the foundations course Digital Electronics ™ asimplemented in an urban high school. The lessons observed covered two project areas:programming a basic stamp robot (3 hours) and the creation and troubleshooting ofcircuits using the computer program Multisims and breadboards (4 hours).First, the videotapes were digitized and entered into Transana21(see www.transana.org), acomputer application for discourse analysis that integrates the video, transcript text andcodes. Classroom sessions were segmented into clips, and clips were coded to reflect thepoints of interest noted in our research questions, in a manner similar to Nathan et al.,200922.Coding FrameworkOur coding framework delineates four different dimensions: A. Instruction time codes
. Am. Ed. Res. Jour., 38: 915-945.8. Jeanpierre, B., Oberhauser, K., & Freeman, C., 2005. Characteristics of professional development that effect changed in secondary science teachers’ classroom practices, J. of Res. in Sci. Teaching, 42: 668-690.9. Supovitz, J.A. & Turner, H.M., 2000. The effects of professional development on science teaching practices in the professions, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.10. Geddis, A.N.., 1993. Transforming subject-matter knowledge: the role of pedagogical content knowledge in learning to reflect on teaching. Intnl. J. of Sci. Ed. 15: 673-683.11. Keys, C. & Bryan, L.A., 2001. Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research for lasting reform, J
22.814.3on anecdotal evidence from teacher feedback to improve students’ understanding of fundamentalengineering concepts8,9,10. The Integrated Teaching and Learning (ITL) Program at theUniversity of Colorado at Boulder developed a Creative Engineering course for students at anearby high school. This course focused on hands-on design based engineering in conjunctionwith the high school curriculum and demonstrated that students had increased confidence in theuse of engineering methods to solve problems11.Research on learning styles reflects the positive impact of integrating kinesthetic learningenvironments with traditional learning structures. A recent study showed that learning is aconglomeration of a variety of interactions12. The results
and students improveand adjust their learning.32, 33, 34In the Generate Ideas (GI) stage, students try to create solutions to a novel and challengingproblem. It provides practice with the cognitive and affective sides of creative problem solvingand is the primary step where innovation is developed.35Since students reflect on what they know and determine what they need to learn, the GI stageexercises metacognition.36 When working in teams, the students share ideas and developdifferent perspectives on the problem.37 If students attempt to understand and solve the problembefore they receive instruction, it can help their learning30 and increase the probability that theywill create guiding questions.38Frequently, college engineering students are
indicate Page 22.1024.6that “design- and project-based learning” and the “Grand Challenges” contextualizationwill be included in their future teaching experiences. They share that starting with“hands-on exploration”, for example “starting with the flashlight activity,” will be pointof access to STEM that they can implement with their students. In teaching strategies,they specified “KWL charts, mindmaps, and Think & Tag” as forms of effectivebrainstorming, reporting, and reflection. Creating an educational environment thatincludes “centers, collaborative learning, laboratories, and modeling” is indicated in thedata to be a key strategy that enhances
with additional factors. Future longitudinal studies are necessary toultimately answer the question as to whether or not explicit CTC messaging at a young age ismaking the desired impact of increasing diversity in college engineering enrollment.AcknowledgementsThe authors gratefully acknowledge the support of the National Science Foundation for Track 2GK-12 grant no. 0338326 and Track 3 GK-12 grant no. 1133773. Any opinions, findings, andconclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do notnecessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. We also acknowledgeadditional support provided by the University of Colorado Undergraduate ResearchOpportunities Program. Alexander Archuleta and Linda
-based experimental devices of the lessonsfacilitated students’ preferred methods of learning even as it fostered their creativity whilesimultaneously establishing boundaries and structure in accordance with the learning goals of thelesson. Moreover, as reflected in Figures 2d, 5d and 7d, in post-lesson assessment surveys alarger proportion of students acknowledged that the use of LEGO Mindstorms was helpful in thelesson. Finally, as evidenced from Tables III-V, VII-IX and XI-XIII, students’ response toevaluation questions in post-lesson assessment surveys suggests that LEGO-based activitiesproved effective in engaging them in the lesson. The descriptive responses to EPr/o1 were categorized into either a positive or negativeresponse to
reaching young women.References1. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0802505. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.2. National Science Foundation Engineering Task Force. The engineering workforce: current state, issues, and recommendations. 2005. p. 19.3. Thom, J.M., R. E. Thompson and C. Hoy. Understanding the barriers to recruiting women in engineering and technology programs. Proceedings of the 2001 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Exposition. 2001. http://www.asee.org/acPapers
period in between the first and third period classes, theteachers, scientists and engineer had time to reflect on the first class, discuss other ideas that theteachers had to further enhance the visit for the students, and identify problems that could beaddressed in the remaining class periods. At the end of the day, the teachers, scientists, andengineer met for an hour to debrief. Some outcomes of this session included: Eight to ten students in each classroom worked directly with a scientist or engineer (78 total students) Page 22.1161.4 Students were very receptive to help from scientists and engineers Passion of the
