abilities in each of the following: Understanding of basic engineering concepts Ability to teach students in a grade between K and 6 about issues related to engineering Ability to enhance content knowledge and understanding of principles of engineering for other teachers who teach in a grade between K and 6 Helping a student understand how tools and simple machines are used for specific purposes.Statistical details regarding significant 2004-2005 teacher survey findings may be found inAppendix A, Tables A13 and A 14. Page 12.290.8Teacher CommentsAppendix B contains verbatim comments from teachers in response to a
on their ACT or have grades of B or higher in their high school science courses. TraditionallyREHAMS participants self-select to participate or are either recruited by high school counselorsor by university representatives at the regional high school Engineering Week. The SEHSprogram participants were recruited differently than the REHAMS program. All of the SEHSparticipants are recommended by their high school science or math teachers, visiting faculty andstaff or by other Education and Outreach partners and have demonstrated either prior leadershipabilities or service oriented activities. Students were interviewed to determine their particular interests and preferred STEMcourses. Based on that data, they were placed into a STEM lab
AC 2007-316: ASSESSING ENGLISH-AS-A-SECOND-LANGUAGE MIDDLESCHOOL STUDENTS' ABILITY TO LEARN ENGINEERING CONCEPTSPaul Klenk, Duke University Paul A. Klenk, Ph.D., is a Visiting Scholar at Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Society, developing K-12 engineering education programs. He received a Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science from the Pratt school of Engineering at Duke University in 2006. He is the Duke Project Director for the TeachEngineeirng Digital Library Project at Duke, and was formerly the Graduate Student Coordinator for the Techtronics After-School Program at Rogers-Herr Middle School in Durham, NC. In addition to his K-12 outreach work, he has researched
., "Understanding K-12 Engineering Outreach Programs," Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, vol. 130, 2004.9. J. F. Sullivan, et al., "Beyond the Pipeline: Building a K-12 Engineering Outreach Program," in IEEE, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 1999.10. B. C. Clewell and J. H. Braddock II, "Influences on Minority Participation in Mathematics, Science and Engineering," in Access Denied: Race Ethnicity and the Scientific Enterprise, G. Campbell Jr., et al., Eds., ed New York: Oxford Press, 2000.11. R. Leitman, et al., "Uninformed Decisions: A Survey of Children and Parents about Math and Science," in NACME research letter vol. 1, ed. New York: National Action Council for Minorities in
Paper ID #10188Investigation of High School Pathways into Engineering (work in progress)Dr. Carla B. Zoltowski, Purdue University, West Lafayette Carla B. Zoltowski, Ph.D., is Co-Director of the EPICS Program at Purdue University. She received her B.S. and M.S. in electrical engineering and Ph.D. in engineering education, all from Purdue University. She has served as a lecturer in Purdue’s School of Electrical and Computer Engineering. Dr. Zoltowski’s academic and research interests include human-centered design learning and assessment, service-learning, ethical reasoning development and assessment, leadership, and
AC 2008-831: MANUFACTURING A WORKFORCEStan Komacek, California University of Pennsylvania Stan Komacek earned a BS from California University of Pennsylvania, MEd from Miami University, and EdD from West Virginia University. He served as the Project Director for the PA State System of Higher Education in PA’s Nanofabrication Manufacturing Technology Partnership and for the PA Governor’s Institute for Technology Education. A Professor of Technology Education and Chair of the Department of Applied Engineering and Technology at California University of PA, Dr. Komacek is currently PI and Project Director for the NSF ATE Advanced Manufacturing in PA Project.Carol Adukaitis, PA State System of
of the engineering workforce.Margaret B. Bailey, Rochester Institute of Technology (COE) Margaret Bailey is Professor of Mechanical Engineering within the Kate Gleason College of Engineer- ing at RIT and is the Founding Executive Director for the nationally recognized women in engineering program called WE@RIT. She recently accepted the role as Faculty Associate to the Provost for Female Faculty and serves as the co-chair on the President’s Commission on Women. She began her academic career as an Assistant Professor at the U. S. Military Academy at West Point, being the first woman civil- ian faculty member in her department. Margaret maintains a research program in the area of advanced thermodynamic analyses and
