). Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: Integrating content, pedagogy, and technology. Computers & Education, 49, 740–762. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Rodrigues, S. (2003). Experiences from the partnership in primary science project: Teacher professional development involving ICT and science pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education International, 14(2), 2–11. Taleyarkhan, M. R., Dasgupta, C., Mendoza-Garcia, J. A., Magana, A. J., & Purzer, S. (2016). Investigating the Impact of an Educational CAD Modeling Tool on Student Design Thinking
Skills. (2011). Professional Development: A 21st Century Skills Implementation Guide. http://www.p21.org/storage/documents/p21-stateimp_professional_development.pdf3. Next Generation Science Standards (2013). http://www.nextgenscience.org/sites/ngss/files/Appendix%20I%20- %20Engineering%20Design%20in%20NGSS%20-%20FINAL_V2.pdf4. Bowen, B. (2013). Teachers in Industry: Measuring the Impact of a K-12 Teacher Internship Program. Annual Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta, GA.5. Silverstein, S. The Effects of Teacher Participation in a Scientific Work Experience Program on Student Attitudes and Achievement: A Collaborative Multi-site Study. http://scienceteacherprogram.org
., Helbling, J., and Lestari, W., “An Aerospace Engineering Summer Camp forHigh School Students”, Proceedings of the PSW 2011 Regional ASEE Conference, March 31-April 2, 2011, California State University at Fresno, CA.3. Post, J.E. “An Arduino-based Summer Camp Experience for High School Students,”Proceedings of the 2016 ASEE Annual Conference, June 2016, New Orleans, LA.4. Jeffers, A., Safferman, A., and Safferman, S. (2004) “Understanding K-12 EngineeringOutreach Programs,” J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract., ASCE 130(2):95-108.5. Fry, C., Davis, J., Shirzi-Fard, Y., “Recruitment and Retention of Females in the STEMDisciplines: The Annual Girl Scout Day Camp at Baylor University,” Proceedings of the 38thASEE/IEEE FIE Conference, October, 2008 at
instrumentality, whichdescribes the degree to which an individual considers something s/he is learning to be useful inhis/her future. Measures of instrumentality have been shown to predict course performance in avariety of settings, including engineering [33, 34]. Essentially, when students don’t see a need tolearn something, their learning tends to be negatively impacted. Commonly, the courses thatgate-keep advanced coursework—such as capstone design courses—include a large componentof introductory or basic content that stands in as disciplinary knowledge [35]; in such cases,students who don’t see these components as useful will tend to perform less well. Increasinginstrumentality for struggling and underserved learners is one way to support them. For
asoriginally recorded...”). However, in viewing the original video footage, the authors found thatthe vignette and the video data do not correspond. The vignette that NGSS provides states thefollowing: “Ms. S. moved over to another group that had just broken into laughter and asked what was so funny. Rick related, ‘I see smashed cans all the time. I think an airfoot stomped the tanker down. And the molecules transformed into a molecule foot.’ Ms. S. asked, ‘What is this imaginary foot?’ Latasia answered, ‘Air.’ Ms. S. guided the students, ‘Let’s add that idea to the model.’ (The teacher validated the use of place [smashed cans in the neighborhood] to keep the students engaged and make a
.Mukuni, J. (2015). The chronic shortage of STEM talent. Teacher Education & Practice. 28(2/3), 208-220.Nugent, G., Kunz, G., Rilett, L., & Jones, E. (2010). Extending engineering education to K-12. The Technology Teacher. 14-19.O’Meara, K. & Rice, R. E. (eds.). (2005). Faculty priorities reconsidered: Encouraging multiple forms of scholarship. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Purzer, S., Strobel, J. & Cardella, M. E. (Eds.). (2014). Engineering in pre-college settings: Synthesizing research, policy and practices. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Press. 17Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive
integration into the scientific community. Journal of Educational Psychology. Vol. 103, No. 1, 206-222. 3. Lent,R.W., Brown, S.D., & Larkin, K.C. (1986), Self-efficacy in the prediction of academic performance and perceived career options. Journal of Counseling Psychology.Vol. 33(3). 265-269. 4. MacPhee, D., Farro, S., Canetto, S. (2013) Academic Self-Efficacy and Performance of Underrepresented STEM Majors: Gender, Ethnic, and Social Class Patterns. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2013, pp. 347—369. 5. Bandalos, D., Yates, K., & Thorndike-Christ, T., (1995). Effects of Math Self-Concept, Perceived Self-Efficacy, and Attributions for Failure and Success on Test
