include the EDP in a six-week project forchildren to redesign the outdoor play area while expanding their engineering curriculum toinclude tasks less familiar to the children. This was a qualitative research study using modifiedlesson study and participant observation. All planned lessons and related activities were videorecorded, and teacher planning sessions were audio recorded. Data was analyzed using open andaxial coding. Findings from this study showed that the preschool teachers’ ability to plan for andimplement specific components of the EDP improved over the course of the six-week study,moving from the researcher having to consistently remind the teachers of the EDP and theteachers unsure about how to include steps, to the teachers being
STEM Integration Program Mia Dubosarsky & Jeanne HubelbankIntroductionHigh-quality STEM education is crucial for the future success of American students. Researchersrecognize the critical role that school and district leaders play in implementation of educationalreforms as well as the lack of best-practice STEM education expertise held by school and districtleaders. The program, STEM Integration for Education Leaders (STEMi), was developed by theSTEM Education Center at Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) to guide school and districtleaders in the process of developing a strategic plan for STEM integration. The paper presentsthe framework, content, and evaluation findings from five
noting that teaching a simpler notionalmachine is not enough to assist novices, as there are always layers of abstraction hidden from thelearner. Du Boulay et al.’s plan for instilling a notional machine likely fails because it assumesfact can be assembled into a working mental model. Many novices fail as “[m]ental models areoften not the product of deliberate reasoning; they can be formed intuitively and quiteunconsciously” (Sorva, 2013, p. 8:9). Developing a notional machine seems more like otherprocedural tasks, such as riding a bike. “If you have tried to … teach a child to ride a bike, youwill have been struck by the wordlessness and the diagrammatic impotence of the teachingprocess” (Bruner, 1966b, p. 10). Bruner points out how useless
and climate, weather patterns, weather hazards, weather proofstructures, and engineering design. Students conducted research on their Chromebooks, watchedvideos, and read books to gather enough information to assist them with their design. They askedquestions, imagined and planned possible solutions, created and improved their prototype, andshared their design solutions. The constraints of the prototype included using only the providedmaterials (e.g. craft sticks, empty paper towels, or cardboard). The height of the structure couldnot be smaller than 15 cm, with an entrance and exit that could open and close. In futureiterations of this lesson, teachers could provide students with a budget from which they wouldhave to ‘purchase
codebook includedthemes and subthemes from the matrix with examples of each code. Intercoder agreementstatistics were calculated using MAXQDA software and averaged a correlation of 97.3%.The findings indicate an emphasis on the following SEPs: (1) planning and carrying outinvestigations (2) developing and using models and (3) analyzing and interpreting data. Forplanning and carrying out investigations, the coded segments encouraged students to makeobservations to be used later for analysis. A few segments related to making predictions but nonethat asked students to plan an investigation or evaluate data collection methods. Anothercommon practice that appeared in engineering-specific units was developing and using models.For this practice, students
their householdincome.The agenda (see Figure 1) for the camp provides scaffolded activities throughout the morning toallow students to build background knowledge and understanding of engineering concepts. In theafternoon, students are given adequate time to collaborate and utilize the engineering designprocess to complete an engineering challenge based on a book that identifies a real-worldproblem that needs to be solved.Scaffolding activities are selected to support the larger activity that is planned for the afternoon.Scaffolding activities break down the components of the larger activity enough that a focus canbe made to gain perspective and mastery before having to manage doing all of the elementstogether. Scaffolding activities are similar
communicating information, (3) planning and carrying out investigations, (4)analyzing and interpreting data, (5) engaging in argument from evidence, (6) developing andusing models, (7) using mathematics and computational thinking, (8) constructing explanationsand designing solutions.The first engineering epistemic practice is that engineering is a social field and requires real-world context [11], [12]. Engineers work directly with clients to develop a set of criteria andconstraints (time, money, resources, etc.) and to define the problem [8], [11]. Before any projectcan begin, engineers must see the problem in context [11]. Therefore, every EiE lesson beginswith a narrative which allows students to gain interest in the topic, understand the need