living in a technological world; and 3. Technology education should abandon the thought of infusing any form of engineering concepts into the curriculum.Clearly there are varying perspectives regarding infusing engineering concepts or not intotechnology education. The authors of this manuscript subscribe to the second camp of thought(i.e., to infuse engineering-related concepts into an existing technology education curriculum andcourses). Therefore, the purposes of this manuscript are to: (a) present initial findings regardingwhat engineering concepts should be incorporated into technology education; (b) explain howinfusing engineering concepts into technology has occurred through the initial professionaldevelopment work of a
Computing Research, and the American Educational Research Journal.Mr. Austin B. Talley P.E., University of Texas, Austin Austin Talley is a graduate student in the Mechanical Engineering Department at the University of Texas, Austin, a Cockrell Fellow, and a licensed Professional Engineer. His research focus is in design method- ology with universal design and engineering education. He has received his B.S. from Texas A&M Uni- versity and M.S.E. from the University of Texas, Austin. Contact: Austin@talleyweb.com.Prof. Kristin L. Wood, University of Texas, Austin Kristin L. Wood is currently a professor, Head of Pillar, and Co-director of the International Design Center (IDC) at Singapore University of Technology
in Software Engineering, Engineer- ing Education and Engineering Management. She routinely reviews journal and conference papers, and NSF proposals. Her current research areas include semantic integration of heterogeneous models, shared team mental models, and engineering education.Iris B. Burnham, Burnham Wood Charter School District Iris B.Burnham is the Founder and President of the El Paso Education Initiative, Inc., a non profit orga- nization dedicated to reforming education. It serves as the charter holder of the Burnham Wood Charter School Dsitrict, including the Da Vinci School for Science & the Arts,one of the first STEM schools in Texas. Ms. Burnham serves as Superintendent. She is a life long
Paper ID #6376Introducing 6-12 Grade Teachers and Students to Computational ThinkingDr. A. Dean Fontenot, Texas Tech University Dr. Fontenot is the Sr. Director of the Texas Tech T-STEM which provides professional development for K-12 teachers as part of the Texas STEM (T-STEM) initiative. The Texas Tech T-STEM Center focuses on project-based learning with the integration of the engineering design process. The Center provides professional development training for T-STEM Academies, T-STEM Early College High Schools, and all Texas school districts, public and private. She collaborates with Whitacre College of Engineering
AC 2011-904: THE IMPACT OF ENGINEERING-BASED SCIENCE IN-STRUCTION ON SCIENCE CONTENT UNDERSTANDINGMs. Kristen B Wendell, Tufts UniversityMerredith D Portsmore, Tufts University Merredith Portsmore is a Research Assistant Professor in Education at Tufts University as well as the Director of Outreach Programs for Tufts Center for Engineering Education and Outreach. Merredith has the unique honor of being a ”Quadruple Jumbo” having received all her four of her degrees from Tufts (B.A. English, B.S. Mechanical Engineering, M.A. Education, PhD in Engineering Education). Her research interests focus on how children engage in constructing solutions to engineering design problems. Her outreach work focuses on creating
advancedareas of regenerative medicine (i.e., growing stem cells). The images in Figure 1 inform theweek’s progression. Notice the level of engagement of the students and the variety of activities. Page 15.899.3A. B. C. D.Figure 1. Images above inform active student engagement; A. and B. Chicken dissection; C.Learning to pipette in preparation for stem cell work; D. Preparation for the skin tensile tests.ScheduleThe camp was themed around “Restoring Gold Medal Performance! What comprises ourbodies? What are the structural components of our bodies and how do they
elementary and middle schoolSTEM integration in science classrooms. The goal of the institute was to support 4th – 8th gradeteachers in the development and implementation of an integrated STEM unit centered around anengineering design challenge situated in a rich, realistic context. The professional developmentinstitute occurred during the summer over a three week period. The focus of the three weeksincluded (a) understanding engineering design, data analysis, and measurement as well asassociated pedagogies; (b) gaining a deeper understanding of science content; and (c) developingcurricular units.Teachers developed integrated STEM units using an iterative process. Following the professionaldevelopment institute, teacher participants piloted selected
Paper ID #13652Designing a Toy Box Organizer: A PictureSTEM Curriculum Module (Cur-riculum Exchange)Kristina Maruyama Tank, Iowa State University Kristina M. Tank is an Assistant Professor of Science Education in the School of Education at Iowa State University. She currently teaches undergraduate courses in science education for elementary education majors. As a former elementary teacher, her research and teaching interests are centered around improv- ing elementary students’ science and engineering learning and increasing teachers’ use of effective STEM instruction in the elementary grades. With the increased emphasis on
