Building Bridges
Connecting science and engineering with literacy and mathematics
By Ashley Delaney and Kari Jurgenson
T
he breadth of disciplinary stan-
dards elementary teachers are
accountable for causes many
teachers to feel overwhelmed and
frustrated (Huff 2016). However, we
found creating thematic units pro-
vides students an opportunity to meet
standards from multiple disciplines.
The connections the Next Generation
Science Standards (NGSS) creates be-
tween science content and practices to
literacy and mathematics are especially
beneficial at the elementary level. In
this article, we present a series of les-
sons a second-grade teacher taught
within a thematic unit that integrated
standards from science, mathematics,
and literacy (see NSTA Connection for
a unit outline).
INTRODUCING THE UNIT
WITH LITERATURE
The two-week unit encouraged stu-
dents in Mr. Jett’s second-grade class
to investigate famous structures in
the United States. Learning goals
and standards in literacy, science, and
mathematics all centered on exploring
the history, purpose, and creation of
human-made landmarks such as the
Hoover Dam and the Golden Gate
Bridge. Mr. Jett engaged students in
the unit by reading Twenty-One El-
ephants and Still Standing (Prince
2005), a captivating story that chron-
icles how the Brooklyn Bridge expe-
rienced its first test of strength when
21 elephants from the Barnum Circus
crossed the bridge from Brooklyn to
Manhattan to reach “the big top.” As
Mr. Jett read, he showed the students
82 • •
the illustrations of the construction of when discussing the similarities and
the bridge and the elephants crossing differences between the designs and
it. Students used the illustrations to structures of the bridges. This is how
understand the setting and the plot of students can make connections be-
the story. This story provided the con- tween the function of a bridge and the
text for the remainder of the unit. structural and design choices of engi-
To assess students’ knowledge of neers.
bridges, groups sorted photos of bridg- Mr. Jett explained how different
es from around the world (see NSTA bridges use materials and design to
Connection). Some students used support the weight and movement
surrounding landscapes, while others crossing it. Students first used trac-
used the style of bridge or materials. ing paper over a photo of a suspen-
As groups shared their categories, Mr. sion bridge to create direct pathways
Jett asked probing and guiding ques- between the cables, deck, and vertical
tions to drive the discussion toward suspenders (see Figure 1). When the
the geometric shapes that made up the tracing paper was removed, students
largest parts of the bridges. The most had created a model of a suspension
popular designs were beam, suspen- bridge and could explore how the
sion, and truss bridges. Emphasizing design distributes weight. The class
the function of the bridge is crucial discussed how each line represented
Potential Lesson Adaptations
This lesson could be adapted in a variety of ways. First, the lesson
could be modified by changing the materials that students can use in
their bridge designs. Other materials to consider may include spaghetti
noodles and marshmallows, paper and tape, balsa wood, and drink-
ing straws. For older students, teachers may want to further constrain
students by giving them a budget and supplies with a dollar value. Stu-
dents could then choose which materials they think would be best to
construct their bridge within their budget and justify their choices. If a
teacher chooses to use different materials, the “elephants” do not need
to be constructed out of nuts and bolts. Any items with a consistent
weight could be used to match bridge specifications. For example, if
students are building larger bridges, teachers could use 50 g weights to
mimic a cart of five elephants traveling together. This would force stu-
dents to count in multiples of five and consider distribution of weight
on the bridge.
AUGUST 2019
a load-bearing structure allowing stu-
dents to follow the pathway of weight
distribution from the deck to the ca-
bles to the pylons. The following day,
Mr. Jett used an activity outlined in
Teaching Children Mathematics (Ap-
pelgate et al. 2018) in which children
used strips of paper and brads to build
triangles, rectangles, squares, and pen-
tagons. Students pressed on the top of
their shapes to simulate the weight
truss bridges would hold. They further
explored geometric shapes by attempt-
ing to collapse and disfigure them to
determine which were the strongest
and most stable for building a truss
bridge, they discovered triangles were
