are in some way related to electricity. This Iact is Iurther reinIorced by noting their responses to the
open-ended question that is also part oI the survey, 'How do you know iI something is technology?
Sample student replies included comments such as: If it has electricitv`, 'It has at least one part
electric`, 'Its electric things`, 'I know because thev have electricitv`, 'It uses electricitv`, 'I
know technologv has electricitv`, 'I think it has electronics in it`, 'Something that is electrical`,
'Technologv uses electricitv`


364
What is 1echnology?


Control Group
Intervention Group



The pre-test responses oI both
the control group and
intervention group students
are somewhat consistent in
their replies. The majority oI
students select power lines(98-
100) , Iactory(86-89),
television (98-100), cell
phone (98-100)and
subway(89-90) as examples
oI technology.


However, aIter the program,
intervention program students
quickly change their
conceptions oI what kinds oI
articles constitute technology.
Based on program instruction,
students learn and broaden
their understanding oI
technology. Over 50 oI
students now select bicycle(
89), house (98), cup
(60), bridge(100) and
shoes (65). Control
students, those not in the
engineering design
intervention program did not
change their perceptions.


365
What is Engineering?

Control Group

Intervention Group



The pre-test responses oI both the
control group and intervention
group students are consistent in
their replies. The majority oI
students select repair cars(64,
67), install wiring (72,74),
work as team (50, 52), drive
machine (57, 61), construct
building (88, 89) and clean
water (57, 56)as examples oI
the kinds oI work that engineers
do.

Intervention program students
learn about engineering and the
various kinds oI work that
engineers do. This experience and
understanding is evidenced in the
addition oI other more subtle
examples oI the kind oI work that
engineers do such as write
computer programs (95), design
tunnels (100), work as a team
(100), create warmer kinds oI
jackets (90), read about
inventions (67), design ways to
clean water (86), and improve
bandages (60). However, this
tool also includes task
descriptions that are not directly
engineering rather technical
support tasks. This diIIerentiation
appears too subtle Ior second
grade students. Over 50 oI
students also select repair cars
(76), install wiring (86), drive
machines (50), and construct


366
buildings (88). Control
students did not signiIicantly
change their perceptions.

Math Learning

The control group and the intervention group were both tested prior to the program start. The control
group consisted oI n18 students and achieved a mean assessment result oI 25.56; the intervention group
consisting oI n 42 and achieved a mean assessment result oI 27.14. Both groups equitably learned the
mathematics objectives that were pre-deIined and measured by the same assessment tool consisting oI
Iive questions as measured by the post-test given ten weeks later. The control group scored a mean oI
72.22 on the post-test; the intervention group scored a mean oI 80.00 on the post-test. Students were
only administered the study math assessment pre and post the program. However, I was interested in
gauging iI the retention and understanding oI the content might be longer Ior the students that
participated in the intervention program. Since all students take an end-oI-year (EOY) math assessment,
Iive questions related to perimeter and area were selected Irom the standard end oI year math test and
results Ior all oI the intervention and control group students was analyzed. The EOY test was given to
both eighteen weeks aIter the pre-test. The control group scored a mean oI 61.11 and the intervention
group scored a mean oI 73.33. These results indicate that the intervention group, that is, the group that
participated in the engineering design as contextual learning Ior mathematics, was able to retain their
understanding oI area and perimeter Ior a longer time period, indicating that perhaps the engineering
design activities helped students attain a long lasting and deeper understanding oI the mathematics topic.
The pre and post results Ior each oI the student groups are presented below:

Mean 25.56 Std. Dev
19.17

Mean 72.22 Std. Dev
19.571

Mean 61.11 Std. Dev
19.967

367

Mean 27.14 Std. Dev.
17.57


Mean 80.00 Std. Dev.
17.69

Mean 73.33 Std. Dev.
17.69

368
Conclusion
This study, although limited to a small group oI students in an aIterschool program, demonstrates the
potential positive impact oI an integrated engineering and math learning experience. The engineering
and technology lessons helped the students in the intervention group to expand their understanding oI the
basic deIining ideas oI engineering and technology. In addition, the math lessons about perimeter and
area eIIectively helped students learn the topics presented in both groups. It is important to note, that the
mathematics instruction time in both the control group and the intervention group were equal (40
minutes total), but the hands -on learning opportunities that were a part oI the engineering design
allowed Ior additional student exploration oI ideas and the math instruction was presented to the
intervention group over several weeks instead oI the two class periods used to present to the control
group. The combination oI all oI these Iactors appear to have helped the intervention group students
retain their math understanding Ior a longer period oI time, as demonstrated by their higher assessment
scores versus the control group.
Engineering education has been identiIied as a potential solution Ior the gap in technological skills
preparation oI our workIorce. Engineering and technology education can begin at very young ages and
can instill in students the academic conIidence, career awareness and design skills that can potentially
strengthen their interest and abilities in science, technology, engineering and math (American Society Ior
Engineering Education, 2007; Fleer, 1992). Engineering education can take many Iorms as long as the
learning process involves students in inquiry based experiences that involve physical design and
construction as guided by some Iorm oI the engineering design process. Researchers even recommend
engineering education at the early childhood level and Iind that materials ranging Irom blocks to robotics
can support children in 'developing readiness to become producers, and not only consumers, oI
technology (Bers, 2008, p. 123.)
This study begins to document the positive learning eIIects oI engineering education and answers the call
Ior more qualitative research in the Iield oI children`s engineering and technology education
(Barlex,2000 ). This study was limited in its sample size, and the traditional assessment tool utilized to
test mathematics learning. But it does suggest that an Engineering Design curriculum can serve as a
eIIective mathematics contextual learning and teaching Iramework. This study showed that the oIten
misconceived topics oI measuring area and measuring perimeter can be just as eIIectively taught through
the physically distributed model oI engineering design as in the traditional classroom/textbook driven
approach. In addition, this study hints at the possible deeper and longer lasting learning that can result
through this approach.


