the pre/postassessment questions related to the fundamental CS theory. Table 1 contains the questions alongwith the CS concept(s) they assess. It is important to note that question seven, regarding theillustration of sequential operation, only contained graphical illustrations while all the remainingquestions were related to real code statements in one of three programming languages: C++,Python or Logo.Table 1. Assessment questions and corresponding CS concept(s).Question Session Assessment Question (Summary) CS Concept(s) Which command could be used to query aQ5 Baseline Syntax robot's joint state
worked to create but had fun at the same time: “Playing with Legos (is my favorite 15part), because I get to create things. I love creating things.” This seventh grade participantrecognized the need to use their brain to be innovative: “I feel like not just to be smart, but to behealthy, to be strong [sic]. It isn’t all about the brains. Most of it’s the brains, otherwise who’dcome up with NASA and stuff like that.” An eighth grade participant reported, “I was already thinking about it (a STEM career) butI think it made me for sure that I want to be an engineer later on [sic].” The participant enjoyedthe rocket launch experiment, as (s)he reports, “I think it was just really fun to
. (2012). Design thinking research: Measuring performance in context. Heidelberg, NY: Springer.4. Carberry, A. R., Lee, H.-S., & Ohland, M. W. (2010). Measuring engineering design self-efficacy. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(1), 71-79.5. Warner, S. A., & Gemmill, P. R. (Eds.). (2011). Creativity and design in technology & engineering education (Vol. 60). Reston, VA: Council on Technology Teacher Education.6. Munce, R., & Fraser, E. (2013). Where are the stem students? Retrieved October 7, 2014, from http://www.stemconnector.org7. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of stem career interest in high school: A gender study. Science
,therewerealsopromisingexamplesofmiddleschoolteachersutilizingtheSTEAMTrunks.Table2belowpresentsillustrativeexamplesofprojectsutilizingeachoftheSTEAMTrunks. 7Table2.IllustrativeExamplesofSTEAMTrunkUtilizationSTEAM Grade ProjectDescriptionTrunk Level(s) 3DPrinting 5thGrade Aspartoftheschool’sScienceandEngineeringFair,students designedandprototypedoriginalinnovationstosolvereal worldproblems. 8thGrade Student’sdesignandprototypehelmetsthatwouldmore effectivelyprotectagainstinjuryinavarietyofcontactsports. Electronics 4th/5th IntheirRoboticsenrichmentclass,studentsusevarious Grade
audience1 Building a Learn NC (web) Teacher 8th grade Building a paper bridge: Walston, S. (n.d.) mathematics bridge and An class measurement introduction to problem solving2 Lesson Plan Beam UCLA (web) Engineering Not stated Building a for Mulchandani, A. graduate bridge Bridge (n.d.) student Building3 Build a Teaching Ideas (web) Teacher Ages 7-11 Building a bridge
. June 2016. Paper ID #16370.2. Ragusa, G., Mataric, M. (2016). “Research Experiences For Teachers: Linking Research toTeacher Practice and Student Achievement in Engineering and Computer Science,” 2016 ASEE123rd Annual Conference and Exposition. New Orleans, Louisiana. June 2016. Paper ID #17351.3. Trenor, J., Yu, S., Grant, D., Salem, H. (2009). “Participation in a Research Experience forTeachers Program: Impact on Perceptions and Efficacy to Teach Engineering,” 2009 ASEE 116thAnnual Conference and Exposition. Austin, Texas. June 2009. Paper ID #AC 2009-786.4. Klein-Gardner, S., Johnston, M., Benson, L. (2012) “Impact of RET Teacher-DevelopedCurriculum Units on Classroom Experiences for Teachers and Students,” Journal of Pre-CollegeEngineering
engineering looks like foryoung children in a family learning context and how early experiences with this topic can shapethe ongoing learning pathways of children and their parents.ReferencesAlexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., & Leibham, M. E. (2015). Emerging individual interests related to science in young children. In K. A. Renninger, M. Nieswandt, & S. Hidi (Eds.), Interest in mathematics and science learning (pp. 261–280). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Bagiati, A., & Evangelou, D. (2015). Engineering curriculum in the preschool classroom: The teacher’s experience. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 23(1), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X