projects (e.g., dropping balls to determine theheight of a stairwell and using shadows to calculate heights).Citations 1. “Science and engineering indicators 2004,” National Science Board, May 2004 [Online]. Available: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/, last accessed May 25, 2009. 2. M. Yilmaz, J. Ren, S. Custer and J. Coleman, "Hands-On Summer Camp to Attract K–12 Students to Engineering Fields," in IEEE Transactions on Education, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 144-151, Feb. 2010. 3. S. Huang, C. M. Degen, M. D. Ellingsen, M. D. Bedillion, and K.H. Muci-Kuchler, K. H., Investigating the Impact of an Outreach Activity on High School Students’ Attitude Towards STEM Disciplines Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference
Paper ID #18984High School to STEM - Dean’s Early Research InitiativeDr. Afroditi Vennie Filippas, Virginia Commonwealth University Dr. Filippas received her B.S. in Electrical Engineering from the University of Patras, Greece. After earn- ing her M. S. and Ph. D. from the University of Texas at Austin, she completed post-doctoral research with the Institute of Accelerating Systems and Applications in Athens, Greece. Post-academically, she worked for Ansoft Corporation as a research scientist spearheading the development of the next genera- tion code for Ansoft DesignerTM. Dr. Filippas joined Virginia Commonwealth
0.05 (Table 3). This is in contrast to Stoeger et al.’s findingsthat STEM interest is almost three times higher for boys than girls. The study also concluded thatgirls, although not limited in their ability, need positive mentor or instructor support to overcomeingrained stereotypes (Stoeger et al., 2013). The gender gap in this study may have been closeddue to the STEM focused school culture, various kinds of activities at school in addition to theSTEM extracurricular clubs.Table 3: The impact of gender on STEM perception based on STEM club enrollment p<0.05 Gender Sig. Club Only F M 0.53 Non Club F M
problems 1-3 on the worksheet Pattern completion: Complete a missing Worksheet (after they read Pattern Fish with the teacher and explore pattern with colors and letters. patterns as they go through the book). Pattern abstraction: Show abstraction by Teacher asks: Can you use letters to describe the patterns in representing a color patter using letters. problems 1 and 2? 4B Have students complete #1-3 on the BLM by labeling the Pattern identification: Identify a pattern Worksheet patterns with letters (As and B s). Share out student ideas demonstrated in class and represent them about Pattern#3 (AABAAB
like to thank Sonoran Schools CEO: Fatih Karatas, and CAO: RobertHobbins, also Sonoran Science Academy’s administrators Jim Satterlee and Naci Karadeniz fortheir support during this study.Bibliography[1]Stoeger, H., Duan, X., Schirner, S., Greindl, T., & Ziegler, A. (2013). The effectiveness of a one-year online mentoring program for girls in STEM. Computers & Education, 69, 408. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.07.032[2]Christensen, R., Knezek, G., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2014). Student perceptions of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) content and careers. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 173-186. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.01.046[3]Chatzinikolakis, G., & Papadakis, S. (2014). Motivating K-12 students learning
the spring to present the co-roboticcourse to recruit teachers.AcknowledgmentNational Science Foundation supports this work under grant numbers 1426989 and 1453886.References[1] J. L. Irwin, J. Pearce, G. Anzolone, and D. Oppliger, “The reprap 3-D printer revolution in stem education,” in 121st ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, 2014.[2] S. Ziaeefard, G. Ribeiro, and N. Mahmoudian, “GUPPIE, underwater 3d printed robot a game changer in control design education,” in American Control Conference (ACC), 2015, pp. 2789–2794, July 2015.[3] N. L. States, “Next generation science standards: For states, by states,” 2013.[4] A. Bonarini and M. Romero, Robotics and Design: An Interdisciplinary Crash Course, 2013.[5] X. Zhu and J. Lin
impacting them and their students (if they are, in fact, teaching inclassrooms).Just over half (51%) of the respondents indicated that they were K-12 teachers (almost one-quarter of whom had been teaching for at least 20 years), 6% indicated that they were “K-12educator[s] in an informal learning setting,” 3% “engineer[s] engaged in K-12 outreach,” and 2%“community member[s] engaged in K-12 outreach.” Another 38% of respondents identified withan “other” category, which included students, homeschool teachers, university faculty,community college instructors, as well as a self-described curriculum developer, a scienceinstructional coach, and a teacher’s aide.The users varied in how often they reported teaching TeachEngineering curriculum in
between semi-conductors in a solar cell. Students then connect the story to an actual solar cell given anoverview of the cell’s structure and vocabulary terms. Students can be assigned to groups, witheach group assigned a scene from the story, following by whole-class discussionCurriculum connections: This lesson pre-supposes that students have completed a unit on atomicstructure. The lesson was an expansion of a unit on types of energy, as part of a sub-unit on solar. This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Energy (DOE) under NSF CA No. EEC-1041895. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do