Post Deviation I am interested in careers that use science 3.78 4.00 0.98 0.1610 I am interested in careers that use mathematics 3.69 4.12 0.75 0.0030 I am interested in careers that use technology 3.91 4.24 0.79 0.0190 I am interested in careers that involve engineering 3.94 4.12 0.64 0.1100 I plan to use STEM in my future career 3.93 4.17 0.54 0.0140 I am interested in careers that involve STEM 3.82 4.12 0.53 0.0030 STEM interest average 3.92 4.07 0.31 0.0080As can be seen in Table 3, there was a significant upward change in
including standards, assessments, and curricula[27]. The curricular unit used in this study was designed and developed with guidance from boththe STEM integration framework [24] and The Framework for Quality K-12 EngineeringEducation [27]. The latter framework identifies nine key characteristics of quality pre-collegeengineering; the first of these characteristics, the Process of Design (POD), is most pertinent tothis study. POD has six sub-indicators which represent the fundamental characteristics of designprocesses: problem, background, plan, implement, test, and evaluate. POD can be broken intotwo stages: problem scoping and solution generation. The problem scoping stage is composed ofidentifying the problem, criteria, and constraints and
camp program.The logistics were co-determined by the participating institutions and were based on the planned,annual activities of the experienced outreach organization. The experiences of the US studentcohort mirrored the activities (on a modified timeline) that participating Canadian studentsendured. For this project, we worked within a qualitative research paradigm to explore theelements of the collaboration. Data collection thus far for the project was conducted through twomethods: document analysis and open-ended survey. Document analysis examined the physicalartifacts [9] from the Canadian and US outreach groups, including agenda, program schedules,manuals, curriculum documents, and training materials. Documents were assessed
togenerate coherent explanations of natural phenomena; they understand how claims are justified;how to represent their thinking to others; critique one another’s ideas; and revise their ideas inresponse to evidence and argument. The hallmark of this pedagogy is its adaptiveness tostudents’ needs and thinking, and examples of this approach have set new standards for rigor andequity in practice across several subject matter areas [6] - [9].Windschitl, Thompson, Braaten, and Stroupe [2] define four high-leverage practices for scienceteaching that make up what they refer to as “the core repertoire of ambitious teaching” (p. 880).These practices include constructing big ideas (planning of a science lesson); eliciting andinterpreting students’ ideas
include planning of a project. 52 43 4 0 0 4. I am interested in learning more about engineering and design through in- 30 57 4 9 0 service workshops. 5. I am interested in learning more about engineering and design through 27 26 26 17 4 college courses. 6. I am interested in learning more about engineering and design through peer 30 43 22 4 0 training. 7. I would like to be able to teach my students to understand the design 52 35 9 4 0 process. 8. I would like to be able to teach students to understand the types of problems 57 35 9 0 0 to which engineering and design can be applied. 9. Engineering and design
team members Equal contribution Active application of one’s communication skills The practice of sharing and receiving ideas from group Group decision making members to allow for alternatives and decide on an agreed upon course of action as a group Goal/task planning/setting The ability to craft a plan and follow through in executing it The practice of treating other team members with respect, using positive word choice, employing non-judgmental tones Team cohesiveness to communicate verbally or non-verbally
lessons of the unit. The main focus of these five lessons was eitherscience or mathematics content. These lessons were chosen since the purpose of this researchwas to examine how engineering language was used in science- and mathematics-focusedlessons during an engineering design-based STEM integration unit. The portions of the lessonsthat contained the teacher using engineering language or implied engineering language whenaddressing the whole class were transcribed, as well as gestures relating to engineering (e.g.,pointing at a step in the design process displayed on the front wall). Curricular materials,including lessons plans, teacher powerpoint slides, and student worksheets, were used assupporting material to help better understand the
problems, planning and carrying out investigations, analyzing andinterpreting data, constructing explanations and designing solutions, and engaging in argumentfrom evidence. This led us to design the entire curriculum around a central driving question:How can we monitor a disaster area (a town) to alert the community of possible danger? Westructured the curriculum so that each week youth were engaged with engineering designactivities to help them to progress towards “figuring out” this driving question.A second premise of phenomena-based instruction is that youth will find this style of learningmore engaging, as the questions youth have at the end of one activity naturally motivates thenext. This requires that the designers of curriculum