the best shapes. These short activities
helped build students’ conceptual un-
derstanding of how different bridge
structures are designed to maximize
their functionality.
On day four, Mr. Jett announced
F I G URE 1
Students use tracing paper over the photo of a
suspension bridge.
their STEM challenge for the unit:
“Your goal as a team is to build a bridge
using the available materials that will
hold at least 21 ‘elephants,’ just like
the Brooklyn Bridge, and cross a gap
that is one-foot wide.” The elephants
PHOTOS COURTESY OF THE AUTHORS
were nuts and bolts with a bead shaped
like an elephant head glued on top.
Mr. Jett created these “elephants” in
advance by using a hot glue gun to
glue the nuts, bolts, and bead together.
Safety note: We recommend creating the
“elephants” in advance because of the
dangers of burns with second-grade stu-
dents using a hot glue gun.
Mr. Jett continued, “We will use
the engineering design process to
The elephant used in the activity.
guide the creation of our bridges. So,
what do you need to know in order to
define the problem you are attempting ate, the materials they could use (Fig-
to solve?” ure 2), where the bridges would be
Students asked questions about placed, how long their bridges needed
what kind of bridges they could cre- to be, and so on in order to fully un-
FIG U RE 2
Materials used in the
investigation.
Engineering Design
Challenge
Create a bridge that will span
1 foot. The bridges will span
two stacks of books each 10”
tall.
Available Materials:
• 25 toothpicks
• Wax paper
• 2 craft sticks
• School glue
• 30 inches of string
• one 10” × 2” piece of card
stock
• 2 wood “posts” measuring
10” long each
www.nsta.org/elementaryschool • 83
derstand the challenge and define the
problem their bridge was to address.
Each student carefully took notes in
their science journals to keep informa-
tion organized and accessible. Finally,
one student asked how much the “el-
ephants” weigh.
“Great question!” Mr. Jett ex-
claimed. “Why might engineers want
to know how much the elephants
weigh?” The student explained that
they need to know which designs and
materials to use.
INTEGRATING
MEASUREMENT AND
MULTIPLICATION
Students worked in groups of four for
the entire unit. Each group of students
used small digital scales to measure
the nut and bolt “elephants.” Mr. Jett
emphasized the importance of preci-
sion in measuring because engineers
need to make sure their designs are
safe. Students quickly discovered the
scales provided were too small to get
all 21 “elephants” on the scale at the
same time.
“Mr. Jett? We can’t get a good mea-
surement because we can’t get them all
on!” one group complained.
“Hmmm … Class?” Mr. Jett said,
“Are any other groups having the same
problem as this group?”
“Yes!” they unanimously replied
with a groan of frustration.
Mr. Jett had carefully crafted
the “elephants” from materials that
weighed exactly 10 grams. His number
choice was a gateway for other groups
to use skip counting by tens, and a va-
riety of grouping strategies (i.e., two
groups of 10 and one group of 1). This
provided students the opportunity to
use multiplication strategies to calcu-
late the weight of the 21 “elephants”
so that they would know how much
weight their bridge needed to hold.
Students who struggle in mathemat-
ics could also use the elephant weights
or other representative manipulatives
84 • •
F I GU RE 3
Multiplication by groups.
while they worked through the multi-
plication (see Figure 3). Mr. Jett asked
students to share their strategies with
the class. For example, Morgan repre-
sented each 10 g elephant with a count-
ing cube. She organized the cubes in
groups of 10 to create a 10 stick. “I
know this is 100 because 10, 20, 30,
40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100,” she ex-
plained touching each cube. “So then
this is also 100. Two hundreds is 200
then plus one more makes 210. That
means 21 elephants is 210 g.” Mr. Jett
continued discussing multiplication
with tens over the next two days and
branched into thinking about multi-
plication in terms of grouping over the
next two weeks.
INTEGRATING
ENGINEERING DESIGN
When students returned the next day,
they were already buzzing with ques-
tions and ideas of what they wanted to
AUGUST 2019
build. Some groups wanted to jump
right into building. Mr. Jett returned
to the progression of the Engineering
Design Process (EDP) posted at the
front of the room and asked students
why engineers may want to brainstorm
potential solutions and sketch designs
before building.
“Because we don’t know whose idea
is best,” one student chimed in.
