Paper ID #18778Developing Teaching Internships for Science and Engineering Undergradu-ate Students and Project Team Reflection (Evaluation)Dr. Marian S. Kennedy, Clemson University M.S. Kennedy is an Associate Professor within the Department of Materials Science & Engineering at Clemson University. Her research group focused on the mechanical and tribological characterization of thin films, coatings and biological materials. She also contributes to the engineering education community through her research relating to student identity, motivation and undergraduate research programs.Dr. Lisa Benson, Clemson University
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 #16801Impromptu Reflection as a Means for Self-Assessment of Design ThinkingSkillsMiss Avneet Hira, Purdue University, West Lafayette Avneet is a doctoral student in the School of Engineering Education at Purdue University. Her research interests include K-12 education and first year engineering in the light of the engineering design process, and inclusion of digital fabrication labs into classrooms. Her current work at the FACE lab is on the use of classroom Makerspaces for an interest-based framework of engineering design. She is also inter- ested in cross-cultural work in engineering education to promote
Paper ID #15016Elementary Teachers’ Reflections on Design Failures and Use of Fail Wordsafter Teaching Engineering for Two Years (Fundamental)Pamela S. Lottero-Perdue Ph.D., 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
education community that is developinglessons and activities specifically designed for K-12 educators [3]. Nanoscale science has beenrecognized as truly interdisciplinary and oftentimes reflects modern science better than thetraditional science disciplines [4]. Previous reports demonstrate that introducing NSE modules ina high school engineering classroom can leave students with positive perceptions aboutnanotechnology [5] and allows students to delve into science content across multiple size scales[6] . Furthermore, just having a firm understanding of what objects look like at the nanoscale canhelp students gain a better understanding of concepts in related scientific fields [7].On the other hand there are challenges in implementing NSE lessons
the uncertainty of divergent problems byconstructing multiple problem spaces and then engaging in reflective practice or reflectiveconversation as they interpret and evaluate alternatives. These metacognitive strategies enableengineers to deal with uncertainty by continuously engaging in acts of self-evaluation, self-monitoring and reflection as they work through the engineering design process.10, 13 The use of acollaborative environment has been found to help engineers reduce and manage uncertainty.10, 14Shin and his colleagues14 explain that working in teams allows engineers to reduce ambiguity bydistributing the knowledge and skills and collectively making decisions. The ability to logicallyand persuasively argue for or against a decision
a responsive teaching approach looks like in engineering and how teachers might enter intothis approach. Our study is also intended to highlight some of the challenges that teachers face inresponsive teaching in engineering.In this research study we analyze interviews with six elementary teachers who had at least twoyears of experience with Novel Engineering, an approach to teaching engineering designdeveloped at Tufts University that uses narrative texts as the basis for design problems.14 In thesesemi-structured interviews we discussed the implementation of Novel Engineering in theirclassroom and showed them a short video of some of their students working on the project. Weasked teachers to reflect on these students’ work, drawing on the
reflect the recommended timeframefor curriculum delivery.Data screening was conducted based on recommendations from Tabachnick and Fidell45 formultivariate statistics including: inspecting univariate descriptive statistics, evaluating anddealing with missing data, considering linearity and homoscedasticity, identifying and dealingwith multivariate outliers, and evaluating for multicollinearity. In dealing with missing data,cases were retained for listwise completion at the subscale level because each survey waspresented as its own page. This led to a greater number of students having completed theEngineering Design Self-Efficacy instrument (see Table 1) and a varying number of studentsbeing included in each statistical test. (We have taken care
currently leads up a team of educators and educational researchers who are exploring how to integrate science, mathematics and engineering within authentic school contexts and researching the nature of the resultant student learning c American Society for Engineering Education, 2016 The Engineering Design Log: A Digital Design Journal Facilitating Learning and Assessment (RTP)AbstractStudents engaging in design and engineering processes are frequently encouraged to keep anotebook, journal, or log containing their drawings, reflections, decisions, and justifications. Inthe professional world, such a notebook is primarily for the benefit of the designer, to keep trackof important ideas
