Paper ID #18460The 2017 Best STEM Books (Resource Exchange)Dr. Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Towson University Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Science Education in the Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geosciences at Towson University. She has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, worked briefly as a process engineer, and taught high school physics and pre-engineering. She has taught engineering and science to children in multiple informal settings. As a pre-service teacher educator, she includes engineering in her elementary and early childhood science methods courses, and has
Paper ID #18779Elementary Student Reflections on Failure Within and Outside of the Engi-neering Design Process (Fundamental)Dr. Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Towson University Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Science Education in the Department of Physics, Astronomy & Geosciences at Towson University. She has a bachelor’s degree in mechanical engineering, worked briefly as a process engineer, and taught high school physics and pre-engineering. She has taught engineering and science to children in multiple informal settings. As a pre-service teacher educator, she includes engineering in her
Paper ID #19223The Long-term Impact of Including High School Students in an EngineeringResearch Experience for Teachers ProgramDr. Linda S. Hirsch, New Jersey Institute of Technology LINDA S. HIRSCH is the Assistant Director for Research, Evaluation and Program Operations for the Center for Pre-College programs at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Dr. Hirsch has a degree in educa- tional psychology with a specialty in Educational Statistics and Measurement from the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University. She has been involved in all aspects of educational and psychological research for over 20 years. Dr
Paper ID #17801Implementation and Evaluation of an Engineering-Focused Outreach Pro-gram to Improve STEM Literacy (Evaluation)Dr. Kuldeep S. Rawat, Elizabeth City State University KULDEEP S. RAWAT is currently the Chair of Department of Technology and Director of Aviation Sci- ence program at Elizabeth City State University (ECSU).He has earned an M.S. in Computer Science, 2001, an M.S. in Computer Engineering, 2003; and, a Ph.D. in Computer Engineering, 2005, from the Center for Advanced Computer Studies (CACS) at University of Louisiana-Lafayette. He serves as the Site Director for NASA MUREP Aerospace Academy program at
Paper ID #16427Comparisons of a Female-Only, Male-Only, and Mixed-Gender EngineeringEnrichment Program for 4th GradersDr. Linda S. Hirsch, New Jersey Institute of Technology LINDA S. HIRSCH is the Assistant Director for Research, Evaluation and Program Operations for the Center for Pre-College programs at New Jersey Institute of Technology. Dr. Hirsch has a degree in educa- tional psychology with a specialty in Educational Statistics and Measurement from the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University. She has been involved in all aspects of educational and psychological research for over 20 years. Dr. Hirsch has
Humanitarian Opportunities of Service-Learning) for approximately ten years. She has incorporated service-learning projects into her classes and laboratories since she started teaching in 2000. Her research interests include community engaged learning and pedagogy, K-12 outreach, biomaterials and materials testing and analysis.Prof. Elizabeth S Hart, University of Dayton Beth Hart is a Lecturer for the University of Dayton School of Engineering Dean’s Office. She received her B.S. and M.S. degrees from the University of Dayton, both in Chemical Engineering. She currently teaches engineering design and oversees the Women Engineering Program, part of the Diversity in Engi- neering Center.Mrs. Laura Kozuh Bistrek, University
Center for Advanced Self-Powered Systems of Integrated Sensors and Technologies (ASSIST).Prof. Jesse S. Jur, North Carolina State University Dr. Jesse Jur is an Assistant Professor of Textile Engineering, Chemistry & Science at NC State Uni- versity’s College of Textiles, a position he has held since 2011. A graduate of The University of South Carolina, he received his PhD in Materials Science and Engineering from N.C. State and has spent the last 12+ years researching primarily at the nanoscale. His research now focuses on applying the use of innovative materials methods to create functional electronic-textiles. Through this research, Dr. Jur is the technology leader for Human Factors and Integration in a
projects focused on STEM education and mentoring.Dr. Monique S Ross, Florida International University Monique Ross holds a doctoral degree in Engineering Education from Purdue University. She has a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering from Elizabethtown College, a Master’s degree in Computer Science and Software Engineering from Auburn University, eleven years of experience in industry as a software engineer, and three years as a full-time faculty in the departments of computer science and engineering. Her interests focus on broadening participation in engineering through the exploration of: 1) race, gender, and identity in the engineering workplace; 2) discipline-based education research (with a focus on computer
Paper ID #15878Using Career Pathways to Assimilate High School Students into the Engi-neering ProfessionDr. S. Jimmy Gandhi, California State University - Northridge Dr. S. Jimmy Gandhi is an assistant professor at California State University, Northridge. His research interests and the courses he teaches includes Quality Management, Lean Manufacturing, Innovation & Entrepreneurship,Sustainability as well as research in the field of Engineering Education. He has over 30 conference and journal publications and has brought in over $500K in research grants to The California State University, Northridge.Dr. Vidya K
for Engineering Education, 2016 Challenges and Benefits of Introducing a Science and Engineering Fair in High-Needs Schools (Work in Progress) Science and Engineering (S&E) Fairs are a valuable educational activity that are believedto increase students’ engagement and learning in science and engineering by emphasizingcreativity and inquiry-focused learning.1,2 However, S&E Fairs put demands on teachers,parents, and students for time and resources.3,4 Organizing such an event is especially demandingin the first few years of implementation. As a result, poor and low-achieving schools are lesslikely to implement such a program for their students, despite the potential benefits 1,3,4. Ourstudy is based on data
/ Caucasian 566 438 1004 Hispanic / Latino 84 62 146 Multiracial 44 73 117 Other 40 34 74 Total 1043 936 1979InstrumentParticipants completed the Student Attitudes toward STEM (S-STEM) survey, developed by theFriday Institute for Educational Innovation (2012), assessing attitudes toward science,technology, engineering and mathematics as well as postsecondary pathways and careerinterests. The S-STEM survey was validated and found to be reliable with this sample ofparticipants (Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, 2012, Unfried, Faber
thisprocess, students are bringing a variety of ideas of areas they are interested in studying, includingwater quality, air quality and walkability of their city. Using the refined ideas, the research teamadapts the sensors to the students’ question(s), and the student team(s) deploys the sensors. Theteams also simultaneously engage in qualitative data collection that provides more face-to-faceand in depth data about the identified community issue. Students then monitor and analyze datafrom the sensors to answer their question, and present their findings and potential solutions tocommunity members, parents and family members, other youth, and city officials. While also allowing the research team to evaluate CPS technology as a
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
. 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
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
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
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