“Maybe if we mess up then we
don’t get any toothpicks left,” another
added.
“Absolutely!” Mr. Jett encouraged.
“Engineers work in teams to build
off of others’ ideas to make even bet-
ter ideas. That is one way they make
sure they use their supplies and money
wisely. Engineers call things that limit
their designs constraints.”
Students regularly work in teams to
complete tasks in Mr. Jett’s classroom.
Students immediately began collabo-
rating and discussing the design chal-
lenge with little prompting from Mr.
Jett. A focus on group expectations at
the beginning of the year created an
ongoing understanding of how stu-
dents contribute and behave as group
members. Groups spent two days
designing, sketching, and discussing
the pros and cons of all of their ideas.
Mr. Jett used this time to ask ques-
tions and encourage students to con-
nect their bridge designs to what they
had learned about bridge structures.
Children referred back to the photos of
bridges posted in the room, their trac-
ing paper, and truss shapes. One by
one, groups selected an idea and began
to construct their bridges. Safety note:
For second-grade children, use caution
with the sharp ends of the toothpicks
while crafting the bridges. Safety gog-
gles are required while students construct
their bridges.
Some students crafted bridges that
mimicked the Brooklyn Bridge, while
others made beam bridges. A few
groups attempted their own versions
of bridges. Once the groups had con-
structed their bridges, they presented
their designs to the class and explained
their decision-making process. The
bridge designs and students’ presenta-
tions provided the teacher insight into
what content students had learned and
applied to the bridge challenge. Finally,
the class measured their bridges again
and again to ensure they would span
the one-foot gap on test day.
On test day, groups took turns care-
fully adding 21 “elephants” to their
bridges to evaluate their bridge designs.
The rest of the class watched as each
bridge was tested. Some of the bridges
were not strong enough to withstand
the suspension between the stacks of
books. Others were surprisingly strong.
Each time a bridge made it to 21, the
class erupted in cheers, which contin-
ued as groups added more and more
“elephants” until each of the bridges
collapsed and failed under the weight.
The class organized the “elephants”
placed on each bridge into arrays (e.g.,
Morgan’s strategy from earlier is a 10
by 2 array plus one for 21 “elephants”)
to use multiplication to calculate the
total weights held. To students’ aston-
Students evaluate their bridge design.
ishment, several bridges were able to
hold all 200 “elephants” Mr. Jett had
created without collapsing. At a cost
of just under $10, we wished we would
have created enough “elephants” for
the bridges to fail. Eventually we gave
up on the “elephants” and started us-
ing books and other classroom objects
to add weight. Items were weighed on
a bathroom scale at the end to deter-
mine the total weight supported by the
bridge. One bridge held over 20lbs be-
fore collapsing.
Mr. Jett used the students’ par-
ticipation in class discussion and
bridge presentations to formatively
assess their learning and progression
through the Engineering Design Pro-
cess. Mr. Jett also engaged groups in
discussion and made notes about the
changes they made to their bridges
throughout the two weeks of design-
ing and building. Students were asked
to justify their changes based on the
form and function of the bridges.
Mr. Jett did not use a formal rubric
or summative assessment, opting to
assess students in practice instead.
www.nsta.org/elementaryschool
Table 1, p. 86, highlights the perfor-
mance objectives and outcomes Mr.
Jett focused on during the activities to
assess students’ knowledge and skills.
CONCLUDING THE LESSON
Watching each bridge being tested
gives students a chance to compare
the strengths and weaknesses of each
design with their group members.
This is an essential component of the
engineering design process. The itera-
tions necessary for creating an optimal
bridge are reduced by observing the
success and failures of other designs.
Understanding critiquing and com-
municating ideas and designs is an
essential professional activity for en-
gineers. Engaging in discussion about
the tested models and improving their
own bridge designs is a critical part of
this unit.
Facilitating a whole-class discussion
to compare and contrast student bridge
designs is a great way to conclude test-
ing and the unit. While each bridge is
built using the available materials to
hold at least 21 “elephants,” students
• 85
 TABL E 1