were interested inhelping the campers afraid of swimming to get into the pool and enjoy without necessarilyhaving to swim. As a solution for their problem statement, they designed an underwater domewith a slide used to enter it from the top of the pool.Team 26 “sailor scouts” and team 36 “white tigers” had similar interests. Figure 3 shows theirprototypes. They brainstormed to find solutions to get from one station to another without havingto walk. Team 26 made an inflatable trampoline cart with rails that would be pulled by theirteam leader, while team 36’s cart would be driven by motors and power. Team 26 also addedrails for safety of the passengers; they also made the cart soft so it would go through narrowspaces, and made it inflatable so
., Hees F., Jeschke S.: Hands on Robotics. Concept of a Student Laboratory on the Basis of anExperience-Oriented Learning Model. Proceedings of the International Conference on Education and NewLearning Technologies, In: EDULEARN 2010, 5-7 July 2010, IATED, pp. 6047-6057, Barcelona, Spain.[7] Stehling, V., Schuster, K., Richert, A. & Jeschke, S. Access All Areas: Designing a hands-on roboticscourse for visually impaired high school students, in Proceedings of the International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction (HCI 2015); 1-8 August, Los Angeles, USA.[8] Mubin, O., Stevens, C.J., Shahid, S., Mahmud, A.A., and Jian-Jie, D. A Review of the Applicability ofRobots in Education (2013). Online: http://roila.org/wp-content/uploads/2013
the game. References 1. APPENDIX I – Engineering Design in the NGSS [PDF]. (2013, April). Next Generation Science Standards. 2. P21 Framework Definitions [PDF]. (2015, May). Partnership for 21st Century Learning. 3. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M. and Rogers, C. (2008), “Advancing Engineering Education in P12 Classrooms”. Journal of Engineering Education, 97: 369–387. 4. Bowen, B. (2014, June), “K12 Teacher Internships: Professional Development in the Engineering Design Process and STEM Learning Paper”. 2014 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Indianapolis
Undergraduate Nanotechnology Education Program with Integrated Laboratory Experience, 2015, ASEE Conferences: Seattle, Washington.2. Minaie, A., Sanati-Mehrizy, A., Sanati-Mehrizy, P., and Sanati-Mehrizy, R., Nanotechnology in Engineering Education, 2015, ASEE Conferences: Seattle, Washington.3. Murday, J., Hersam, M., Chang, R., Fonash, S., and Bell, L., Developing the Human and Physical Infrastructure for Nanoscale Science and Engineering, in Nanotechnology Research Directions for Societal Needs in 2020. 2011, Springer. p. 501-560.4. Hsi, S., Sabelli, N., Krajcik, J., Tinker, R., and Ellenbogen, K. Learning at the Nanoscale: Research Questions That the Rapidly Evolving Interdisciplinarity of
: Visions of Engineering in the New Century. (The National Academies Press, 2004).7. Grover, S. & Pea, R. Computational Thinking in K–12 A Review of the State of the Field. EDUCATIONAL RESEARCHER 42, 38–43 (2013).8. Partovih, H. Transforming US education with computer science. in 45th ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, SIGCSE 2014, March 5, 2014 - March 8, 2014 5 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2014). doi:10.1145/2538862.25547939. Nikou, S. A. & Economides, A. A. Measuring student motivation during ‘The Hour of Code’ activities. in 14th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, ICALT 2014, July 7, 2014 - July 9, 2014 744–745 (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
, by states. Washington D.C.: National Academies Press. 2. National Research Council. (2012). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC.: The National Academy Press. 3. National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high school students' motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 4. Roehrig, G. H., Moore, T. J., Wang, H. H., & Park, M. S. (2012). Is Adding the E Enough? Investigating the Impact of K‐12 Engineering Standards on the Implementation of STEM Integration. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), 31-44. 5. http://www.eie.org/eie-curriculum/curriculum-units/water-water-everywhere-designing-water
learning: concepts andcases. Peter Lang, Oxford ; New York.4. Tannhäuser, Anne-Christin, and Claudio Dondi. “It’s Lab Time–Connecting Schools to Universities’ RemoteLaboratories.” In Pixel International Conference, 1–5, 2012.5. Charette, Robert N. “The STEM Crisis Is a Myth.” IEEE Spectrum 50, no. 9 (September 2013): 44–59.doi:10.1109/MSPEC.2013.6587189.6. Govaerts, Sten, Yiwei Cao, Andrii Vozniuk, Adrian Holzer, Danilo Garbi Zutin, Elio San Cristóbal Ruiz, LarsBollen, et al. “Towards an Online Lab Portal for Inquiry-Based Stem Learning at School.” In Advances in Web-Based Learning–ICWL 2013, 244–53. Springer, 2013. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-41175-5_25.7. V. J. Harward, J. A. del Alamo, S. R. Lerman P. H. Bailey, J
