. Schott, “Engineering Technology Undergraduate Students a Survey of Demographics and Mentoring,” in ASEE Annual Conference, Tampa, FL, 2019.[3] A. M. Lucietto, “Identity of an Engineering Technology Graduate,,” in 123rd ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, LA, 2016.[4] C. A. Malgwi, M. A. Howe, and P. A. Burnaby, “Influences on students' choice of college major,” Journal of Education for Business, vol. 80, no. 5, pp. 275-282, 2005.[5] J. S. Rolston, and E. Cox, "Engineering for the real world: Diversity, innovation and hands-on learning," International perspectives on engineering education, pp. 261-278: Springer, 2015.[6] A. Lucietto, M. Taleyarkhan, and E. Schott, “Engineering
classrooms. AcknowledgmentThis work is supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number EEC-1449500.References[1] C. T. Hailey, E. Becker, and M. Thomas, National Center for Engineering and Technology Education. The Technology Teacher, 64(5) 23-26, 2005.[2] S. Bell, Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the Future. The Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43, 2010. doi:10.1080/00098650903505415[3] J. E. Mills and D. F. Treagust, “Engineering Education - Is Problem-based or Project-based Learning the Answer?” Australasian Journal of Engineering Education, 2003.[4] Texas Education Agency Snapshot 2016, 2017
write-upsMaterials Could not Used LEGO Used LEGO robotics kit Used LEGO andusage determine from robotics kit only and other LEGO parts non-LEGO parts submissionWe also attempted to quantify the impact of providing examples on the student submissions forall of Dr. E’s challenges. For each challenge that included example ideas, we computed whatpercentage of submissions were a direct replica of the example(s) given in contrast to studentinventions.Qualitative DataFor each submission, we described the overall physical structure of the robot, the way the robotmoved, and what triggered the motion of the robot. The robot description included what therobot looked like or resembled, what pieces were
: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1501_8.[2] R. S. Newman, “How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: The role ofadaptive help seeking,” Theory Pract., vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 132–138, 2002, doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4102.[3] T. G. Plax, P. Kearney, J. C. McCroskey, and V. P. Richmond, “Power in the classroomvi: Verbal control strategies, nonverbal immediacy and affective learning,” Commun. Educ., vol.35, no. 1, pp. 43–55, 1986, doi: 10.1080/03634528609388318.[4] A. V Maltese, A. Simpson, and A. Anderson, “Failing to learn: The impact of failuresduring making activities,” Think. Ski. Creat., vol. 30, pp. 116–124, 2018, doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2018.01.003.[5] H. Petroski, Success through failure: The paradox of design
that there were some participants who did not enjoy certainaspects of the academies is noteworthy, the negative perception(s) of these three individuals werecertainly not the norm (outliers) nor indicative of most participants overall academy experience. In fact, the finding that only five of the 301 total responses collected for this section ofthe survey were negative is quite admirable and indicates that less than 2% of responses werenegative. However, there were three items (Did your attendance at the Batmen/Wonder WomenAcademy increase your interest in engineering?; Were you pleased with the housing that wasprovided for you at the Batmen/Wonder Women Academy?; and Were you pleased with themeals that were provided for you at the
101 502.5 0.0 0.122 0.000 5 S, W 0 Failed to converge 5 Groups 13 41 143.6 34.2 0.063 0.012 5 G+W 6 39 115.6 16.5 0.057 0.006 5 All 9 27 110.2 42.9 0.069 0.019 6 N, S, W 0 Failed to converge 6 Groups 1 91 62.8 0.0 0.043 0.000 6 G+W 3 28 57.2 12.0 0.041 0.009 6 All 7 16 56.2
may feel if they have low self-efficacy in this area of engineering and design.Lesson PlanPrep: Structured Practice:• Gather supplies 10 minutes• Fill bucket with water • Collaboration with partner(s). Must present finalGrouping: design before using materials. Have to spend 10• Instruction will be given as an entire group. minutes planning without touching materials. Must build exactly what is on
grade, 3 hours): Working in small groups, studentscreate a solar scribbler and use the engineering design cycle to refine their STEAM design basedon a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, (i.e. Build, Test, Reflect, Refine, Repeat). For the entire set of lesson instructions and materials, please click here.This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE) under NSFCA No. EEC-1041895. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and donot necessarily reflect those of NSF or DOE.
