Publications

Integrating Engineering Design Challenges into Secondary STEM Education

Ronald L. Carr — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:53 PST

Engineering is being currently taught in the full spectrum of the P-12 system, with an emphasis on design-oriented teaching (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008). Due to only a small amount of research on the learning of engineering design in elementary and middle school settings, the community of practice lacks the necessary knowledge of the trajectory of students' learning progressions towards design mastery and expertise and the appropriateness of otherwise established design pedagogies. The issue is even more pressing since many states are embedding engineering into their standards without a clear notion of how engineering (often conceptualized as design) works within existing standards (Strobel, Carr, Martinez-Lopez & Bravo, 2011). This paper synthesizes existing literature, which might provide us with insights on how to further investigate the issue of appropriate design pedagogies. At first, the paper contextualizes existing PBL research into engineering design. Second, the paper synthesizes the literature on inductive teaching and expert-novice differences as an additional literature base to conceptualize the role of design and engineering in the schooling system. Third, the paper contextualizes the questions on problem-appropriateness in engineering design into the current debate on engineering standards and their role in the P-12 education system.

Mapping Engineering Concepts for Secondary Level Education

Jenny L. Daugherty — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:51 PST

Much of the national attention on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education tends to concentrate on science and mathematics, with its emphasis on standardized test scores. However as the National Academy of Engineering Committee on K-12 Engineering Education stressed, engineering can contribute to the development of an effective and interconnected STEM education system (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). In addition, engineering can provide authentic learning contexts for science, technology, and mathematics. Numerous K-12 engineering initiatives have emerged across the U.S. developing curriculum and conducting teacher professional development (Brophy, Klein, Portsmore, & Rogers, 2008). The focus of pre-college engineering education has largely been on process, with engineering content or concepts playing at best a secondary role. The Standards for Technological Literacy (STL) (2000), for example, has been cited by many as providing direction for pre-college engineering, with its design-oriented standards. However, the STL do not specify engineering content and focuses only on the design process. In addition, numerous studies have been conducted to identify engineering-oriented outcomes and competencies (Childress & Rhodes, 2008; Dearing & Daugherty, 2004; Harris & Rogers, 2008). However, these studies have resulted in lists that focus heavily on process and the interpersonal skills associated with engineering (communication, teamwork, etc.). For example, Childress and Sanders (2007) examined the related literature and engineering curricular materials, concluding that it is “challenging to create a framework that might be helpful in developing „engineering‟ instructional materials for secondary schools.”

Infusing Engineering Concepts: Teaching Engineering Design

Jenny L. Daugherty — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:50 PST

Engineering has gained considerable traction in many K-12 schools. However, there are several obstacles or challenges to an effective approach that leads to student learning. Questions such as where engineering best fits in the curriculum; how to include it authentically and appropriately; toward what educational end; and how best to prepare teachers need to be answered. Integration or infusion appears to be the most viable approach; instead of stand-alone engineering courses squeezing into the already crammed curriculum. An integrative approach whereby engineering is infused into the existing curriculum, within science, technology, mathematics or other courses, appears to be the best approach to expose students to engineering learning. Given this perspective, emerging new national assessments and calls for new standards to include engineering strands, suggest a new curriculum structure, as well as more effective teacher preparation to deliver instruction. For example, the National Research Council 2011 report, A Framework for K-12 Science Standards, includes engineering as one of four strands and identifies cross-cutting concepts in engineering and in science education. However, little is yet known about how best to infuse engineering concepts into the K-12 curriculum. What does it mean to infuse engineering concepts into high school instruction? This question raises significant issues that need to be addressed in order to integrate appropriate engineering concepts and accomplish important learning outcomes. In order to explore this larger question, an expert focus group meeting was convened to inform the development of a model or descriptions for infusing engineering concepts into high school instruction and to address some of the pertinent questions involved. This meeting was funded by the National Center for Engineering and Technology Education1 (NCETE) and builds upon earlier work funded by NCETE to study teacher professional development and identify an engineering concept base for secondary teachers (Custer, Daugherty, & Meyer, 2010; Daugherty, 2009; Daugherty & Custer, 2010). The focus group was assigned the primary task of identifying the instructional design problems encountered when infusing engineering concepts into high school science instruction. The primary questions guiding this focus group were: What does it mean to infuse engineering concepts into instruction? What are the implications for infusing engineering concepts into instruction?

