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.
. 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