science knowledge using real data. This fell to just 7.7% post-institute – with furtheropportunities to engage in hands-on research using emerging technology throughout the schoolyear.VIII. AcknowledgmentThis work has been made possible by the NSF EPSCoR Track III Award #1348266.IX. References1 National Center for Education Statistics. 1990–2009. Digest of Education Statistics. US Department of Education. nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/2 Wang, M.T., Eccles, J.S., &, S. (2013). Not Lack of Ability but More Choice: Individual and Gender Differences in Choice of Careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Psychological Science May 2013 24: 770-775, first published on March 18, 20133
Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree). Students scale scores on the iSTEMinstrument were produced by taking the mean response across items. Therefore, individual scorescould range from 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher iSTEM perceptions, the descriptivestatistics for this study is shown in table 1 in the results section.STEM clubs. Participants responded “Yes” (1) or “No” (0) to the question regarding theirinvolvement in extracurricular STEM clubs: “Do you participate in any Math, Science,Engineering, or Technology clubs inside or outside of school?” If the student indicated “Yes,”s/he was asked to specify the name of the STEM club, see descriptive statistics in table 1 inresults section
multiple times to investigatewhether any themes were present across numerous students in the study. This transcript reviewfocused on specific questions asked during the interview, primarily students’ personal interest(s), 2career aspiration(s), experience with engineering, and understanding of engineering. Analysiswas performed by capturing consistencies in the data relevant to the framework of this paper, andthen student characteristics were considered for any plausible explanations.Findings/Discussion The first theme that became apparent following the analysis of the data is the narrowcomprehension of engineers and engineering conveyed by
project. Finally, MEP mentors participatedin several planned social events with MSEN participants in order to help build relationships amongmentors and MSEN students. The project culminated in a poster session where participantsshowcased their design projects to an audience of K-12 administrators, corporate partners, facultyand parents.Preliminary ResultsThe Student Attitudes toward STEM (S-STEM) for Middle and High School (6-12)20 uses a 5-pointLikert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree and5=strongly agree) to evaluate students’ confidence and attitudes toward math, science, engineeringand technology and 21st century learning. It was administered in a pre/post format. To get a betterunderstanding of
affords us thechance to change our curriculum, making improvements based on teacher and student feedback;we will continue to do so, analyzing forthcoming results to gauge the success of the curriculumin changing student perceptions. The continuation of the project presents further opportunities toimmerse ourselves in student design experiences and uncover features that are influential forchanging student perceptions about engineering.AcknowledgementsThis materials is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under GrantNo. 1513175-DRL.References1. McGrath, E., Sayres, J., Lowes, S., & Lin, P. (2008, October). Underwater lego robotics as the vehicle to engage students in STEM: The build it project's first year of
in relation toengineering-specific domains of thinking, such as Testing and Design Requirements (criteria andconstraints). Future studies can expand this assessment instrument by testing it in other middleschool classrooms, and they can validate later iterations of this instrument. References[1] Manz, E. (2015). Representing student argumentation as functionally emergent from scientific activity. Reviewof Educational Research, 85(4), 553-590.[2] Sampson, V., & Blanchard, M. R. (2012). Science teachers and scientific argumentation: Trends in views andpractice. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(9), 1122-1148.[3] Ryu, S., & Sandoval, W. A. (2012). Improvement to elementary