accessible technology with multisensory learning and assessmentopportunities allows with VIB to access STEM fields more readily. Therefore, it is essential thatthese types of engineering activities be further incorporated into science classrooms as they makethe material accessible to all students.Bibliography1. Erickson, W., C. Lee, and S. von Shcrader. “Disability Statistics from the 2013 American Community Survey (ACS).” 2015 [cited 2015 January 26]; Available from: http://www.disabilitystatistics.org.2. Bottomley, L., et al., Engineering Summer Programs: A Strategic Model Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition. Seattle, Washington. , 2015(June): p. 10.18260/p.23982.3. Napper, S.A., P.N. Hale, and F.J. Puckett
new to the student s/he may feel somewhat at a loss inthe beginning, finding that learning is to be self-motivated rather than directed by the instructor.The second design challenge built upon principles of the first challenge, extending these intechnological complexity and duration. Students presented their solutions to faculty and peers atthe end of the quarter.Design Challenge I (shown below and in Figures 2-4) was planned to span approximately threeweeks, and asked students to design a wheelchair ramp for a home on a very restricted lot,requiring difficult geometric constraints. Each student team was presented with a differentresidence configuration in relation to its vehicle driveway, and asked to design a ramp so that aresident who was
than 45 minutes long) are at a disadvantagewhen incorporating hands-on projects. It takes time to distribute materials at the beginning ofeach class and then clean up materials at the end of the bell. Longer bell schedules or blockschedules are generally preferable for project-based work. For some teachers, the barrier of time seems insurmountable. Others embrace this new wayof teaching, even after their time in the program comes to an end and they are no longer requiredto teach using challenge-based learning and engineering design. What makes the difference? Two factors emerge as teachers weigh the cost-benefit analysis to this new way of teaching.First, the selection of academic standard(s) to be addressed by the units, as well as
noticedisciplinary aspects of their students’ engineering design.AcknowledgementsThis work was conducted at the Tufts University Center for Engineering Education andOutreach. This project is funded by the National Science Foundation DRK-12 program, grant#DRL-1020243. The authors would like to thank the Novel Engineering team for theirassistance, particularly Dr. Mary McCormick and Brian O’Connell for their help in conductingthe interviewers. The authors would also like to thank the six teachers who participated in theinterviews.References1) Hammer, D., Goldberg, F., & Fargason, S. (2012). Responsive teaching and the beginnings of energy in a third grade classroom. Review of Science, Mathematics, and ICT Education, 6(1), 51-72.2) Robertson, A. D
packages. They then improve and reevaluate this design13.The study recruited teachers from Massachusetts, Maryland, and North Carolina. Allparticipating teachers received three days of professional development on the curriculum unit(s)that they would be teaching (assigned based on alignment with which science topics theyreported teaching). They then implemented their assigned unit during the 2013-2014 and 2014-2015 school years. As part of this implementation, students completed all written work in anengineering notebook which was returned to the researchers when the unit was completed. Theengineering notebooks were developed for the efficacy study by consolidating worksheetsalready included in the teacher’s guides for the units and binding
summer program, students were asked to rate their perceivedinterest and success in math and science activities. Table 1 presents responses from theparticipants and the average rate for students’ math/science interest and math/science success.Students were asked to provide a rate using the scale (1 “Do Not Like” to 10 “Like A Lot”)gauging interest and (1 “Low success” to 10 “Very high success”) gauging level of success.Compared to science, students slightly rated their math skills higher for both interest and successwith an average of 8.28 for both categories. Average rating of science skills for interest andsuccess were 7.97 and 7.92, respectively. More 10’s were selected by students as their perceivedrate for math interest and success (12 and
can build their competence with successful experiences. Then by providing studentswith a university visit with fun social components and innovative engineering lab activities wecan provide a second opportunity for students to begin envisioning themselves in the role offuture college student and maybe even a future engineer.References[1] Koller, E., Beek, L., Besser, D., Guzey, S., & Thomas, A. P. (2015). Implementing and evaluating an e-textilecurriculum in an engineering summer program for girls. ASEE Annual Conference, Seattle, WA, June 2015.[2] Van Sloun, F., Yang, Y. & Besser, D. (2014). Engineering exploration module for rising 7th & 9th Grade Girls.ASEE North Midwest Regional Conference, Iowa City, IA, October 2014.[3] Puck