This sequential explanatory mixed methods study (quant + QUAL) examined elementary preservice teachers’ conceptions of teaching engineering. Participants (n = 104) from two large western universities completed the Draw-An-Engineering-Teacher-Test (DAETT) as part of their elementary science methods course. Additionally, a subgroup of participants (n = 34) engaged in a case-based reasoning intervention around engineering design–based teaching, while remaining participants (n = 70) did not. No significant differences were detected between the two subgroups for DAETT scores. Upon examination of DAETT for evidence of engineering design-based teaching, it was noted that participants in both groups gravitated towards specific constructs of engineering design, such as building and testing, while constructs such as student problem scoping and optimization were less likely to be represented. Participants from both groups also conflated science and engineering, with roughly half of participants’ drawings being void of engineering design–based teaching. The drawings that lacked evidence of engineering design often exhibited characteristics of traditional science teaching (e.g., teacher lectures or demonstrations of science concepts). Preservice teacher artifacts indicated an increase in participants’ breadth of knowledge around engineering teaching but not their depth of knowledge on the topic. Researchers argue this evidence supports the need for primary school science methods courses to include additional opportunities for engineering engagement.

这项连续解释性混合方法研究 (quant + QUAL) 检验了初级职前教师的教学工程概念。 来自西方两所大型大学的参与者 ( n = 104) 完成了绘制工程教师测试 (DAETT) 作为其基础科学方法课程的一部分。此外，一部分参与者 ( n  = 34) 围绕基于工程设计的教学进行了基于案例的推理干预，而其余参与者 ( n = 70) 没有。在 DAETT 评分的两个亚组之间未检测到显着差异。在检查 DAETT 以获取基于工程设计的教学证据时，注意到两组参与者都倾向于工程设计的特定结构，例如建造和测试，而诸如学生问题范围界定和优化之类的结构不太可能被代表. 两组的参与者还将科学和工程混为一谈，大约一半的参与者的图纸没有基于工程设计的教学。缺乏工程设计证据的图纸往往表现出传统科学教学的特征（例如，教师讲座或科学概念演示）。职前教师的作品表明，参与者在工程教学方面的知识广度有所增加，但没有增加他们对该主题的知识深度。研究人员认为，这一证据支持小学科学方法课程需要包括额外的工程参与机会。