science and engineering and the marvels of research at the frontiers ofknowledge.AcknowledgmentsThis program is funded by the National Science Foundation (grant 0502327). The views,opinions, and conclusions reported in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the NSF. Weare grateful for the Foundation’s support. We also thank the reviewers for their feedback.References1 Research Experiences for Teachers (RET) in Engineering and Computer Science: Program Solicitation, NSF 11- 509.” National Science Foundation. http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11509/nsf11509.htm2 Sabochik, K. Changing the Equation in STEM Education. The White House Blog: September 16, 2010. http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/09/16/changing-equation-stem
project will be available fordownload on the ISERC website, ISERC.LaTEch.edu.Along with the project description, data are presented that reflect the effectiveness of the projecttoward building lasting relationships with area feeder schools. Since 2004, 74 different teachersfrom 17 different high schools have participated in Louisiana Tech's STEM outreach programs.Although the primary focus of these programs is to build lasting relationships with the areateachers, over 350 local high school students have been directly impacted by these programswith over 1500 indirectly impacted. The rising enrollment in the College of Engineering andScience at Louisiana Tech University indicates that the direct and indirect impact of theseprograms on local high
invention and 3-5negative aspects of this invention. The unit began with the students forming small groups Page 22.464.10to discuss their papers and brainstorm more positives and negatives. The class thenreconvened to share their discussion points. The possible social, environmental, healthand economic implications of engineering were touched upon.Students were then introduced to various engineering ethics codes, including that of theASME. The film Henry’s Daughters, which deals with a wide variety of engineeringethics issues, was watched and discussed.20Final ProjectFor their final projects, students were asked to reflect upon and apply key
input, computations 2.29 3.33 1.04and plotsQ. Computation of servo efficiency under various operating 1.71 3.08 1.38conditionsR. Solving of work, power and efficiency problems 2.33 3.25 0.92S. Fabrication of a solar oven from foam board 1.63 3.38 1.75T. Use of a Boe-Bot to measure temperature 1.46 3.08 1.63U. Use of uss digital temperature sensors to measure temperature 1.46 2.96 1.50potentialV. Use of a solar oven to explain infrared reflection 1.46 2.71 1.25W. knowledge of the relationship between thickness of insulation 1.83
+ or - .05) for eight items. Two of the positive items were statistically significant pre-to-post: “Create design posters using technology” and “Program w/computer software.” End School Year Student QuestionnaireStudents were also asked to complete a survey at the end of their spring Expo experiences. Theywere asked to reflect on their experiences over the previous year. Here are a few of thehighlights:I. Career Intentions:At the end of their first year in HSE, 70% (32 of 46 surveyed) of Cadre I and 61% (34 of 56surveyed) of Cadre II students indicated that they are considering STEM careers. Longitudinaldata will continue to be collected for these students so we can learn if attitudes about careerintentions in STEM are
and statistics. We plan on expanding this component of the professionaldevelopment and develop a guide for the teachers in this area. For the research experience partof the program, teachers have indicators that they would like to have more group meetings of theresearchers and the RET teachers to discuss the research being conducted. We will work withthe research mentors to have more such meetings.AcknowledgmentThis project was supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 0908889. Anyopinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those ofthe author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation
opportunities presented in SENSE ITincorporate problems reflecting societal need and align to technology and science contentstandards.Design-based activities, such as those included in the SENSE IT project, provide a rich contextfor learning and lend themselves to sustained inquiry and revision. SENSE IT helps students andteachers develop the deep understanding needed to apply knowledge in the complex domains ofreal world practice. Children learn best if they are immersed in complex experiences and aregiven the opportunity to actively process what they have learned [2]. Our Other Youth [3], reportsthat the majority students learn best when instruction emphasizes application. Yet only 16percent of instruction in U.S. classrooms could be characterized as
haunchesTransferable Educational Element: This activity is a culmination of a number of differentconcepts. While this lesson clearly reflects a ‘led discussion’ rather than a free designexperience, it allows the student to see how the whole design process brought to bear on aparticular problem for which a brilliant solution was devised. It also models more sophisticatedengineering practices where engineers have a good idea of what will work before they actuallybuild
participated in, werecompared between engineers and non-engineers in an effort to investigate whether engineeringand non-engineering students show differential rates of participation in Tech to Teaching. Thiscount of semesters in which students participated reflects a count of any semesters in which theyparticipated in one or more Tech to Teaching activities. The activity count is a count of the totalnumber of distinct Tech to Teaching activities in which they participated. Page 22.32.21 Figure 10. Count of semesters in which students participated – all Tech to Teaching students