componentadditions. Tailoring activities for pre-college pedagogy and grade-level appropriateness can bereadily done3. Also, an introduction to this IC facilitates understanding of related onlinehobbyists resources and can be a good transition to other IC hardware.Modular Resources Six modular activities were developed for a two-day outreach experience – four involvingcircuit manipulation and two involving reflection. The activities are modular so that they can bedone separately, expanded or contracted (time), or tailored to available components or studentability. For example, advanced students can engage in extra challenges that involve exploringdeeper relationships. Students work in pairs during circuit manipulation activities. Two of thecircuit
, motion and energy. Teams were required to document their design and construction processes in an electronic engineering notebook. The notebooks were examined for evidence of student understanding and communication of the engineering design process, reflective learning, and kinematic principles as well as the level of participation of each individual in the team. Integrating engineering into math and science courses is new to many inservice teachers and research has documented that science teacher efforts focus more on engineering practices such as teamwork and communication rather than the application of the math and science concepts that are important to engineering problem solving. The research objective was to identify tools and practices
research: To what extent did the teacher’s NOEviews improve after exposure to a NGSS-aligned engineering design challenge course? Howsuccessful was the teacher in executing the engineering design process as taught through anengineering design challenge? We provide here a single case analysis for one teacher as a pilotstudy for future research. The paper provides a brief overview of our case study research inregards to data, methods, and preliminary results. Our data sources include pre/post NOEassessment, in-service teacher written reflections, and assignments.Curriculum design Learning goals and overview: The three-credit master’s level course was for in-servicescience teachers and focused on the EDP through an engineering design challenge
for Engineering Education, 2016 Future K-12 Teacher Candidates Take on Engineering Challenges in a Project-Based Learning CourseAbstract: This paper documents new engineering focused curricula for an undergraduate LiberalStudies course directed at future K-12 teacher candidates. The engineering design process isintroduced to students within the context of a Project-Based Learning environment. Students arepresented with engineering design challenges for which they must generate possible solutions,ask questions, seek information, reflect on project directions, and finally develop an artifactrepresenting their design solution. Course learning objectives are centered on applying theengineering design process
similar summer research programs offered at universitiesaround the country. The framework of the supporting features of Northeastern University’sprogram is what enables participants to succeed in the labs, build self-efficacy in STEM andprepare them for their academic journey into college. The weekly schedule is supported throughmorning homerooms during which a variety of topics and activities are introduced, in addition tolunchtime technical seminars, and field trips to local companies and research facilities. Utilizingformative evaluations, such as weekly reflections to inform program design and implementation,allows staff to make adjustments that might be necessary to ensure a high level of participant andfaculty satisfaction with the program
FridayInstitute1 aimed measuring perception toward STEM related fields and study. Surveys wereadministered before and after engineering lessons.Along with student perceptions toward STEM content, we will describe the journey and thoughtprocess throughout the 8-week period from the implementing teacher’s point of view. We willdetail the implementation process, reflect on student success and struggles, describe perceptionsof student achievement based on student responses and completed work, as well as present anoverarching reflection on the author’s journey throughout the process. Through the study andreflection others can learn how to bring engineering design into the classroom. It is also our goalthat this process and study, including implementation, will
), influenced our efforts to develop the teaching standards used for this project. In addition, a framework that articulates what informed design thinking entails – students using design strategies effectively; making knowledge-‐driven decisions; conducting sustained technological investigations; working creatively; and reflecting upon their actions and thinking – was another foundation upon which this work was built (Crismond & Adams, 2012). The final set of the design teaching standards (see Table 1 for details) created for this project is organized around three dimensions: Dimension I – STEM Concepts – Teachers’ understanding of science, technology