were exposed to engineering research, role models, and careers throughsummer institutes, engineering career awareness days, and presentations by faculty andpracticing engineers featuring women and minorities.Previous papers have reported on the professional development model for teachers; the model’sefficacy19; and on classroom implementation models and effects.20 Overall, 90 percent of theteachers gave the project a grade of A or B in terms of student learning and 87 percent gave it anA or B in terms of student engagement. Both middle and high school teachers reported that theywere able to use the curriculum to teach concepts covered in the standard curriculum and on thestate tests, and both middle and high schools teachers listed such other
“light” this second circuit, and how does store this electrical energy generatedenergy) this relate to the plan that you came through the movement of the magnet up with to improve the through the coil “flashlight’s” usability. • Disconnect the coil from the circuit board. • When the coil wires are connected • Shake the flashlight for two cases together the overall displacement of the (a) connect the two wires of the magnet within the coil is less than whenExperiment #3 coil together, and (b) disconnect the coil wires are
implementation. Bibliography1. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.2. Bell, P., & Davis, E. A. (2000). Designing Mildred: Scaffolding Students’ Reflection and Arguemntation Using a Cognitive Software Guide. In B. Fishman & O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 142-149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.3. Linn, M. C. (1995). Designing computer learning environments for engineering and computer science: The scaffolded knowledge integration framework. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4(2), 103-126.4. Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility
, and technology. These ABET criteria describe quality characteristics ofstudents who have completed undergraduate engineering programs and can serve to guide thefuture of K-12 engineering education. The literature was summarized for connections to each ofthe eleven ABET Criteria 3 a-k in order to begin to provide further description for each criteria atthe K-12 level. The elaboration of the ABET Criteria from the relevant literature provides furthersupport for the argument of using the Criteria a-k as a framework to assess K-12 academicstandards.Table 1. ABET Program Outcomes (Criteria 3 a-k) (a) an ability to apply knowledge of mathematics, science, and engineering. (b) an ability to design and conduct experiments, as well as to analyze and
25.1333.9 Figure 6 Pre-construction storyboard (a) and product journal entry (b) of Group FH Video transcripts also show that students switched project goals and ideas without submittingstoryboards for all of the projects they considered. They submitted storyboards for projects theydecided to build. Finally, video provides instructors with documents and artifacts that studentsdid not submit for review or assessment. An example of this is from Student J’s journal entry(Figure 7) and storyboard (Figure 8) that differ dramatically from the photograph of a scrapdrawing (Figure 9) and the final product (Figure 10.) Figure 9 is an image captured from thevideo that has not been found anywhere in student J’s portfolio
Program. Paper presented at the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference & Page 15.1363.9 Exposition, Nashville, TN.2. Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts Science and Technology/Engineering Frameworks. Retrieved from www.doe.mass.edu.3. Anderson J.R. (1982). Acquisition of Cognitive Skill. Psychological Review, 89(4), 369- 406.4. Fitts, P. M., & Posner M. I. (1967). Human Performance. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co.5. Zimmerman B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82 - 91.6. Collins, A., Brown
the questions as best you can. This may be material you haven’t ever covered in class, so it is okif you don’t know the answers. This won’t be graded, and your teachers and parents/guardians will never seethe results. This is only to see if the DREAM project is effective at introducing new concepts.1) Two balls are dropped from the same height. They are the same size, but the black one is much more dense(“weighs” more). Which statement is true? gravity gravitya) the black ball hits the ground first b) the white ball hits the ground firstc) the balls hit the ground at the same time d) not enough information2) Two identical balls start at the same height. Ball A is dropped straight
University Survey7In accordance with the purpose of this study, results are presented and discussed in the followingsections: a) perceptions of the value and use of DET in K-12 education, b) factors that predictteachers’ perceptions of DET, c) perceptions of the skills of a typical engineer, and d)perceptions of what the students need to understand about DET.Table 1 - Results of central tendency and dispersion measures on the pre- and post-test ofteachers’ perceptions of the value and use of DET in K-12 education Importance of Importance of Confidence Consequences Measure Familiarity pre-service integrating in