Arkansas. She received her Ph.D, M.S., and B.S. in civil engineering from Texas A&M University. Her research interests include geotechnical engineering, and the use of 3d printed models to aid learning in K-12 and college classrooms.Dr. Jyotishka Datta, University of Arkansas Jyotishka Datta is an Assistant Professor of Statistics at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville since August 2016. He was an NSF postdoctoral fellow at Duke University and Statistical and Applied Math- ematical Sciences Institute (SAMSI) working with Dr. David B. Dunson (Statistical Science) and Dr. Sandeep S. Dave (School of Medicine). He received my Ph.D. in Statistics from Purdue University in 2014 under the guidance of Prof
CrossTalk 7.1, 1999.[4] C. Beer, K. Clark, and D. Jones, "Indicators of engagement." Proceedings ascilite Sydney 2010 : 75-85, 2010.[5] K.A. Smith, S.D. Sheppard, D.W. Johnson, & R.T. Johnson, “Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices,” Journal of Engineering Education, 1, 87–101, 2005.[6] C.C. Robinson, & H. Hullinger, “New benchmarks in higher education: Student engagement in online learning,” Journal of Education for Business, 84(2), 101–108, 2008.[7] G.D. Kuh, “What we're learning about student engagement from NSSE,” Change, 35, 24–31, 2003.[8] L. Song, E. S. Singleton, J. R. Hill, & M. H. Koh, “Improving online learning: Student perceptions of useful and challenging characteristics
(s) addressed; Identify learningobjectives and outcomes; Identify misconception(s) associated with content topic; Utilize at leastone resource that is not available in the LabXchange platform; and include an assessment.All participants chose a topic that was relevant to their content area. All eight teachers prepareda learning pathway in the platform for use in their classrooms this coming academic year.The pathways generated by each participant included the required elements. At the end of thefinal day a “pathway gallery walk” enabled each participant to showcase their completedpathway.2) 3D Modeling & Printing. The module started with a short presentation on 3D printingtechnologies, the focus was on 3D modeling. 3D modeling is one of
. 1170-1197,2016.15. M. Cochran-Smith, et al. "Good and just teaching: The case for social justice in teachereducation." American Journal of Education 115.3, p. 347-377, 2009.16. S. Nieto, “Placing equity front and center: Some thoughts on transforming teacher educationfor a new century,” Journal of teacher education, 51(3), pp.180-187, 2000.17. W. Adams, "Getting the Facts Out About the STEM Teaching Profession." Bulletin of theAmerican Physical Society 65, 2020.18 . M. McDonald, K. Tyson, K. Brayko, M. Bowman, J. Delport, & F. Shimomura, “Innovationand impact in teacher education: Community-based organizations as field placements forpreservice teachers,” Teachers College Record, 113(8), p. 1668-1700, 2011.19. J.R. McGinnis, et al
) 16.70 6.18 20.70 5.25 0.80 Disciplinary (30) 22.35 7.88 24.65 6.98 0.75 Outcome Expectancy (30) 21.15 6.69 24.60 6.12 0.57Focus Group Teachers indicated that during typical professional development opportunities thefacilitator “throw[s] a lot of stuff at you and hope that you understand what's happening.” Thiscan be overwhelming and may result in teachers choosing only one aspect to implement or asmall tweak to their lesson plan. Overall, the teachers indicated only 25-50% of their pastprofessional development experience has been incorporated into their lessons. This lack of implementation was attributed to time
one were to be paired with a more capable peer(Vygotsky), a child’s ability to reach their capacity could be supported. Likewise, explorativeplay and embracing mistakes are often facilitated by successful collaborations. Additionally, theHabit of Mind Understand the Art World involves “learning to interact as an artist with otherartists” however, interaction can include but does not necessarily involve collaboration [4].Creativity Bers’ definition of creativity as “creative expression” or “[the ability to] imagine newways of using ... tool[s]” is rather thin but not unusually so [9 p. 142]. Creativity is an elusiveconcept that often refers to behaviors that involve invention, exploration, and play that lead tonew forms, ideas, and
. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 2006, p. 33.4. C. Coburn, W. Penuel, “Research–Practice Partnerships in Education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and Open Questions.” Education Researcher. Volume: 45 issue: 1, 2016 page(s): 48-54.5. J. R. Warner, C. L. Fletcher, W. Monroe, & L. S. Garbrecht, “Growing the High School CS Teacher Workforce: Predictors of Success in Achieving CS Certification [Poster]. In "Proceedings of the 49th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education". ACM, 2018, [online] https://doi.org/10.1145/3159450.31622786. J. Vandenberg, J. Tsan, D. Boulden, Z. Zakaria, C. Lynch, K. Boyer, and E. Wiebe, “Elementary Students’ Understanding of CS Terms. ACM Trans” Comput. Educ. 20, 3, Article 17