Connecting “Structure and Function” through the Engineering Design Process with
bridges.

UNIT LESSON/ ENGINEERING SCIENCE & PERFORMANCE

ACTIVITY DESIGN ENGINEERING EXPECTATIONS
PROCESS PRACTICES
Photo sort of bridges. K-2-ETS1-2: Develop a simple
Discussion connecting sketch, drawing, or physical
structures of bridge model to illustrate how the
designs to function. shape of an object helps it
Suspension tracing and function as needed to solve a
shapes activity. given problem.
Presentation and class Asking questions SEP 1: Asking questions K-2-ETS1-1: Ask questions,
discussion of the “21 and defining the and defining problems make observations, and
Elephants” design problem gather information about
challenge. a situation people want to
change to define a simple
problem that can be solved
through the development of
a new or improved object or
tool.
Measuring and weighing Asking questions SEP 5: Using K-2-ETS1-1: Ask questions,
the “elephants” and defining the mathematics & make observations, and
problem computational thinking gather information about
a situation people want to
change to define a simple
problem that can be solved
through the development of
a new or improved object or
tool.
Brainstorming, sketching, Developing possible SEP 2: Developing and
and discussing bridge solutions: Plan using models
designs in groups
Constructing bridges Developing possible SEP 6: Constructing
from sketch designs solutions: Create explanations and
designing solutions
Testing Bridges Test SEP 4: Analyzing and
interpreting data
Whole-Class Discussion Improve SEP 7: Engaging in K-2-ETS1-3: Analyze data from
and Analyzing Bridge argument from evidence tests of two objects designed
Performances to solve the same problem
to compare the strengths
and weaknesses of how each
performs.

86 • • AUGUST 2019
created a variety of bridges, as shown
through Mr. Jett’s class. In the dis-
cussion, students use the data that is
collected from each test (the weight
each bridge could hold) to compare
the strengths and weaknesses of each
bridge. Some questions to spark rich
discussion include:
• Which bridge was the strongest?
How did you know?
• Which bridge was the weakest?
How did you know?
• Why do you think ____ bridge
was the strongest?
• Why do you think ____ bridge
was the weakest?
• Was there any strategy for placing
the “elephants” and other weights?
This evidence-based discussion
helps students construct an argument
based on their analysis of the data
the class collected—the weight each
bridge could hold. To scaffold dis-
cussion for emerging bilinguals and
struggling readers, teachers may want
to provide a series of sentence starters
such as:
Bridge ____ was the strongest/
weakest because I noticed (reason #1),
and (reason #2).
I think bridge ____ was the
strongest/weakest because the design
(element #1) and (element #2).
Our bridge needs (element #1)
and (element #2) to be stronger. Our
bridge already has (element #1) that
makes it strong.
Mr. Jett concluded the class discus-
sion by asking students, “How could
you redesign your bridge to make it
stronger?” Students looked back at
their notes, data, and sketches in their
science journals from the unit. They
Ashley Delaney (delaneya@iastate.edu) is a curriculum consultant for the Heartland Area Education Agency in John-
ston, Iowa. Kari Jurgenson is a doctoral candidate at Iowa State University in Ames, Iowa.
diligently answered Mr. Jett’s ques-
tion with pages full of new sketches
that included arrows pointing to cer-
tain elements in their designs and
descriptions of materials they would
have used if they did not have the
classroom constraints. As students
visualized and justified their new and
improved bridges, Mr. Jett began the
assessment. Their journal entries pro-
vided deep insights into what they had
learned about the Engineering Design
Process as well as their learning and
practice standards. Mr. Jett looked
for changes in students’ designs such
as reinforcement or overlapping to
increase the strength of the joints and
using triangles instead of squares to
improve stability in truss bridges.
Perhaps most important, Mr. Jett in-
structed students to justify their de-
sign changes by explaining how their
changes would lead to a stronger, more
stable bridge compared to their origi-
nal design.
CONCLUSION
This unit was student centered and
teacher crafted. The lessons were
inquiry-based and hands-on, which
allowed students the opportunity to
ask questions and apply what they
learned to brainstorm solutions to an
engineering challenge. The teacher as-
sessed students by asking them to jus-
tify their revisions made to their bridge
designs and observing their engage-
ment in rich classroom discussions.
Throughout the unit, students also
constructed their own understanding
of multiplication and connected litera-
ture to science, engineering, and math-
ematics. Using an integrated approach
was the gateway for students to apply
their science and mathematical knowl-
edge in the real-world context of engi-
neering a bridge as presented by 21 El-
www.nsta.org/elementaryschool
ephants and Still Standing. We noticed
students seemed engaged and excited
to design and redesign their bridges.
The integration of these disciplines in
a real-world context allows for more
robust learning opportunities. Mr. Jett
said it best:
“I want children to learn by en-
gaging with the world around them.
When all of our learning and stan-
dards are related by a single theme, it
is easier for them to see why literacy,
social studies, and STEM subjects are
connected. I find my students gain a
broader understanding of the content,
and I hope they build stronger skills
they can use later in life.” ●
REFERENCES
Appelgate, M.H., C. Jackson, K.
Jurgenson, and A. Delaney. 2018.
i STEM: Mathematics concepts
using STEM connections. Teaching
Children Mathematics 24 (6):
394–397.
Huff, K.L. 2016. Addressing three
common myths About the Next
Generation Science Standards.
Science and Children 53 (5): 30–33.
National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices and Council of
Chief State School Officers (NGAC
and CCSSO). 2010. Common
Core State Standards for English
language arts and literacy in history/
social studies, science, and technical
subjects. Washington, DC: NGAC
and CCSSO.
NGSS Lead States. 2013. Next
Generation Science Standards:
For states, by states. Washington,
DC: National Academies Press.
www.nextgenscience.org/next-
generation-science-standards.
Prince, A.J. 2005. Twenty-one
elephants and still standing. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
• 87
Connecting to the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States 2013)