peers on anengineering design project.6-8 Yet, there is a gap in the literature about how that communicationis perceived by the students themselves. Little is known about middle school designers’perspectives on their own communication challenges or their perspectives on peers’communication challenges. Further, few studies report on interventions aimed at improvingyoung students’ ability to negotiate communication challenges during collaborative designsessions.In previous analysis of students’ self-reported data related to communication challenges duringengineering design teams, we found that middle school designers grew in their metacognitiveawareness of their group’s communication patterns across an engineering design-reflect-designprocedure
AR raised students’ interest whichincreased the majority of participants learning of science concepts. Still, the majority of currentAR literature reflects the prior point: researchers’ attempts to evaluate and measure studentlearning in AR applications has little basis in learning science or educational literature. Webelieve our guide will add to the literature by designing AR applications within the situatedlearning environment.Situated LearningSituated learning theory is based in the situative conceptual framework and examines howlearners gain knowledge through social contexts and interactions with materials and people.When discussing theory, it is important to understand the nature of knowing and consequentlywhat signifies learning and
this program is a work in progress, only preliminary data from the first two cohorts areavailable for program evaluation. Current evaluation efforts were based on participantreflections, pre- and post-program Local Systemic Change (LSC)11 surveys, participation inacademic year follow-up activities, as well as data collection and reflection during the follow-upacademic year. These sources were aggregated to describe the impact of the participants’summer experiences for primary investigators leading the program, materials and manufacturingresearchers, in addition to the NSF funding agency. The evidence collected regarding the nineobjectives based on the three research topics are listed in Table 1 including progress andrecommendations for the
learners receive and process information. The FSLM incorporates someelements of the Myers-Briggs model and the Kolb’s model. The main reasoning for its selection inthe DLMS evaluation is that it focuses on aspects of learning that are significant in engineeringeducation.The FSLM consists of four dimensions, each with two contrasting learning styles: Processing(Active/Reflective); Perception (Sensing/Intuitive); Input (Visual/Verbal); and Understanding(Sequential/Global). The details of the dimensions can be found in Ref.6. In order to determine anindividual’s specific learning style, Felder and Soloman13developed the Index of Learning Style(ILS) survey. Each of the 44 questions within the survey is designed to place the learner’spreference within
.-Checklist Template (see below)ACTIVITY:-Ask Students to brainstorm things they see every day that consume energy. Create a list of student ideas (i.e. therefrigerator).- Play BrainPop’s Conserving Energy video and discuss key concepts. (Note: The quiz that goes along with thevideo can be taken as a pre-test and then retaken after the video as a means of assessment for objective 1.)- Refer back to the list of student ideas of thingsthat consume energy. Ask students to brainstormways in which we could use less energy witheach item.-Assign the Sustainable energy checklist to becompleted at home that assesses several simpleareas of energy efficiency. After completing thechecklist, have students write a short reflection ofways they could improve their
insectoid robots, etc.). This relaxed introduction to robotics reduces anyreservations that the students might have about the field of robotics. After a welcome phase, ashort lecture is given introducing some of the main themes of robotics and the core researchareas studied by the scientists and robotic engineers at DLR and RWTH Aachen University.A small group size of four to six persons allows for active participation in the six practicalexperiments, of which each group carries out four, and the necessary concentration forhandling the high-tech equipment. Each experiment is followed by a short break, allowing thestudents reflection time to discuss the experiments with their peers. Each experiment startswith a clarification of the educational
learners construct newunderstanding by building on what they already know [8]. We see approaches that connect toculture as a critical extension of such teaching; culturally relevant pedagogy connects tostudents’ cultural experiences and understanding [9-13]. In such approaches, students’ “funds ofknowledge” are leveraged, using the resources students bring from their experiences in home andother culturally-specific out-of-school settings [14]. Such approaches reflect a range of student-centered teaching, including using students’ strengths to introduce new instruction, supportingcollaborative learning spaces, adapting curriculum, engaging in social justice and communityengaged learning, etc. [15]. These approaches align to engineering education