ontological framework. Lastly, upon examination of the cognitive processes K-12 students’ employ duringdesigning, few coding schemes actually are informed by educational philosophies, learningtheory, and STEM educational reform. Nor, do they indicate how students can be better equippedto learn and develop their cognition while designing. As researchers and educators moveforward, examining decision making strategies as well as normative models may provideadditional relevance to Design Cognition in terms of how students are performing in relation toeducational philosophies, learning theory, and STEM Educational reform. ReferencesAdams, R. S., Turn, J., & Atman, C. Y. (2003). Educating effective
will be presented to high school students as part of Siant LouisUniversity engineering summer camps in June and July 2017.BibliographyDeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011). Participant observation: A guide for fieldworkers. Rowman Altamira.Elam, M. E., Fonseca, D. J., & Lindly, J. K. (2011). Transportation Systems Curriculum for High Schools. Retrieved February 2, 2011.Islam, S., & Brown, S. (2013). Transportation-OPOLY: An Innovative Tool to Promote Transportation Engineering. International Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering, 2(3), 31–36.Luken, B., & Mumbower, S. (2010). Poster: Engaging Transportation Engineering Activities for Middle School and High School Students. Louisville, Kentucky
-Seng Pang and Jerry Pack, ”Stress analysis of non-conventional composite pipes” Journal of Composite Structures, 79(1), 2006, pp. 125-132. 3. M.A. Wahab, M. S. Alam, M.J Painter and P.E. Stafford, ”Experimental and Numerical Simulation of Restraining Forces in Gas Metal Arc Welded Joint,” American Welding Journal (Research c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Paper ID #17950Supplement) 85(2), February, 2006. 4. M.S. Alam and M.A. Wahab, ”Modeling of Fatigue Crack Growthand Propagation Life of Joint of Two Elastic Materials Using Interface Elements,” International Journal ofPressure Vessel and
Possible Consideration Level Level Time Level In-class Pre- Well suited to 2-3 2-3 class Low. System Indirect Centers on teacher approach professional young planning periods aware of S-L, Advocacy control as it introduces Beginning students or periods but not using S-L elements in the students with the method classroom with relatively high
”included a claim about a design that was supported by anything else, whether that support was apiece of evidence or a warrant. Data So, Qualifier , Claim Since Unless Warrant Rebuttal On account of BackingFigure 1. Toulmin’s Argument Pattern23. Adapted from The Uses of Argument (p. 97), by S. E.Toulmin.The Framework for Quality K-12 Engineering Education was designed to inform thedevelopment and evaluation of curricula, standards, and other education initiatives related to K-12 engineering education24. The framework is made up of nine indicators that
and teaching, 21st century learning skills, using technologyin the classroom, and STEM career awareness (The Friday Institute for Educational Innovation,2012b). The Teaching Design, Engineering and Technology (DET) survey measures teacherperceptions and familiarity with these subjects and perceived barriers to teaching these topics.The DET survey has 40 questions using a 5 point Likert scale (Tao, Purzer, & Cardella, 2011).TRAILS students are being surveyed to assess interest and confidence in learning STEMsubjects as measured by the Students Attitudes Toward STEM Survey (S-STEM) for middle andhigh school students (Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, 2012a). Student participantsare surveyed in both the experimental and comparison
Thinking Teacher Resources (Second ed.).Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education,43(1), 75–98.Dasgupta, A., & Purzer, S. (2016, October). No patterns in pattern recognition: A systematic literature review. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 2016 IEEE (pp. 1-3). IEEE.Hynes, M. M., & Moore, T. J., & Cardella, M. E., & Tank, K. M., & Purzer, S., & Menekse, M., & Brophy, S. P. (2016, June), Inspiring Computational Thinking in Young Children's Engineering Design Activities (Fundamental). In the Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE Annual