with Latinoadolescents as they selected problems in their communities and tried to solve them throughengineering design processes. We sought to make this engineering experience "authentic" in thesense that they worked in teams on ill-structured problems over an extended duration of time (9months). We sought to answer the following two research questions: (a) Did their perceptions ofengineering change, and if so, how? and (b) Did their perceptions of their engineering abilitieschange, and if so, how?Context of the StudyWe followed a group of 25 Latino/a adolescents (ages 14-17) throughout the course of twodifferent school years. During the first year, a total number of ten adolescents participated in thestudy. Two different venues were used to
] Rowell, G. H., Perhac, D. G., Hankins, J. A., Parker, B. C., Pettey, C. C., and Iriarte-Gross, J. M. 2003.Computer-related gender differences. Proceedings from SIGCSE’03, Reno, Nevada, February 19-23.[5] Backnak, R., Chappa, E. and De La Rosa, K. 2009. Exposing K-12 students to science and engineering.Proceedings from 39th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October 18-21.[6] Cantrell, P. and Ewing-Taylor, J. 2009. Exploring STEM career options through collaborative highschool seminars. Journal of Engineering Education, 98(3): 295-303.[7] Heersink, D. and Moskal, B. 2010. Measuring high school students’ attitudes toward computing.Proceedings from SIGCSE’10, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.[8] Maxim, B. R. and Elenbogen, B. S
central database. Students whowere absent on the day of the assessment were not included in the database. No attempts weremade to return to the schools and give make-up assessments to these students.Data AnalysisAnalysis utilized comparisons of frequency statistics and nonparametric hypothesis testing. Priorto analysis, survey data within the central database were cleaned to fit the analysis process. Thesurvey and bubble sheets prompted students for responses A-E, therefore these alpha-responseswere converted into numeric-responses; A=1, B=2, …, E=5. Once the data were converted, thedatabase was checked for inappropriate or missing responses for the question that promptedstudents to identify their current grade. Resulting errors were checked
increases to the Pre105-Pos202 pairing, suggesting that there are other forces effecting SE. This “excess” SE increase represented ~40% of the total increase in SE. (b) The Math, MST and Art/Music majors exhibited the highest levels of SE, with Page 22.1044.13 these three populations exhibiting statistically significant higher SE levels compared to all other majors. A t-test between the Math and MST majors gave p(2-tail) = 0.095, indicating that there is no significant difference (to the α=0.05 level). Our hypothesis that the MST major eventually achieved the same SE as the Math major was valid, although there is certainly less difference
: 10.3102/0002831212458142.12. Authors (2009). Supporting young women to enter engineering: Long-term effects of a middle schoolengineering outreach program for girls. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 15, 119-142.13. Assessing Women and Men in Engineering (n.d.) Retrieved from http://www.engr.psu.edu/awe/14. Clewell, B. C. (1987). What works and why: Research and theoretical bases of intervention programs in mathand science for minority and female middle school students. In A. B. Champagne & L. E. Hornig (Eds.), Studentsand Science Learning (pp. 95-135). Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science.15. National Academy of Engineering (2008). Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving
instruction is to point outthat teachers already use engineering. Teachers use integration, they use problem solving, andthey use relevant examples. The difference lies in deliberately claiming all of these things andapplying a systematic approach to their teaching. The following lists contain some examples forvarious grade levels of what integrated STEM, including engineering, looks like in theclassroom. They are not a complete set by any means, but serve to illustrate further how thesestandards can affect instruction.Grade Band K-2 Activity ExampleStudents will work in teams to design a neighborhood a. List the places that belong in a neighborhood. b. Using a large poster board lay out all the places that are in your
. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.Duch, B.J., Groh, S.E., & Allen, D.E. (2001). Why problem-based learning? A case study of institutional change in undergraduate education. In B. Duch, S. Groh, & D. Allen (Eds.), The power of problem-based learning (pp. 3-11). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Page 25.1306.8Gilmartin, S.K., Li, E., & Aschbacher, P.R. (2006). The relationship between interest in physical science/engineering, science class experiences, and family contexts: Variations by gender and race/ethnicity among secondary students. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 12, 179-207