research. Teachers have brought up the value of being ableto speak to these issues in supporting the concept of resiliency in their own students. As wecontinue to improve and refine the program, we are interested in gathering stronger data toexplore how these concepts are transferred to classrooms and if they indeed promote increasedlearning and interest in bioengineering.REFERENCES[1] "NGSS: Developing the Standards." https://www.nextgenscience.org/developing- standards/developing-standards (accessed April 6, 2020).[2] M. S. Garet, A. C. Porter, L. Desimone, B. F. Birman, and K. S. Yoon, "What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers," American educational research journal, vol
and engineering,” NSF 17-310, Arlington, VA, 2017 [Online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/ [Accessed April 9, 2020].[4] R. Stevens, J. Bransford, and A. Stevens, “The LIFE center lifelong and lifewide learning diagram,” The LIFE Center, 2005 [Online]. Available: http://life- slc.org/about/citationdetails.html [Accessed April 9, 2020].[5] T. G. Ganesh and C. G. Schnittka, “Engineering education in the middle grades,” in Engineering in Pre-college Settings: Synthesizing Research, Policy, and Practices, S. Purzer, J. Strobel, and M. E. Cardella, Eds. Indiana: Purdue University Press, 2014, pp. 89-116.[6] National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council, Engineering in K-12 Education
-Jan-2020].[5] Afterschool Alliance, “America After 3PM: Afterschool Programs in Demand.” [Online].Available: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/America-After-3PM-Afterschool-Programs-in-Demand.pdf.[6] M. Frye, C. Wang, S. Nair, and Y. Burns, “miniGEMS STEAM and Programming Campfor Middle School Girls,” in 2018 CoNECD-The Collaborative Network for Engineering andComputing, Crystal City, Virginia, 2018.[7] L. Albers, L. Bottomley, and E. A. Parry, “Assessing the Impact of Active Learning onStudents in Grades 3-8 during GK-12 Outreach Program Administered Family STEM Nights,” in2011 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Vancouver, Canada, 2011.[8] C. Vallas and P. Guan, “Adventures For Future
principles are a promising method by which to develop resilience in the form of failuretolerance for students. Future work will examine the effects of design thinking education onresilience over a longer course of time and with a larger sample of students.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the Kenan Institute and administrators at Forsyth Country Day Schoolfor supporting this exploratory research and the student participants in the summer program andhigh school course for their honest self-assessments and reflection.References[1] T. Newman and S. Blackburn, “Transitions in the Lives of Children and Young People: Resilience Factors,” Scottish Executive Education Department, Edinburgh, Scotland, Report ED 472 541, Oct. 2002.[2] M
. 67, no. 2, pp. 255-265, 1983.[12] B.M. Capobianco, H.A. Diefes‐Dux, I. Mena, and J. Weller, “What is an engineer? Implications of elementary school student conceptions for engineering education,” Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 100, no. 2, pp. 304-328, 2011. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2011.tb00015.x[13] E. Frick, S. Tardini, and L. Cantoni, “White paper on LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®: A state of the art of its applications in Europe,” Lugano: Università della Svizzera Italiana, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.s- play.eu/attachments/article/70/splay_White_Paper_V2_0_1.pdf[14] S. McCusker, “Lego, seriously: Thinking through building,” Intl. J. Knowledge, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, vol. 2, no
). www.engr.psu.edu/awe/misc/about.aspx, accessed Sept 2017.DPS Success Stories - District Data. (2018), www.dps.k12.oh.us/. Accessed March 2019.Bagchi-Sen, S. (2001). Product innovation and competitive advantage in an area of industrial decline: The Niagra Region of Canada. Technovation, 21, 45-54. doi:10.1016/S0166- 4972(00)00016-X.Cervetti, G., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, D., & Goldschmidt, P. (2012). The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 49(5), pp. 631-658. doi:10.1002/tea.21015Guthrie, J. T., & Ozgungor, S. (2002). Instructional contexts for reading engagement. In C. Collins Block, & M. Pressley (Eds
. Ertl, and G.M. Nielson (eds.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006, pp. 305-327.[7] AAAS, and NSTA, AAAS Atlas of Science Literacy: Project 2061, American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Science Teachers Association, Washington, DC, 2001.[8] T. Sumner, A. Faisal, Q. Gu, F. Molina, S. Willard, M.J. Wright, L. Davis, S. Bhushan, and G. Janée, (2004) “A Web Service Interface for Creating Concept Browsing Interfaces,” D-Lib Magazine, vol. 10, 2004, [Online] Available: http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november04/sumner/11sumner.html, [accessed Nov. 13, 2019].[9] R. Reitsma, and A.R. Diekema, “Comparison of Human and Machine-based Educational Standard Assignment Networks,” International Journal on Digital
