McKay, M. M., & Lowes, S., & Tirthali, D., & Camins, A. H. (2015, June), Student Learning of STEM Concepts Using a Challenge-based  Robotics Curriculum  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington. 10.18260/p.24756

\bibitem{asee_peer_24756}
  McKay, M. M., \& Lowes, S., \& Tirthali, D., \& Camins, A. H. (2015, June), \emph{Student Learning of STEM Concepts Using a Challenge-based  Robotics Curriculum}
  Paper presented at 2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington.
  10.18260/p.24756

Mercedes M McKay, Susan Lowes, Devayani Tirthali, and Arthur H. Camins.  "Student Learning of STEM Concepts Using a Challenge-based  Robotics Curriculum".  2015 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June.  ASEE Conferences, 2015.  https://peer.asee.org/24756 Internet.  08 May, 2024

\bibitem{asee_peer_24756}
  Mercedes M McKay, Susan Lowes, Devayani Tirthali, and Arthur H. Camins.
  "Student Learning of STEM Concepts Using a Challenge-based  Robotics Curriculum".
  \emph{2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition, Seattle, Washington, 2015, June}.
  ASEE Conferences, 2015.
  https://peer.asee.org/24756 Internet.  08 May, 2024

@INPROCEEDINGS{asee_peer_24756
author = "Mercedes M McKay, Susan Lowes, Devayani Tirthali, and Arthur H. Camins"
title = "Student Learning of STEM Concepts Using a Challenge-based  Robotics Curriculum"
booktitle = "2015 ASEE Annual Conference \& Exposition"
year = "2015"
month = "June"
address = "Seattle, Washington"
publisher = "ASEE Conferences"
note = {https://peer.asee.org/24756}
number = {10.18260/p.24756}
}

TY  - CPAPER
AB  -           Student Learning of STEM Concepts Using a Challenge-based                              Robotics Curriculum       (RTP Strand 4, K-12 Engineering Resources: Best Practices in Curriculum Design)Robotics is a timely, relevant and exciting field that incorporates a very broad spectrum ofengineering, science, and information technology disciplines. Robotics curricula have beenwidely used in both formal classroom instruction and out-of-school contexts and at many gradelevels to engage students in learning of several fundamental physical science concepts, computerprogramming, and the engineering design process (EDP). With increased national attention toand advances in STEM learning research, the National Research Council’s Framework for K-12Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards call upon curriculum developersand teachers to increase the prominence of the engineering design process (EDP) within thecontext of science education.This paper will examine pre- and post-student learning of science, programming, andengineering concepts using a tightly integrated robotics curriculum that challenges student teamsto design, build, program, test, and redesign robots as part of a series of increasinglysophisticated design challenges. Building robots that can maneuver in multiple dimensions, grabobjects and navigate obstacles supports students’ development of selected science andengineering core ideas, practices, and cross-cutting concepts. In addition, students learn andemploy computer programming to control behavior of their robots.Data from over 750 middle school and high school youth from both in-school and out-of-schoolenvironments during the third year of implementation of a national scale-up project wereanalyzed to address the questions: Are student outcomes similar regardless of teachingenvironment (formal vs. informal)? If they differ, what are the differences and what accounts forthem? We will present results of learning assessments for the topics of gears, buoyancy,programming and the engineering design process, as well as surveys results of studentengagement that include enjoyment, interest, and learning. We will examine student factors suchas learning environment, gender, and grade level that affect student learning outcomes.Results indicate that student post-test scores for the science and programming concept areasincreased, but only to just above 50 percent of the total possible scores. Although students feltthey had learned, and teachers agreed, the degree of learning was not reflected in the assessmentscores. Furthermore, most of the educators felt that the curriculum had helped their students learnthe EDP, but student results did not show increases in learning of the EDP steps.Recommendations for the design of future engineering curricula based on project evidence andresults will be presented.
AU  - Mercedes M McKay
AU  - Susan Lowes
AU  - Devayani Tirthali
AU  - Arthur H. Camins
CY  - Seattle, Washington
DA  - 2015/06/14
PB  - ASEE Conferences
TI  - Student Learning of STEM Concepts Using a Challenge-based  Robotics Curriculum
UR  - https://peer.asee.org/24756
DO  - 10.18260/p.24756
ER  -