triggered a decrease in confidence inSTEM learning among entering college students. This can be illustrated by the fact thatenrollment in U.S. institutions of higher education has grown steadily at all levels rising from14.5 million students in 1994 to 20.7 million in 2009, but such a growth is not fully reflected inscience and engineering. Institutions of higher education in the United States granted engineeringdegrees in the mid-2000s at a lower rate than in the mid-1980s. The number of Americanstudents earning bachelor’s degrees increased by 16% over the past 10 years, however, thenumber of bachelor’s degrees earned in engineering decreased by 15%. Nationally, less than50% of the students who enrolled in engineering curriculum complete the
an issue not only with competency,but also with a lack of self-efficacy in math, science, and engineering which creates anxiety. According to Beck-Winchatz and Riccobono (2007), the majority of students with VI arefollowing general education curricula. However, less than 30 individuals with VI earned ascience and engineering research doctorate on average each year from 2001 to 2009 compared to25,600 people without a disability on average per year during the same time period (NSF, 2012).Lack of higher level degrees in the science and engineering fields do not reflect the fact thatstudents with VI have the same spectrum of cognitive abilities as sighted peers (Kumar,Ramasamy, & Stefanich, 2001) and with appropriate accommodations can
applications with opportunities for students to exploreelectrical experimentation, measurement, and re-design. The activities are appropriate tosupplement physical science and algebra courses at the 9th-grade level and beyond.Pedagogical Context and ActivitiesElectronic devices are ubiquitous and deeply embedded in everyday life and students oftenwonder how they work. Thus, the “Electronics of Everyday things” teaching resource aims toanswer students burning questions about “what makes a light blink?”, “what makes a buzzersound?”, or “what happens internally when you push a button on a device?” through hands-onactivities and reflection exercises. The target grade level is 9th-grade through 12th-grade.The 555 timer IC is a highly stable device for
African American, eight were White or Caucasian, two were mixed race,and one was Hispanic. The STEM/Literacy afterschool program met twice a week from 4-5:30pm at Kiser PK-8 School from October through April. The program was facilitated by two KiserSTEM instructors and two undergraduate engineering students from the University of Dayton.Although the engineering activities were initially designed to be facilitated in a single, 30-60minute classroom session, the addition of the literacy component and incorporating more timefor reflection and redesign made it such that a single activity was generally facilitated over four,90 minute sessions. On the first day of the activity, the students engaged in a read aloud andengagement activity focusing on the
bridge, full-scale bakery, etc. Emphasize the importance of iteration and the acceptability of failure Ensure that there is reflection time each period to discuss how the content of the day might be incorporated into the math or science classroom.The summary plans for each day were as follow: Day 1: Pre-assessment. What Do EngineersDo? Similarities, differences, and synergisms between engineering and science. Bridge Building– defining and working toward criteria, and within constraints. Day 2: Baking Like an Engineer.What to do when the answer’s not in the book: test engineer approaches; simple experimentalapproaches; data presentation; data analysis. Day 3: That Bridge Again – returning to anengineering problem with more context
focuses on evaluating methods of effective practice of an engineering design summerprogram for middle school students. The paper reflects on findings and observations regardinggender groupings in STEM, and how they affect student learning and confidence. In 2009,President Obama's Administration implemented the "Educate to Innovate" program to emphasizeSTEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education. Women and men hold nearlyequal professional positions in the biological sciences, and close to that in math, yet womencomprise less than 30% of the science and engineering workforce as a whole.1 Students as youngas kindergarten express the belief that fields of study such as science and math are “boysubjects.”2 The societal norm that males
and how project-based learning (PBL)takes the center stage in this strategy. We assert that building a camp or even a lesson plan fromlearning blocks creates a totally immersive and engaging environment for the learner and makes itmuch more plug-and-play for the designer/instructor.Our paper will also focus on implementing these learning blocks in a K-12 mixed environment (allgrade levels, male and female participants) versus a much more homogenous cohort (all highschool, all female) type of camp. A showcase of student products (from reflective pieces to actualcreations) will be discussed along with how “check-ins” are built into the learning blockchallenges; the latter as a means to embed assessment into the project workflows dynamically