). Productive communication in an afterschool engineering club with girls who are English Language Learners. Theory Into Practice, 56(4), 246-254.[8] Hester, K., & Cunningham, C. (2007, January). Engineering is elementary: An engineering and technology curriculum for children. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings.[9] Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The bridge, 30(3), 11-17.[10] Yoon, S. Y., Dyehouse, M., Lucietto, A. M., Diefes‐Dux, H. A., & Capobianco, B. M. (2014). The effects of integrated science, technology, and engineering education on elementary students' knowledge and identity development. School Science and Mathematics, 114(8), 380-391.[11] English, L
curriculumwriting portion of the EngrTEAMS: Engineering to Transform the Education of Analysis,Measurement, and Science Project. There were nine teachers that participated in all three years.Of these nine, seven had pre-interview data. These seven were invited to participate in thefollow-up interview. Six of the seven responded to our request for an interview. Table 1 providesan overview of the teachers’ demographics. Pseudonyms have been used to preserve the identityof the teachers.Table 1 Participant Background Years of Grade(s) Teaching Teacher Degree experience* taught assignment School information
, we gathered data from identical pre- and post-testsadministered at the beginning and end of the course to all 17 participants. The test was designedto measure participants’ knowledge of the EDP and pedagogical moves to scaffold students’learning experiences of the EDP. Similar to the study of Hynes [10] that found their teachersshowed mixed levels of subject matter knowledge of EDP, but were successful in constructing aprototype and redesign, the analysis of our findings indicate three points that bear furtherdiscussion. First, our analysis of data suggests that participants had a deeper understanding ofEDP at the conclusion of the course, with particular emphasis on brainstorming, planning, andprototyping a s steps of the EDP (see
, 1998; Bolger et al., 2012; Weinberg, 2017a;2017b; 2019). In Bolger et al.’s study, children predicted and explained the motion of pegboardlinkages (Figure 1). Lehrer and Schauble interviewed second- and fifth-grade students, withinengineering tasks, to assess their reasoning about the mechanics of gears. In both of thesestudies, the majority of participants did not engage in mechanistic explanations.Figure 1. Example of a system of pegboard linkages. In Weinberg (2017a; 2017b; 2019), participants predicted and explained the motion ofpegboard linkages represented on an assessment. Most children’s mechanistic reasoning wasfragmented, displaying few of the mechanistic elements necessary to describe lever motion.First, most did not seem to
Office of the CTO); Harish Krishnaswamy(EE, Columbia); Shivendra Panwar, Sundeep Rangan (ECE, NYU); Ivan Seskar, DipankarRaychaudhuri (WINLAB, Rutgers)We thank the teachers who participated in the program during the summers of 2018 and 2019 fortheir contributions to the development of the COSMOS Educational Toolkit.We thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments.References 1. COSMOS, “Cloud enhanced open software defined mobile wireless testbed for city-scale deployment,” https://cosmos-lab.org/ 2. D. Raychaudhuri, I. Seskar, G. Zussman, T. Korakis, D. Kilper, T. Chen, J. Kolodziejski, M. Sherman, Z. Kostic, X. Gu, H. Krishnaswamy, S. Maheshwari, P. Skrimponis, and C. Gutterman, “Challenge: COSMOS: A
design cycle, focusing on both hardware and software, to createbetter solutions for healthcare. He researched hardware components to measure someform/function of the body requiring training. Moreover, he investigated software components toenable interactive visualization of real-time data of body form/function, much like a video gamefor encouraging users to make progress in their training. After conducting research on conditions,such as heart disease and stroke, and examining the treatments, i.e. exercises, he picked onemeasurement that can be used to assess the patient’s progress with an exercise and determine whichsensor(s) could appropriately measure it. Next, he developed a hardware prototype (see Figure 8)and addressed data visualization
each evaluation question.Table 2. Evaluation Questions Aligned to Data Sources Evaluation Questions Data Sources Project Observations Focus Content S-STEM Documents Groups Assessment Survey and Artifacts & Interviews 1. Did program staff create and X X X implement a high quality, engaging research methods course and summer research experience? 2. To what extent did participation