Building a Framework for Engineering Design Experiences in STEM: A Synthesis

Cameron D. Denson — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:49 PST

Since the inception of the National Center for Engineering and Technology Education in 2004, educators and researchers have struggled to identify the necessary components of a “good” engineering design challenge for high school students. In reading and analyzing the position papers on engineering design many themes emerged that may begin to form a narrative for engineering design in a high school setting. Before educators can provide a framework for engineering design in STEM courses, four questions need to be answered: (a) To what degree should engineering design challenges be open-ended or well-structured? (b) What are the relationships between engineering design experiences and standards –based instruction in STEM courses? (c) What is an effective sequencing of age-appropriate engineering design challenges? and (d) To what extent should engineering habits of thought and action be employed in resolving the challenges? (Householder, 2011) Collectively, the six position papers (Carr & Strobel, 2011; Eisenkraft, 2011; Hynes et al, 2011; Jonassen, 2011, Schunn, 2011; Sneider, 2011) provide an intriguing foundation for answering these questions and forming a framework for engineering design in high school STEM courses. This synthesis paper discusses the most pervasive themes of the papers and provides a narrative for answering the question, “What are the requirements for a good engineering design challenge?” The following emergent themes provide some guidance to finding answers for that question: engineering design in the science curriculum; assessing the engineering design experience; sequencing the engineering design experiences; and choosing engineering design challenges. By addressing these areas of contention, the education community can begin to lay the curricular and pedagogical groundwork needed to provide successful engineering experiences for high school students.

Engineering Design Challenges in a Science Curriculum

Arthur Eisenkraft — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:47 PST

Create a light and sound show to entertain your friends. Design an improved safety device for a car. Develop a 2-3 minute voice-over for a sports clip explaining the physics involved in the sport. Modify the design of a roller coaster to meet the needs of a specific group of riders. Design an appliance package for a family limited by the power and energy of wind generator. Develop a museum exhibit to acquaint visitors with the atom and nucleus and create a product that can be sold at the museum store after visitors leave your exhibit. All of these challenges are part of Active Physics (2005), a high school curriculum developed with support from NSF, field tested with thousands of students and presently used across the country. The challenges (mentioned above) serve as a framing structure for the required science content. Each chapter (approximately five weeks of instruction) is introduced by way of a chapter challenge. The students upon hearing the challenge at first react with silence. We originally thought that the students’ silence indicated interest – a rapt awe. Upon interviewing, we found out that the students were in shock. How can they possibly succeed at such a challenge? The sports voice-over or light show or museum exhibit interested them, but their lack of knowledge surrounding the science content suppressed any enthusiasm that they might have for the topic. After the first months of school, with some success at the chapter challenges, the students approached the next challenge with cautious confidence that they would be able to learn the science content and could then use their creativity to complete the challenge. In this brief paper, I will outline the ways in which the chapter challenge is introduced, revisited and then completed. Included in the discussion will be how the chapter challenges are chosen, how we scaffold students’ learning so that they can be successful and the benefits of the chapter challenge. Active Physics is neither an engineering course nor a technology course. It uses engineering design as a way in which students can approach their chapter challenge, but engineering design must remain in the background of the physics content and curriculum.

Engineering Design Challenges in High School STEM Courses A Compilation of Invited Position Papers

Daniel L. Householder — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:46 PST

Since its initial funding by the National Science Foundation in 2004, the National Center for Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE) has worked to understand the infusion of engineering design experiences into the high school setting. Over the years, an increasing number of educators and professional groups have participated in the expanding initiative seeking to acquaint all students with engineering design. While there is strong support for providing students with engineering design experiences in their high school STEM courses, the lack of consensus on purposes and strategies has become increasingly apparent as the work continues. Among the unsettled issues are the degree to which engineering design challenges should be open-ended or well-structured, the extent to which engineering habits of thought and action are employed in resolving the challenges; the relationships between engineering design experiences and standards-based instruction in STEM courses; and effective sequencing of age-appropriate engineering design challenges.