Standards
K-2-ETS1 Engineering Design
www.nextgenscience.org/dci-arrangement/k-2-ets1-engineering-design

• The chart below makes one set of connections between the instruction outlined in this article and the NGSS. Other valid connections are likely; however,
space restrictions prevent us from listing all possibilities.
• The materials, lessons, and activities outlined in the article are just one step toward reaching the performance expectations listed below.

Performance Expectations
K-2-ETS1-1 Ask questions, make observations, and gather information about a situation people want to change to define a simple problem that can be
solved through the development of a new or improved object or tool.
K-2-ETS1-2 Develop a simple sketch, drawing, or physical model to illustrate how the shape of an object helps it function as needed to solve a given
problem.

DIMENSIONS CLASSROOM CONNECTIONS

Science and Engineering Practices

Asking Questions and Defining Problems Students asked technical questions about the bridge designs
including materials, length, and load-bearing ability.
Developing and Using Models Students sketched and built physical models of their bridge
designs.
Using Mathematics and Computational Thinking Students developed methods to measure the weight of the
“elephants”, final load value, and bridge design measurements.

Disciplinary Core Ideas

ETS1.A: Defining and Delimiting Engineering Problems
Asking questions, making observations, and gathering information are helpful
in thinking about problems.
ETS1.B: Developing Possible Solutions
Designs can be conveyed through sketches, drawings, or physical models.
These representations are useful in communicating ideas for a problem’s
solutions to other people.
Students asked technical questions about the bridge designs
including materials, length, and load-bearing ability.
Students sketched and built physical models of their bridge
designs.
Students developed methods to measure the weight of the
“elephants,” final load value, and bridge design measurements.

Crosscutting Concept

Structure and Function Students sorted pictures of bridges into categories including
surrounding landscapes, style of bridge, and materials.
Students traced the weight distribution of a suspension bridge
to understand how the structure of the cables and vertical
suspenders impact the function.
Students played with geometric shapes to determine which were
the strongest and most stable for building a truss bridge.

88 • • AUGUST 2019