engineering education. In: International Conference of Engineering Education, Heraklion, Greece.; 2008.2. Cross, N. The expertise of exceptional designers. In: Design Thinking Research Symposium (DTRS) 6, Expertise in Design. Sydney, Australia; 2003:79–103.3. Lawson, B, Dorst, K. Design Expertise. In: Design Expertise. Architectural Press; 2009.4. Next generation science standards: For states, by states.; 2013.5. Driver R, Newton P, Osborne J. Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Sci Educ. 2000;84:287–312.6. Purzer Ş, Goldstein M, Adams R, Xie C, Nourian S. An exploratory study of informed engineering design behaviors associated with scientific explanations. Int. J of STEM Educ (IJSTEM
reinforcement of the need to stay on task and turn in assignments in a timely manner. High school students are also more likely to lose focus and become diverted in to other topics that interested them.Bibliography1. Wallace, D.R., and P. Mutooni, 1997. A comparative evaluation of World Wide Web-based and classroom teaching, Journal of Engineering Education, 86(3): 211-219.2. Haag, S., and J.C. Palais, 2002. Engineering Online: Assessing Innovative Education, Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3): 285-290.3. Rutz, E., R. Eckart, J.E. Wade, C. Maltbie, C. Rafter, V. Elkins, 2003. Student Performance and Acceptance of Instructional Technology: Comparing Technology-Enhanced and Traditional Instruction for a Course in
Page 12.640.3reduced lunch— preliminary post-hoc examination of the data has not shown evidence ofinteraction effects.Because control data was collected in the 2005-2006 school year, comparison against a controlpopulation has not been possible for questions developed after 2005. For these more recentquestions—most of them unit questions—only the EiE student results are presented.Sample SizeWe are working with a sample size of 5,139 students who used the EiE curriculum and 1,827students from the control sample who did not. Each EiE student completed a GeneralEngineering assessment, as well as questions from the EiE unit(s) he or she completed. Eachcontrol student completed 1/3 of the General Engineering assessment (questions randomlyassigned
: Sample questions from workshop participant content assessment Module Question A wave has a wavelength of 50 m and is traveling at 2500 m/s. What is itsSound frequency? a. 250 Hz b. 50 Hz c. 2550 Hz d. 125,000 Hz Which property concerning electric flow is true?Electricity a. Electrons move toward the positive terminal of the circuit b. Electricity flows fast if the circuit is an open loop, not a closed
education connections6) Outreach, support and focus on underserved, especially females, minorities,and economically disadvantagedOn-going community and industry engagement7) A communicated STEM plan is adopted across education, communities andbusinesses8) STEM work-based learning experiences, to increase interest and abilities infields requiring STEM skills, for each student and teacher9) Business and community partnerships for mentorship, internship and otherSTEM opportunities that extend the classroom wallsConnections with postsecondary education10) Alignment of student’s career pathway with postsecondary STEMprogram(s)11) Credit completion at community colleges, colleges and/or universities*Figure 4: STEM Attribute Implementation Rubric
Earthquake Engineering Simulation (CMMI-0927178). The findings,statements and opinions presented in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarilyrepresent those of the NSF.References 1. NEES Overview. (2013). Retrieved March 15, 2013, from the NEES web site: http://nees.org/aboutnees/overview 2. Quake-Catcher Network http://qcn.stanford.edu/ 3. Brophy, S., Lambert, J. & Anagnos, T. (2011). NEESacademy: Cyber-enabled Learning Experiences for K- 16 Earthquake Engineering and Science Education, Proc. 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conf., Rapid City, South Dakota. 4. Pluta, G., NEES EOT (2011), Make Your Own Earthquake: NEES@Illinois, http://nees.org/resources/2988. 5. Van Den Einde, L
numerical or graphical representations.Practice 6: Constructing Explanations (science) and Designing Solutions (engineering)6.1 Explanation/Evidence: the teacher questions and discourse guides students to generate their own explanations for observed or hypothetical phenomena; or teacher asks student to support statement with empirical evidence, prior knowledge, or logical reasoning.6.2 New Situation: the teacher helps students relate previously-learned concepts to new content/situation.6.3 Evaluate Understanding: the teacher initiates a discussion in which student/s may judge or articulate their success or failure with the science activity; or teacher gets students to assess their own level of understanding of a concept or to
Integrated STEM Education. Currently, Prof. Nathan is co-PI for the National Center for Cognition and Math- ematics Instruction, co-PI of the grant Connecting Mathematical Ideas through Animated Multimodal Instruction, and Director of the Postdoctoral Training Program in Mathematical Thinking, Learning, and Instruction, funded by the U. S. Dept. of Education-Institute of Educational Sciences (IES). Links to current and past research can be found at http://website.education.wisc.edu/˜mnathan/Mr. Greg Pearson, National Academy of Engineering Greg Pearson is a Senior Program Officer with the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) in Washing- ton, D.C. Greg currently serves as the responsible staff officer for the NSF-funded