evaluate main project and Quick- 1Build submissions, we developed a rubric with categories spanning the steps in the engineeringdesign process. Accuracy, reliability, and ease of implementation were considered when designingthe rubric.Compared to other high school engineering programs that offer sequential engineering courses,our proposed curriculum is unique in that it offers students an opportunity to learn about differentengineering disciplines, teamwork, time management, project management, planning, execution,and evaluation via a project-based learning environment [12-13]. During the semester, studentssimultaneously work on long term and short
featured pre-defined inquiry questions and design problems,pre-planned investigations, did not ask for model generation, and did not call for mathematizingbeyond very simple linear measurement. Though Practice 8 was demonstrated in Classroom B,there was little opportunity for it in Classroom A, so it was not included in the analysis.This review informed the decision to focus on practices 4, 6, and 7, which involve working withdata, explaining phenomena, designing solutions, and engaging in argument from evidence. Toanalyze the student data for these three practices, we broke them down into sub-practicesaccording to NGSS Appendix F [1] for grade band 3 to 5 (see Table 1).For each classroom, we coded for sub-practices first with the richer data
laboratory components and exercises.Examples of implemented laboratory follows the next section followed by results of a conductedexit survey. The paper concludes by discussing potential planned improvements for futurelaboratory sessions.Lab Description and Implementation The learning objectives outlined for the proposed research is vast and continuallyevolving. Covering all the considered engineering concepts will take multiple laboratorysessions. In order to accommodate GO-CAPS students only a subset of the considered learningobjectives were implemented and include: 1. Understand how resistors are connected in series and parallel on a breadboard. 2. Develop skill in using an ohmmeter, voltmeter and ammeter to measure basic electrical
Technology ●! Information Graphics ●! Cutting ●! Design Validation through ●! Appropriate Technology ●! Visual Design ●! Milling Calculations ●! Inclusion & AccessibilityProject Management ●! Turning Engineering Algebra ●! Public Participation in Decision ●! Initiating and Planning ●! Grinding ●! Recognizing, Selecting, and Making ●! Scope, Time and Cost ●! Reaming Applying Appropriate Algebraic Careers in Engineering Management
professor at Rowan University. In this role, he helped develop a series of experiments for a freshman engineering course that explored introductory engineering concepts through chocolate manufacturing, and another series of experiments involving dissolvable thin films for a similar course. Alex is also the president of the Syracuse University Chapter of ASEE, and has been working diligently with his executive board to provide seminars and workshops for their fellow graduate students. Alex’s plans upon graduation involve becoming a professor or lecturer, specifically at a primarily undergraduate institution.Ms. Shelby Buffington, Syracuse UniversityDr. James H. Henderson, Syracuse UniversitySally B. Mitchell, Rye High School
engineering practices, 2) crosscutting concepts, and 3) disciplinary core ideas[5]. The science and engineering practices include foundational skills embedded in scienceinstruction, such as asking questions and defining problems, planning and carrying outinvestigations, and engaging in argument from evidence. Crosscutting concepts includeinterrelated themes that may be applied to many scientific disciplines, for example, cause andeffect, system models, and structure and function. Disciplinary core ideas have broad importancein various sciences (e.g., physical, life, Earth) or they may be key organizing concepts in onediscipline [5].With school districts across the nation planning for the implementation of NGSS, there is a needfor well-designed
program team adapt the EDP course progression from the high school summerprogram into full engineering courses for implementation in high school classrooms. The coursesthat arise from Hk Maker Lab’s curriculum development efforts are to: 1. Enhance student interest in pursuing STEM education and career opportunities; 2. Enhance student STEM self-perception; 3. Develop student engineering design skills. This paper describes the structure and programmatic activities of the curriculum developmenteffort, as well as preliminary assessments and future plans for refinement.PROGRAM COMPONENTSProgram ParticipantsNew York City science, math, and engineering high school teachers are recruited to apply for theEDP curriculum development program
-service teachers have with teachingengineering. Verbal persuasion includes encouragement from others as well as coaching. Verbalpersuasion is most effective at increasing self-efficacy when the one doing the persuading is seenas an expert [13]. Exposure to verbal persuasion is also likely to be low for pre-serviceelementary teachers, as engineering design is not a focus of the pre-service curriculum. A majorexception to this, as with mastery experience, would be those in the section of the sciencemethods course at Purdue University that utilizes engineering design. These students activelydesign engineering concepts into science lesson plans with students. This provides masteryexperience while the rest of the course ideally provides verbal
