(NSF) as a research grant (NSF-EEC-1647928) and does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.ReferencesBoynton, M. (2014). People not print: Exploring engineering future possible self development in rural areas of tennessee's cumberland plateau. (PhD Dissertation), Virginia Tech.Carrico, C., Matusovich, H. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2017). A qualitative analysis of career choice pathways of college-oriented rural central Appalachian high school students. Journal of Career Development. doi:10.1177/0894845317725603Carrico, C., Murzi, H., & Matusovich, H. (2016). The roles of socializers in career choice decisions for high school students in rural central appalachia: "Who's doing what
under Grant No.DRL-1657519. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are recommendations expressed in thismaterial are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National ScienceFoundation .References[1] E. Iversen, “Engineering Outreach on Campus,” Washington, DC, 2015.[2] C. Gartland, “Student ambassadors: ‘role-models’, learning practices and identities,” Br. J. Sociol. Educ., no. September, pp. 1–20, 2014.[3] A. V. Maltese and R. H. Tai, “Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science,” Int. J. Sci. Educ., 2010.[4] R. H. Tai, C. Q. Liu, A. V. Maltese, and X. Fan, “Planning early for careers in science,” Science. 2006.[5] M. B. Ormerod and D. Duckworth, “Pupils
measures. In this way, teachers maximize studentengagement and creation of physics knowledge, building on what was learned in previousclasses. The purpose of this method is to allow students to play with applying physics knowledgein new relatable ways. The small groupsreport on their work by answeringdiscussion questions designed to guidetheir reflection on both the process and thelearning they acquired (Figure 2). In thefinal phase, which may occur in afollowing class period if the cohort needsmore time during the session for their teamwork, the teacher facilitates a large-groupdiscussion of the outcomes, generating Figure 1: Facilitating the discussion on student-based contexts
analysis, controlling for Gender, Race, Honors Courses at Baseline, Family Income, and ParentalSupport for STEM with added interaction variable for female program participants.B. Interest in Majoring in STEM-related FieldsThe positive impacts on STEM-related attitudes were also reflected in reported interest in STEMmajors at college, though with a clear distinction between Engineering and technology-relatedmajors and other STEM fields. Exhibit 7 shows the percent of all first year college students whoare “very interested” in majoring in the specified field (i.e., reporting a 6, 7, or “alreadydeclared” on a 7-point scale measuring interest in specific college majors). The calculations ofstatistical significance and the odds ratios are based on a
engineering, theimportance of feedback and the importance of multiple perspectives than males. This puzzlingfinding is a result of small differences between males and females at both baseline and post.Females had slightly lower scores at baseline and slightly higher scores at post than males (SeeTable 1). While neither of these were statistically significant, they reflect that females hadgreater overall gains in scores than males. Assessing the change in scores within gender showedthat, at post, females saw significant improvements in attitudes towards engineering, importanceof feedback, growth mindset, and the importance of multiple perspectives when compared totheir pretest scores. At baseline, we observed no significant differences by
the earliest ages standthe best chance of continuing on career paths that will bring them greater economic prosperity.By increasing the opportunities for a greater and more diverse population of students to haveaccessibility to these subjects, the greater the number of curious, scientifically literate studentswill be prepared to learn and pursue engineering careers.AcknowledgmentsThis material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (under GrantNo. 1647405) and National Grid. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendationsexpressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of thefunding partners.References[1] J. P. Holdren, M. Cora, and S. Suresh. Federal STEM
well as the barriers theyperceive to doing so. Results indicated that most elementary teachers support the inclusion ofengineering within the science standards for elementary grades. Teachers describe lack ofpreservice and in-service training, lack of background knowledge, lack of materials, lack of timefor planning and implementing lessons, and lack of administrative support as barriers toimplementing engineering activities within their classrooms.*The views and opinions of the speaker expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect thoseof the U.S. Government or any agency thereof.Introduction The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) incorporated engineering practices intoK-12 science standards [1], and because NGSS calls for
. collaborated on thedevelopment of a software package based on the Robot Operating System (ROS) to facilitateseamless communication and transfer of location information between robots. To effectively setupa distributed network (see Figure 7) and enable information transfer between the robots, they hadto understand the concept of custom messages in ROS. Later, using fiducial marker-based tracking,they extracted localization information and constructed a custom message that is transferred topeer robots. The project further involved reflecting the localization information of the robots intoan iPad app for user interaction.4.6. Game-based tele-rehabilitative solutions for stroke patients: The goal of Mr. A.R. in thisproject was to iterate through the