This conceptual article addresses the question: What are the disciplinary literacy practices surrounding the Engineering Design Process (EDP) at the elementary level? Recent attention has focused on developing science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) skills for U.S. students. In the United States, the Next Generation Science Standards and reforms such as Common Core State Standards have drawn increased attention to relationships between language, literacy, and subject matter content often referred to as disciplinary literacy. In this conceptual article, we argue that literacy educators can make a substantial contribution to the study of engineering education, particularly for underrepresented minorities and girls. We first provide a brief overview of disciplinary literacies. Then, using examples from a research-based after-school club, we explore how disciplinary literacies might contribute to the study of engineering and EDP in elementary settings particularly in relation to: (a) productive communication, (b) vocabulary development, and (c) identity.
AzevedoF. S. (2006). Personal excursions: Investigating the dynamics of student engagement. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 11, 57–98.
2.
BarnesD. (2008). Exploratory talk for learning. In MercerN.HodgkinsonS. (Eds.), Exploring talk in school (pp. 1–12). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
BeedeD.JulianT.LangdonD.McKittrickG.KhanB.DomsM. (2011). Women in STEM: A gender gap to innovation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.
4.
BoydM. P.GaldaL. (2011). Real talk in elementary classrooms: Effective oral language practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5.
BravoM. A.CervettiG. N. (2008). Teaching vocabulary through text and experience in content areas. In FarstrupA. E.SamuelsJ. S. (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary instruction (pp. 130–149). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
6.
BrockC. H.GoatleyV. J.RaphaelT. E.Trost-ShahataE.WeberC. M. (2014). Engaging students in disciplinary literacy, K–6. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7.
CapobiancoB.FrencyB.Diefes-DuxH. (2012). Engineering identity development among pre-adolescent learners. Journal of Engineering Education, 101, 698–716.
8.
CervettiG. N.PearsonP. D. (2012). Reading, writing, and thinking like a scientist. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55, 580–586.
9.
CollinR. (2014). A Bernsteinian analysis of content area literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 46, 306–329.
10.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: CCSSO & National Governors Association.
11.
DeRosierM. E.NewcityJ. (2005). Students’ perceptions of the school climate: Implications for school safety. Journal of School Violence, 4, 3–19.
12.
DweckC. S. (2006). Is math a gift? Beliefs that put females at risk. In CeciS. J.WilliamsW. M. (Eds.), Why aren’t more women in science? Top researchers debate the evidence (pp. 47–55). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
FangZ. (2012). Language correlates of disciplinary literacy. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 19–34.
14.
FangZ.SchleppegrellM. J. (2010). Disciplinary literacies across content areas: Supporting secondary reading through functional language analysis. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53, 587–597.
15.
GeeJ. P. (2000). Identity as an analytic lens for research in education. Review of Research in Education, 25, 99–125.
16.
GeeJ. P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
GottfriedA. E.FlemingJ. S.GottfriedA. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 3–13.
18.
HellerR.GreenleafC. L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
19.
HiebertE. H.CervettiG. N. (2012). What differences in narrative and informational texts mean for the learning and instruction of vocabulary. In Kame’enuiE. J.BaumanJ. F. (Eds.), Vocabulary instruction research to practice (2nd ed., pp. 322–344). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
HilliardA. (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap between Africans and excellence. In PerryT.HilliardA.SteeleC. (Eds.), Young, gifted, and black: Promoting high achievement among African-American students (pp. 131–166). Boston, MA: Beacon.
21.
HonigsfieldA.LupekeS. (2010). Emotional reactions. Language Magazine, 9, 18–22.
22.
KatehiL.PearsonG.FederM. (2009). The status and nature of K-12 engineering education in the United States. The Bridge, 39, 5–10.
23.
KingH. (2012). Defining technology: An ISE research brief discussing DiGironimo’s “What is technology? Investigating student conceptions about the nature of technology. Retrieved fromhttp://www.relatingresearchtopractice.org/article/242
24.
KoppelN. B.CanoR. M.HeymanS. B. (2002). An attractive engineering option for girls. Frontiers in Education, 2, F1C-2–F1C-7.
LeeO.QuinnH.ValdésG. (2013). Science and language for English language learners in relation to Next Generation Science. Educational Researcher, 42, 223–233.
27.
MaloneK. R.BarabinoG. (2008). Narrations of race in STEM research settings: Identity formation and its discontents. Science Education, 93, 485–510.
28.
ManderinoM.WickensC. (2014). Addressing disciplinary literacy in the common core state standards. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 42, 28–39.
29.
McKayS. L. (1993). The plurality of literacies. In McKayS. L. (Ed.), Agendas for second language literacy (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
30.
McVeeM. B.DunsmoreK. L.GavelekJ. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75, 531–566.
31.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC.ResnickL. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.
32.
MojeE. B. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52, 96–107.
33.
MojeE. B. (2011). Developing disciplinary discourses, literacies, and identities: What’s knowledge got to do with it? In López-BonillaG.EnglanderK. (Eds.), Discourses and identities in contexts of educational change (pp. 49–74). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
34.
MollL. C.ArmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141.
35.
MooreD. W.ReadenceJ. E.RichelmanR. J. (1983). An historical exploration of content reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419–438.
36.
NagyW. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to improve reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
National Research Council. (2012). Standards for K-12 engineering education? Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
39.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
40.
NorrisS. P.PhillipsL. M. (2002). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific literacy. Science Education, 87, 224–240.
41.
OsborneJ.SimonS.TytlerR. (2009). Attitudes towards science: An update. Proceedings from the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Diego, CA.
42.
PearsonP. D.MojeE. B.GreenleafC. (2010). Literacy and science: Each in service of each other. Science, 328, 459–463.
43.
PecenR.HumstonJ. L. (2012). Promoting STEM to young students by renewable energy applications. Journal of STEM Education, 13, 62–73.
44.
PytashK. E.CiecierskiL. (2015). Teaching from a disciplinary literacy stance. Voices from the Middle, 22, 14–18.
45.
RenningerK. A.RayL. S.LuftI.NewtonE. L. (2005). Coding online content-informed scaffolding of mathematical thinking. New Ideas in Psychology, 23, 152–165.
46.
ShanahanC.ShanahanT. (2014). Does disciplinary literacy have a place in elementary school?The Reading Teacher, 67, 636–639.
47.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40–59.
48.
ShanahanT.ShanahanC. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 7–18.
49.
ShulmanL. (1986). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–23.
50.
SlykhuisD. A.Martin-HansenL.ThomasC. D.BarbatomS. (2015). Teaching STEM through historical reconstructions: The future lies in the past. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15, 1–7.
51.
TytlerR. (2014). Attitudes, identity, and aspirations toward science. In LedermanN. G.AbellS. K. (Eds.), Handbook of research on science education (pp. 82–103). New York, NY: Routledge.
52.
WertschJ. V. (1998). Mind as action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
53.
WickensC. M.ManderinoM.ParkerJ.JungJ. (2015). Habits of practice. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 59, 75–82.
54.
Wilson-LopezA.GregoryS. (2015). Integrating literacy and engineering instruction for young learners. The Reading Teacher, 69, 25–33.
55.
WineburgS. S. (1991). Historical problem-solving: A study of the cognitive processes used in evaluation of documentary and pictorial evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 73–87.
56.
ZhangD.KatsiyannisA.JuS.RobertsE. (2014). Minority representation in special education: 5 year trends. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 118–127.