weekProfessional Development workshop, we drew upon the latest professional developmentliterature4-11. From this research base six core components of what constitutes „high quality‟professional development were found in multiple studies. These components include: Immersing participants (teachers) in inquiry, questioning and experimentation; Intensive and sustained support; Engaging teachers in concrete teaching tasks that integrate teacher‟s experiences; Focusing on subject-matter knowledge and deepening teacher content knowledge; Providing explicit connections between the Professional Development activities and student outcome goals; and Providing connections to larger issues of education/school reforms. The
. Page 22.1370.6Gibbons, B. A. (2003). Supporting elementary science education for English learners: A constructivist evaluation instrument. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 371-380.Kirpatrick, D.L. (1994). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Lee, O. (2005). Science education with English language learners: Synthesis and research agenda. Review of Educational Research, 75(4), 491-530.Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1996). Literacy skills in science performance among culturally and linguistically diverse students. Science Education, 80(6), 651-671.Moll, L. C. (1990).Vygotsky and Education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (New York: Cambridge
1.32 1.71 +.39**o. PowerPoint software 2.50 2.45 -.05p. Blogs 1.19 1.63 +.44**q. Podcasting .58 1.21 +.63*r. Modeling software .88 1.46 +.58*s. Computer game development software .76 1.15 +.39**t. Robotics programming software .54 1.27 +.73**Difference from pre to post is statistically significant at alpha ≤ .05**Difference from pre to post is
the alarm clock, the student must understand the inputs and outputs, or the logic functions. In lines 3-5 and lines 9-12, the instructor directs the student to the diagram to compare what was figured on paper to what has been built on the breadboard and how to count and integrate each circuit to create a switch. 1 S: Where are the switches supposed to connect to? 2 3 T: See what it says here. These are your ins. Okay. Just go off of this (diagram of circuits). Where's the 4 switch go? Here's your in. So you gotta connect these two legs together. So which ones are those? Let's 5 take number one here. 6 7 S: One and two have to be together. 8 9 T: (At the same time) So you gotta hook one and
is hoped that the results of this study will support this statement andwill demonstrate the need and value of engineering education as a way to facilitate studentachievement of 21st century skills in classroom settings.References1 Macalalag, A.Z., Lowes, S., Tirthali, D., McKay, M., & McGrath, E. (2010). Teacher Professional Development inGrades 3-5: Fostering Teachers’ and Students’ Content Knowledge in Science and Engineering. American Societyfor Engineering Education Annual Conference, Louisville, KY, June 20102 National Academy of Engineering. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status andImproving the Prospect. Washington D.C.: The National Academies
, “Mathematics counts,” Tech. Rep., London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office, 1993.3. M. S. E. Board and N. R. Council, “Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education,” Tech. Rep., Washington, DC, 1989.4. Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 1989.5. Professional Standards for teaching mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 1991.6. Assessment standards for school mathematics, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 1995.7. Principles and Standards for School
communities believe that an engineering focus,particularly design activities, provides valuable context, application opportunities, andmotivation for student learning as well as teacher engagement. 4 5 Design approaches to scienceteaching can focus student attention on solving specific problems, as in the Learning by Design(LBD) method developed by Kolodner et al.6 LBD purposefully links the design aspects ofproblem solving with an “investigate and explore” phase, which in significant ways resemblesand reinforces the process of science inquiry. Fortus et al.’s 7 design-based science units have asimilar orientation. Modeling and design activities can also be used very deliberately to illustrateand make concrete science concepts, such as mechanical
of the nature of science in science education. In Ed. W. F. McComas. The Nature of Science in Science Education: Rationales and Strategies. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher.10. Finson, K. (2002). Drawing a Scientist: What We Do and Do Not Know after Fifty Years of Drawings, School Science and Mathematics, 102, 335-345.11. Robinson, M., & Kenny, B. (2003). Engineering Literacy in High School Students. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 23, 95-101.12. Carroll, D. R. 1997. Bridge Engineering for the Elementary Grades. Journal of Engineering Education, 86 (3), 221-226.13. Grose, T. K. (2006, October). Trouble on the horizon. ASEE Prism , 16 (2), 26-31.14. Lyons, J., & Thompson, S
thanks is extended toVickie Slone and the EE department for staff support for the event and John Cox and John Siehlof the Nutter Center for providing the facility and support at no cost. The majority of student vol-unteers came from the student SWE and Wright Engineering Council. Funding was provided byHonda, Goodrich, Delphi, the Ohio Space Grant Consortium, and Business Labs.References 1. Hixson, S. H., “NSF STEP Program,” Tech. rep., National Science Foundation, 2007. 2. [online]Jan 2008. Available from: http://www.firstlegoleague.org. 3. [online]Jan 2008. Available from: http://www.jets.org/teams. 4. Ressler, S. J. and Ressler, E. K., “Using a Nationwide Internet-Based Bridge Design Contest as a Vehicle for Engineering Outreach,” Journal