well as the barriers theyperceive to doing so. Results indicated that most elementary teachers support the inclusion ofengineering within the science standards for elementary grades. Teachers describe lack ofpreservice and in-service training, lack of background knowledge, lack of materials, lack of timefor planning and implementing lessons, and lack of administrative support as barriers toimplementing engineering activities within their classrooms.*The views and opinions of the speaker expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect thoseof the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.Introduction The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) incorporated engineering practices intoK-12 science standards [1], and because NGSS calls for
Curriculum and Instruction (Science Education) from the University of Washington.Ms. Jill Lynn Weber, Center for Research and Learning Jill Weber is a graduate of the University of Nebraska and holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Com- munication Studies and English. She has worked as a Project Manager in Information Technology as well as in the Marketing group at AT&T Wireless, and was a corporate trainer for new hires. Ms. Weber was in charge of managing large cross-company project teams and several large technology projects. In 2005, Ms. Weber completed the University of Washington Certificate in Program Evaluation. Currently, she is the owner of The Center for Research and Learning and has expertise in planning and
educationthat include the complete process of design, problem and background, plan and implement, testand evaluate, apply science, engineering, and mathematics, engineering thinking, conceptions ofengineers and engineering, engineering tools, issues, solutions, and impacts, ethics, teamwork,and communication related to engineering. Although these are all essential factors for a holisticengineering education, for this study, we focus on one aspect, problem and background, toanalyze how the teacher uses problem scoping engineering talk. Problem scoping and understanding the problem is a major task for engineering designersbecause engineers are “rarely… given a specific, well-defined problem to solve” [8, pp. 12]. Indesign, “problem setting is as
also interested in improving teacher education programs in the sciences by studying how teachers plan and structure learning using c American Society for Engineering Education, 2018 Paper ID #23995various methods. She has a BA in Biology and a M.Ed. in middle and secondary instruction from theUniversity of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her interests developed during her time in the science class-room, having worked in both comprehensive and early college high schools. Leadership experiences at theschool and county levels challenged her to study how teachers and students interact during learning. Shehas presented at
earlierinquiry opportunities. Students were also told that the sound output by the instrument wouldneed to come from a program that they created in their teams within Scratch. During this firstday, students brainstormed, planned, and began to create these instruments within their groups.The second session was a continuation of the first as students completed and presented theirinstruments. Participants were given project expectations of the instrument as well as time andmaterial constraints: required to use Scratch, Makey-Makey, and had to have a sound output ofmusic, whatever way that was interpreted as shown in Image 1. The rest of the requirements andproject details were open-ended, spurring a wide variety of finished instruments. These
a nineday period. Each day’s lesson lasted 2 hours, with a total of 18 hours for the entire unit. Fortyseven students participated in the STEAM project over two years. The unit consisted of lessons in neuroscience, sensory impairment, ethics, circuitry, programming Arduino microcontrollers, and the engineering design process. Students then spent the last three days of the unit engaging in the creative process of planning, building, and testing a model of a device that substituted one sense with another (see Appendix A for an outline of the lessons). Two neuroscience lessons involved the discussion of sensory inputs, processing through the central nervous system, and motor outputs. Since the class was multigrade, 7th and 8th grade
consisting of a cover letter, formal application approval by the school principal,scholastic record, personal essay, recommendation letters, vita, etc. Post-selection, the finalistsmeet the project personnel to plan and prepare for the summer program and accommodate teacher-mentor matching. For the 2017 summer PD program originally 10 teachers were selected of whomone teacher discontinued participation after two days due to personal scheduling conflicts.3.1. Introductory phase: The summer PD program began by providing teachers a welcomeorientation to NYU SoE and socializing with the faculty and engineering researchers. Thewelcome orientation was followed by lab tours, introduction to the participating researchpersonnel, and a lab safety session. The