Bibliography
American Society Ior Engineering Education. ASEE engineering K-12 center. Retrieved September 23,
2007, Irom http://www.asee.org/k12/index.cIm
Barlex, D. (2000). Possibilities Ior research in technology education. Proceedings oI the Second AAAS
Technology Education Research ConIerence.
(http://www.project2061.org/events/meetings/technology/tech2/barlex.htm).Retrieved January 10
th
,
2008.

Benenson, G. (2001). The unrealized potential oI everyday technology as a context Ior learning. Journal
oI Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 730.
Bers, Marina U. and Elkind, David (2007). Blocks to Robots: Learning with Technology in the Early
Childhood Classroom. Teachers College Press.

369

BransIord, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (1999). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience,
and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Caine, R.N., & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge oI possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association Ior
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

CliIIord, M. & Wilson, M. 2000)Contextual Teaching, ProIessional Learning, and Student Experiences:
Lessons Learned Irom Implementation. Teach Net Educational BrieI Number 2

Concord Consortium - Balanced Assessment Tasks. Downloaded January, 2006.
(http://balancedassessment.concord.org/tasksalpha.html)
Cunningham, C. & Lachapelle, C. (2007). Engineering is Elementary: Children`s Changing
Understandings oI Science and Engineering. Proceedings oI the 2007 American Society Ior Engineering
Education Annual ConIerence & Exposition
Davidson, M., Evens, H., & McCormick, R. (1998). Bridging the gap: The use oI concepts Irom science
and mathematics in design and technology at KS 3. IDATER 98 - Loughborough University, 1998(1),
48-53.
Dickson, L., Brown, M. and Gibson, O. (1995) Children Learning Mathematics: A Teacher's Guide to
Recent Research. London: Cassell Education Ltd.
diSessa, A. A.: 2000. Changing Minds: Computers,learning and literacy. Cambridge, Mass. ; MIT Press.
Fielker, D.S, Tahta, D.G., and Brookes, W.M. Strategie Ior Teaching Geometry to Younger Children.
Educational Studeies in Mathematics. 10-1, 85-133.
Fleer, M. (1992). Introducing technology education to young children: A design, make and appraise
approach. Research in Science Education, 22, 132-139.
Glynn, Shawn M., and Winter, Linda K. Contextual Teaching and Learning oI Science in Elementary
School. Journal oI Elementary Science Education Vol. 16, No. 2. (51-63).
Hart, K. M. (1981) "Measurement", in Hart, K. M. (ed.) Children's Understanding oI Mathematics: 11-
16. London: John Murray (Publishers) Ltd.
Hutchinson, P. (2002). Children designing & engineering: Contextual learning units in primary design
and technology. Journal oI Industrial Teacher Education, 39(3), 122-145.
ITEA (2007) Engineering by Design Program. http://www.iteaconnect.org/EbD/ebd.htm
Jacobson, C. (2000), " Teacher Appropriation and Student Lerning oI Geometry through Design. Journal
Ior Research in Mathematics Education, vol., 31, No. 1. (Jan., 2000), pp.71-88
Knight, M. and C.M. Cunningham. Draw an Engineer Test (DAET): Development oI a tool to
investigate students' ideas about engineers and engineering. in American Society oI Engineering
Education. 2004. Salt Lake City, UT.
Lave, J. & Wenger,E.,1991) Situated learning. New York: Cambridge.
Massachusetts, D. o. E. (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum
Iramework. Malden, MA: Massachusetts Department oI Education.
Museum oI Science. Boston. Engineering is Elementary Curriculum. www.mos.org/eie. Retrieved Oct.
10, 2005.
National Council oI Teachers oI Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards Ior school
mathematics. Reston, VA: The Council.

Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Children, Computers and PowerIul Ideas. New York: Basic books.

370

Piaget, J. & Inhelder, B. (1967). The Child's Conception oI Space. New York: W. W. Norton &Co.

Sears, S. (2002) Contextual Teaching and Learning: A Primer Ior EIIective Instruction
Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, Bloomington, IN.

Smith, Steven M & RothkopI, Ernst Z. (1984). Contextual Enrichment and Distribution oI Practice in
the Classroom. Cognition and Instruction, Vol. 1, No. 3. (341-358).

University oI Chicago School Mathematics Project.2004. Third grade everyday mathematics. Chicago:
Everyday Learning Corporation.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.