Since the integration of engineering and engineering design process into science policy documents, science education has been changed all around the world (Bissaker, 2014; Moore et al., 2015; Wheeler et al., 2019). According to research, a complete engineering integration requires focusing both on engineering design process and engineering habits of mind (Wheeler et al., 2019). Engineering design process can be defined as “a systematic, intelligent process in which designers generate, evaluate, and specify concepts for devices, systems, or processes whose form and function achieve clients’ objectives or users’ needs while satisfying a specified set of constraints” (Dym et al., 2005, p. 104). Although there is no consensus on the steps of ED in the literature, based on Wheeler et al.'s (2019) review study, “problem, brainstorming, researching, planning, building, testing, evaluating, redesigning, and sharing” are essential ED components (p. 1288). Important engineering habits of mind components can be listed as system thinking, optimization, creativity, collaboration, communication, and considering ethical issues (Cunningham & Kelly, 2017; National Academy of Engineering, 2017).

It has been argued that the engineering design process provides a real-life context for students learning of science concepts (Kelley & Knowles, 2016). Moreover, in the related literature, research has reported the benefits of engineering integration into science teaching regarding learning science concepts (Apedeo et al., 2008), development of science process skills (Gokbayrak & Karisan, 2017), and problem-solving skills (Fortus et al., 2005). Given the benefits of engineering integration into science teaching, it is necessary to support teachers for successful implementation of engineering in science classrooms (Mesutoglu & Baran, 2021). Professional development (PD) programs should equip teachers with appropriate conceptions and practices of engineering, knowledge of engineering habits of mind and the engineering design process, and how to integrate the engineering design process into science lessons (Lau & Multani, 2018).

A recent review of the literature has revealed that PD should include long term support, provide collaboration for planning engineering infused lesson plans among participants, and focus on engineering activities connected to everyday problems (Mesutoglu & Baran, 2021). Accordingly, this study aimed to analyze how a five-year-long PD program that focused on engineering challenges related to real-world problems and provided collaboration opportunities for participant teachers to develop and implement engineering activities within their science lessons. The research question guiding the study is: how, if at all, does a science teacher's implementation of engineering design process and habits of mind components develop over the course of a five-year intense professional development program?

Methods This study used a single case study design (Yin, 2014) to understand how one science teacher's implementation of engineering design and engineering habits of mind changed over the course of a five-year PD program. The case is bounded by the participating science teacher's implementation of the engineering design process (problem, brainstorming, researching, planning, building, testing, evaluating, redesigning, sharing) and habits of mind (creativity, divergent thinking, systems thinking, optimism, collaboration, communication, ethics) in her classroom throughout the PD. One science teacher was selected among the participants of a larger five-year-long PD project (Roehrig et al., 2021), who developed different integrated STEM curricular units in two content areas of life and earth science. The science teacher was selected based on the criteria that she is an elementary science teacher, attended the PD at least three times, and designed a curricular unit around at least two of the content areas. In the larger study, during each of the five PD programs, teachers were provided with three-week training on learning engineering and how to design a unit around an engineering design challenge. Each year, teachers were also expected to work as a team and design a curriculum unit around an engineering design challenge in one of the three science content areas, revise it, and then implement it in real classroom settings. In order to analyze how the teacher’s implementation of engineering evolved over time, the Classroom Observation Protocol for Engineering Design (COPED) instrument was utilized. COPED was developed and validated by Wheeler et al. (2019) to measure teachers’ implementation of engineering design process components (problem, brainstorming, researching, planning, building, testing, evaluating, redesigning, sharing) and engineering habits of mind components (creativity, divergent thinking, systems thinking, optimism, collaboration, communication, ethics) by analyzing each of the 2-min time increments of classroom videos. COPED includes three sections, namely, pre-observation (completed by the teacher), observation (completed by the researcher), and post-observation (completed by the researcher). In this study, the observation section will be used to analyze teacher videos for examining the presence of engineering design process and engineering habits of mind components. The primary data source will be teacher videos from each of the PD years attended. The data will be analyzed by the three authors and steps for ensuring the trustworthiness (i.e., computing inter-rater reliability, member checking, thick description of the case) will be taken.

Expected findings This study aims to examine how teacher implementation of engineering design process and engineering habits of mind components evolved over the course of a five-year PD program. With this aim, the selected teacher's recorded engineering lessons developed in Year 3 and 5 will be analyzed by using the COPED instrument. Findings of the video analysis are expected to reveal an increase in allocated classroom time for teacher implementation of the engineering design components and engineering habits of mind components. More specifically, as the teacher participate in PD programs over the years, she is expected to implement more components of the engineering design process and engineering habits of mind in their classrooms. Moreover, as the teacher become more experienced, it is expected that in engineering integrated science classrooms, the engineering design process components (problem, brainstorming, researching, planning, building, testing, evaluating, redesigning, sharing) are initiated not only by the teacher but also the students (Wheeler et al., 2019).

References Apedoe, X. S., Reynolds, B., Ellefson, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2008). Bringing engineering design into high school science classrooms: the heating/cooling unit. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 17(5), 454–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-008-9114-6 Bissaker K., (2014). Transforming STEM education in an innovative Australian school: The role of teachers’ and academics’ professional partnerships. Theory into Practice, 53, 55–63. Dym, C., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x. Cunningham, C. M., & Kelly, G. J. (2017). Epistemic practices of engineering for education. Science Education, 101(3), 486–505. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok‐Naaman, R. (2004). Design‐based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081–1110. Gökbayrak, S., & Karışan, D. (2017). An investigation of the effects of STEM based activities on preservice science teachers’ science process skills. Western Anatolia Journal of Educational Sciences, 8(2), 63-84. https://doi.org/10.14687/jhs.v14i4.5017 Kelley, T. R., & Knowles, J. G. (2016). A conceptual framework for integrated STEM education. International Journal of STEM education, 3(1), 1–11. National Academy of Engineering (NAE). (2010). Standards for K-12 engineering education? The National Academies Press. Lau M., & Multani S. (2018) Engineering STEM teacher learning: Using a museum-based field experience to Foster STEM teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge for engineering. In Uzzo S. M., Graves S. B., Shay E., Harford M., & Thompson R. (Eds.), Pedagogical content knowledge in STEM (pp. 195–213), Springer. Moore, T. J., Tank, K. M., Glancy, A. W., & Kersten, J. A. (2015). NGSS and the landscape of engineering in K-12 state science standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(3), 296–318. https://doi. org/10.1002/tea.21199 Roehrig, G. H., Dare, E. A., Ring-Whalen, E., & Wieselmann, J. R. (2021). Understanding coherence and integration in integrated STEM curriculum. International Journal of STEM Education, 8(1), 1–21. Wheeler, L. B., Navy, S. L., Maeng, J. L., & Whitworth, B. A. (2019). Development and validation of the classroom observation protocol for engineering design (COPED). Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(9), 1285–1305. Yin, R.K. (2014). Case study research: Design and Methods (5th Ed.). Sage Publishing.