identify, understand, and elevate best practices; facilitate peer learning and deepen knowledge; spark replication and advancement across regions; and inform long-term public investment in talent development through research and educational resources.Mr. Ikenna Q. Ezealah, Clemson UniversityMr. Christopher Ciuca, SAE International Chris Ciuca is the Director of Pre-Professional Education at SAE International. He oversees the strate- gic direction of SAE’s programmatic offerings at the K-16 level, including the National Science Board Award winning A World In Motion and Collegiate Design Series Programing. Chris leads numerous U.S.-based and global initiatives designed to increase science, technology, engineering and math
Logic Gate 220 Ohm Resistor 9VExercise 2As practice with logic gates, you will need to identify all the Ts and Fs for the logic gate as well as determine what type of logicgate it is (i.e., AND, OR, XOR, NOR, NAND, XNOR) in the provided truth table. Note, if the light is on, then the statement istrue. If the light is off, then the statement is false. Pictures for each stage have been included. Switch P & Switch Q are labeledon the first picture. Q P Both Switch P and Both
cross section of the questions of each survey.Table 3. A Sample of Survey Questions Current Secondary School Students survey Peer survey Q.4 When working through a Math problem, how Q.3 Are you currently a student in engineering? excited do you typically feel after you have solved it? (5=very excited, 1=very bored) Q.5 How interested are you in the way things work Q.4 If you are no longer a student, are you working (5=very interested, 1=not interested at all) in an engineering related field? Q.7 Have you ever learned about engineering? Q.7 Why did you choose to study engineering? Q.8 What do you think an engineer does in his/her
1.0 0.5 0.0 Incorrect WT Pre-‐Video Q Correct WT Pre-‐Video Q Marble Machines Wind Tubes Figure 8. Performance on Wind Tubes related posttest items, clustered by condition and performance on WT pre-video question. Wind Tubes tinkerers performed the best, if they got the pre-video question correct.Data analyses on the marble-related posttest questions showed a similar trend, but were lessclear-cut (see Fig 9). ANOVA revealed a
-filters 6. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. rd 7. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
. Educ. 94, 103–120 (2005).2. Brown, T. Design thinking. Harv. Bus. Rev. 86, (2008).3. Ibarra, H. Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Adm. Sci. Q. 44, 764–791 (1999).4. Fila, N. D. et al. The people part of engineering: Engineering for, with, and as people. in IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings 727–735 (2014).5. Hira, A., Holly, J., J. & Hynes, M. M. Implementation of an interest-based engineering challenges framework: A design research approach. in (2015).6. Hira, A. & Hynes, M. M. Broadening participation in engineering: Making in the K-12 Classroom following an interest-based framework. in ASEE annual conference proceedings (American
. Contemporary Issues in Education Research (Online), 9(1), 23.[9] Lu, J. J., & Fletcher, G. H. (2009). Thinking about computational thinking. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(1), 260-264.[10] Israel, M., Pearson, J. N., Tapia, T., Wherfel, Q. M., & Reese, G. (2015). Supporting all learners in school-wide computational thinking: A cross-case qualitative analysis. Computers & Education, 82, 263-279.[11] Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM Inroads, 2(1), 48-54.[12] Bennett, J., & Müller, U. (2010). The development of flexibility and abstraction in preschool children. Merrill
of India and US”. 49th ATMAE Annual Conference, November 2-6, 2016, Orlando, FLDakeev, U., Mazumder, Q., Yildiz, F.& Baltaci, K. (2015). “Motivation and Learning Strategies of Students in Kyrgyzstan”. 122nd ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, 2015, Seattle, WAFonseca, D., Valls, F., Redondo, E. & Villagrasa, S. (2016). “Informal interactions in 3D education: Citizenship participation and assessment of virtual urban proposals”. Computers in Human Behavior. 55 (1) 504-518Gray, S. A., Nicosia, K. & Jordan, R. C. (2012). “Lessons learned from citizen science in the classroom”. Democracy & Education, 20 (2), 1-5Reisel, J. R., Walker, C. M. & Cancado, L. (2016). “Successful Undergraduate
. National Findings on Science Education from Speak Up 2007 Author Kim Farris-Berg.19. Steif, P.S. and Dollar, A. (2012). Relating usage of web-based learning materials to learning progress. In: Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX.20. Tai, R. H., Liu, C. Q., Maltese, A. V., Fan, X. (2006). Planning early for careers in science. Science, 312(26).21. Talbert, R. (2012). Learning MATLAB in the inverted classroom. In: Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, San Antonio, TX.22. Thomas, J. S. and Philpot, T. A. (2012). An inverted teaching model for a mechanics of materials course. In: Annual Conference of the American Society of Engineering Education, San Antonio
strategies program in the Computer Science Department by providing aunique approach to outreach. The goal of demand generation strategies is to promote andincrease enrollment in computing-related career fields at higher education institutions inMontana. Although this is a work in progress, the outcomes of the Software Factory approach asit relates to K-12 students are demonstrable and have surpassed expectations. The high schoolstudents were excited about programming in the context of a real world setting, presented andwere the subject of a Q&A session at a graduate level seminar, produced a working prototype ofan Android application, and one of the participating students is now enrolled in computer scienceat Montana State University. The
implementation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 15. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 16. Cunningham, C. M., & Carlsen, W. S. (2014). Teaching Engineering Practices. Journal of ScienceTeacher Education, 25(2), 197-210.