Foundation Grant No. EEC-0438810.4. Zuga, K.F., “Addressing Women’s Ways of Knowing to Improve the Technology Education Environment for All Students”, Journal of Technology Education, Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999, pp. 57-71.5. Friedman, T.L., The World is Flat: A Brief History of the 21st Century. New York: Farrar, Straus, Giroux, 2005.6. Chubin, D.E., May, Gary S., and Babco, E.L. Diversifying the Engineering Workforce, Journal of Engineering Education, January 2005, p 73-86.7. Engineering Workforce Commission of the American Association of Engineering Societies, Engineering and Technology Degrees, 1973-2003.8. National Science Foundation, Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2000
. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/pdf/may2008updates.pdf.5 Wadley-Donovan GrowthTechLLC, Younger Associates. Strengthening the Pipeline: A Regional Cornerstone Report prepared for Memphis Regional Economic Development Council. June 2006.6 Tennessee Mathematics Users’Guide. May 2008. http://www.stemresources.com/index.html.7 Expanding Your Horizons Network. Retrieved January 15 009. http://www.expandingyourhorizons.org/about/history.php.8 Brophy S, Klein S, Portsmore M, Rogers C. Advancing Engineering Education in P-12 Classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education. 2008; 3:369-387.9 Virnoche M, Eschenbach E. AC 2007-2999: Expanding girls’ Horizons in Math and Science: A Longitudinal Evaluation of EYH
Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cockings, R. (Eds.) How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 2000. (also http://www.nap.edu/html/howpeople1/)2 Bransford, J. D., Vye, N., Bateman,H., Brophy,S.P. and Roselli, R. (2004) Vanderbilt's AMIGO Project:Knowledge of How People Learn Enters Cyberspace. Duffy,and J. Kirkley (Eds). Learner-CenteredTheory and Practice in Distance Education: Cases from Higher Education. Lawerence Earulbaum,Mahwah: New Jersey.3 Schwartz, D., Brophy, S., Lin, X., & Bransford, J. Software for managing complex learning: Examplesfrom an educational psychology course. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47 (2), 39-59. 1999.4 Schwartz, D., Lin, X., Brophy, S
the Ninth Annual International ACM Conference on International Computing Education Research, ACM, New York, NY, USA, ICER ’13, ISBN 978-1-4503-2243-0, pp. 19–26.21. Riley, D. (2013). ASEE Distinguished Lecture: Rigor/Us: Merit Standards and Diversity in Engineering Education Research and Practice, Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA.22. Walsh, D. and Breitenbach, S. (2007). A BA Engineering and Liberal Studies Degree at a Polytechnic Institute. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education.23. Traver, C., Klein, J.D., Mikic, B., Akera, A., Shooter, S., Epstein, A. and Gillette, D. (2011). Fostering Innovation through the Integration of Engineering
to be a valuable community asset.ReferencesBarriault, C., & Pearson, D. (2010). Assessing exhibits for learning in science centers: A practical tool. VisitorStudies. 90-106. Page 26.1600.11Bartels, K. A., & Parker, K. A. (Ed). (2012). Teaching sustainability/teaching sustainably. Virginia: StylusPublishing, LLC.Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing Engineering Education in P-12 Classrooms.Journal of Engineering Education, 369-387.Committee on Incorporating Sustainability in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National ResearchCouncil. (2011). Sustainability and the U.S. EPA
Paper ID #13590Are We Preparing the Next Generation? K-12 Teacher Knowledge and En-gagement in Teaching Core STEM PracticesDr. Louis Nadelson, Utah State University Louis S. Nadelson is an associate professor and director for the Center for the School of the Future in the Emma Eccles Jones College of Education at Utah State University. He has a BS from Colorado State University, a BA from the Evergreen State College, a MEd from Western Washington University, and a PhD in educational psychology from UNLV. His scholarly interests include all areas of STEM teaching and learning, inservice and preservice teacher professional
organization. We decided tohave interested youth join college students directly within the game courses and work alongsideeach other. If we could demonstrate that this approach would engage the participants, then wecould offer a template for a relatively cheap way to provide an outreach program. Moreover, wecould show how academic groups could partner with local community organizations using games.2.3 The Outreach ProgramOur outreach program found college student volunteers who mentored with apprentices (alsocalled interns). TLW gathered a list of prospective apprentices, screened by the courseinstructor(s). While the college student groups coalesced early in the semester, the instructorcalled for mentors and matched apprentices to them. The
. • Outputs: Product or service delivery/implementation targets you aim to produce. • Customer: User of the products/services. Target audience the program is designed to reach. Outcome Structure • Changes or benefits: resulting from activities and outputs. – Short-term (K, S, A) – Changes in learning, knowledge, attitude, skills, understanding – Intermediate (Behavior) – Changes in behavior, practice or decisions – Long-term (Condition) – Changes in condition Page 12.1425.5The evaluation design is formulated with the program’s underlying logic structure serving as