opinions, findings, and conclusions orrecommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the National Science Foundation.Bibliography1. J. Popkin and K. Kobe (2010), Manufacturing Resurgence, A Must for US Prosperity, National Association ofManufacturers and NAM Council of Manufacturing Associates, January, 2010.2. National Association of Manufacturers. www.nam.org/Issues/Official-Policy-Positions/Human-Resources-Policy/HRP-01-Education-and-the-Workforce.aspx, accessed Sept 15, 2014.3. Freeman, A., Hrabowski, F. (2012) Broadening Participation in the American STEM Workforce, BioScience,62(4):325-326.4. Frantz, T., Siller, T., DeMiranda, M (2011), Pre-Collegiate Factors Influencing the
middle school mathematics teacher’s practical knowledge using personal experiential research methods.Mr. Murat Akarsu, Purdue University, West Lafayette (College of Engineering) c American Society for Engineering Education, 2017 Mineral Mayhem: Using Engineering to Teach Middle School Earth Science (Resource Exchange) Target Grade Level: 6th-8th grade E n g rT E AM SEngineering to Transform the Education of Analysis, Measurement, & Science Authors and Contact Information: Holly Miller1 Tamara J. Moore2 Aran W. Glancy3 Emilie A. Siverling2 S. Selcen Guzey2 hmiller@hse.in.us tamara@purdue.edu aran@umn.edu esiverli
image or images comes to mind when you think of engineers or engineering? 4. In your view, what is science? What is its purpose? 5. Do you agree with the statement “engineering is applied science? Why, or why not? 6. In what way are science and engineering similar? 7. What are the differences between science and engineering? 8. If two engineering firms are given the same job (to design a new cell phone), would the product be more or less the same? Why, or why not? 9. Please answer the following three questions based on the statement here. Imagine that another bridge is going to be built over the Colorado River. a. What do engineers need to consider in the process in planning this? b. What component(s) of this task will be
a secondoffering is planned for 2017 albeit with a more accessible project.References1. Goldman, S., & Carroll, M., & Zielezinski, M. B., & Loh, A., & Ng, E. S., & Bachas- Daunert, S. (2014, June), Dive In! An Integrated Design Thinking/STEM Curriculum Paper presented at 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis, Indiana.2. Biggers, M., & Haefner, L. A., & Bell, J. (2016, June), Engineering First: How Engineering Design Thinking Affects Science Learning Paper presented at 2016 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, New Orleans, Louisiana.3. Menold, J., & Jablokow, K. W., & Kisenwether, E. C., & Zappe, S. E. (2015, June), Exploring the Impact of Cognitive Preferences on
Example Topic(s) Aligned Measurement Human-Centered Creative Self-Efficacy and Creative Role-Identity; Creativity Design Thinking Design in Engineering Design (Artifacts) Design Elements and Engineering Design Ideation Capacity; Creativity in Engineering Design Principles Process (Artifacts) Ideation Capacity; Creativity in Engineering Design Spatial Thinking (Artifacts) Design Skill Development Technical Capacity Creativity in Engineering Design (Artifacts) Tinkering
; however, there were students in each grade level who recounted how their groupnegotiated specific disagreements around design decisions. Consider, for example, the followingexchange, in which one student describes a disagreement about the placement of the catapult inthe 6th grade design challenge: R: Did you feel comfortable sharing your ideas with the others in your group? S: Yes ma'am. R: Why do you think that is? S: We was all buddies and stuff. She let us choose groups. We got to choose our buddies. I felt comfortable because, you know, there was really no target answers. It was just an idea. R: Was there a time when there was any kind of disagreement in your group? S: Yes. One time me and this
design from the start. The fifth principle is to ensure allscience and mathematics concepts, and technology tools employed are necessary forstudents’ successful completion of the STEM-design projects. With these principles inmind, the next step is to examine classroom enactments of the curriculum, focusing onthe extent to which students apply mathematics and science concepts to their designwork and the challenges and affordances for doing so (Berland, 2013).Effective Instructional Methodologies Contemporary engineering education should emphasize the design process,challenge-based learning, and other engineering habits of mind (Berland, Martin, Ko, etal., 2013). The results of Berland, Martin, Ko, et al.’s (2013) study revealed that as