state and nextsteps. In A. Johri & B. M. Olds (Eds.) Handbook of Engineering Education Research (pp. 497-518). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. SanFrancisco: Jossey-BassNGSS Lead States (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Tafoya, J., Nguyen, Q., Skokan, C., & Moskal, B. (2005). K-12 Outreach in an EngineeringIntensive University. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education AnnualConference & Exposition (ASEE).The National Research Council (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices,crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington
argument. New York, NY: Cambridge UniversityPress.24. Moore, T. J., Glancy, A. W., Tank, K. M., Kersten, J. A., Smith, K. A., & Stohlmann,M. S. (2014). A framework for quality K-12 engineering education: Research anddevelopment. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research, 4(1), 1–13.25. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications, Inc.26. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (4th ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
interestof this manuscript is the fact that this elementary education program is 100%engineering driven.BackgroundThere are many approaches to introducing engineering into the elementary schoolenvironment. Many of these pathways have been presented at the American Associationfor Engineering Education annual conference. The Society conducts workshops on thistopic and has also published papers on various approaches. Readers are encouraged toexplore the ASEE website, https://www.asee.org/search?q=elementary+education , formore details. The DLJ program was developed in partnership with the University ofSouth Florida College of Engineering; a National Science Foundation designatedRegional Center for Advanced Technological Education in
professional development activities.Table 1 outlines the day-to-day structure of the program. Any space designated as “Free”indicates that students had the option of choosing how to spend their time (preparing for the nextday’s classes, working on the group project, etc.). Table 1. E-GIRL Program Structure Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday8:30 AM Intro to Presentation9:00 AM Engineering and Practice Industrial Environmental Q&A with9:30 AM Project
: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom, (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational researcher, 18(1), 32-42. Capobianco, B., & Lehman, J. D., & Huang, Q., & Nyquist, C. (2016, June), Impact of Elementary School Teachers' Enacted Engineering Design-Based Science Instruction on Student Learning (Fundamental) Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana. 10.18260/p.25540 Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1999). Beyond being told not to tell. For the learning of mathematics, 19(2), 2-10. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., DiSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design
, only eight(28%) had ever considered teaching in a K-12 setting (see Table 3, in green). Table 3. Few newcomer students had considered K-12 teaching. Q: Have you considered teaching in a K-12 setting? never thought about it rarely thought about it thought about it a little bit thought about it a lot thought about it with certainty 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 # of RespondentsThe survey also included an open-ended probe into the reasoning around their answers, withseveral responses provided below. Students who were not interested in an E+T
-1912.2013.00033.x29. Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18(4), 447-457. doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1804_430. Zhou, Q., Hirst, G., & Shipton, H. (2012). Promoting creativity at work: The role of problem- solving demand. Applied Psychology, 61(1), 56-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2011.00455.x31. Vogt, C. M., Hocevar, D., & Hagedorn, L. S. (2007). A social cognitive construct validation: Determining women's and men's success in engineering programs. Journal of Higher Education, 78(3), 337-364. doi: 10.1353/jhe.2007.001932. Purzer, S. (2011). The relationship between team discourse, self‐efficacy, and individual achievement: A