Incorporating Engineering Design Challenges into STEM Courses

Daniel L. Householder et al. — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:44 PST

The National Center for Engineering and Technology Education (NCETE) invited a small group of experienced engineering educators, curriculum developers, cognitive scientists, and professional development providers to engage in the discussion of guidelines for the selection and development of engineering design challenges suitable for all students in grades 9-12. That effort resulted in seven provocative papers (Carr & Strobel, 2011; Denson, 2011; Eisenkraft, 2011; Hynes et al., 2011; Jonassen, 2011a; Schunn, 2011; Sneider, 2011) that are accessible on the NCETE web site at http://ncete.org/flash/research.php NCETE hosted two Caucuses, each consisting of “a group of people united to promote an agreed-upon cause” (Merriam-Webster, 2009, p. 196). Ten individuals who were early innovators in introducing engineering design activities in high school STEM settings were invited to each Caucus. Both Caucuses were held on the Utah State University campus in Logan; the first August 2 and 3, 2011 and the second May 22-24, 2012. The invited papers and an annotated bibliography were made available to the Caucus participants to provide background information. The Caucus groups engaged in intensive dialogues during their on-campus sessions, prepared statements on aspects of the development and selection of authentic engineering design challenges, and suggested revisions of successive drafts.

Infusing Engineering Design into High School STEM Courses

Morgan Hynes et al. — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:42 PST

Society is recognizing the need to improve STEM education and introduce engineering design concepts before college. In the recent National Academy of Engineers report, Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects, the authors suggest that the STEM disciplines not be treated as ―silos‖ and that engineering might serve as a motivating context to integrate the four STEM disciplines (Katehi, Pearson, & Feder, 2009). Recent research has suggested that integrated technology and engineering design curriculum can serve as a positive model for mathematics and science learning and retention (Ortiz, 2010; Wendell, 2011). The Tufts University Center for Engineering Education and Outreach (CEEO) strives to improve STEM education through engineering and believes every student should have the chance to engineer. Situated in Massachusetts, the first state to adopt engineering education at all levels in public schools (Massachusetts DOE, 2001), the CEEO supports the belief that engineering education starts in kindergarten and continues to develop throughout their K-12 schooling. We also believe that at the core of K-12 engineering is the Engineering Design Process (EDP). The purpose of introducing students to the EDP is not to have them ―build things‖, a common misconception. The EDP is meant to teach students that engineering is about organizing thoughts to improve decision making for the purpose of developing high quality solutions and/or products to problems. The knowledge and skills associated with the EDP are independent of the engineering discipline (e.g., mechanical, electrical, civil, etc.) and engineering science (e.g., thermodynamics, statics, or mechanics) knowledge that a particular engineering challenge may call upon. Design tasks therefore entail developing the kinds of critical thinking skills commonly associated with engineering and technology literacy. Three key concepts in successful implementation of the EDP are: students are engineers; teachers need to listen to their students; and classroom environments need to change to properly enable learning through the EDP.

Design Problems for Secondary Students

David H. Jonassen — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:41 PST

Are there different kinds of design problems? According to Brown and Chandrasekaran (1989), Class 1 design problems are open-ended, non-routine creative activities where the goals are ill-structured, and there is no effective design plan specifying the sequence of actions to take in producing a design model. Class 2 problems use existing, well-developed design and decomposition plans (e.g. designing a new automobile). Class 3 designs are routine where design and decomposition plans are known as well as customary actions taken to deal with failures (e.g., writing a computer program). Jonassen (2011) argued that problems vary in terms of structuredness, complexity, and context. On the structuredness and complexity continua, design problems tend to be the most ill-structured and complex. Brown and Chandrasekaran suggest that design problems may vary along a continuum from well-structured to ill-structured, depending upon the context in which they are solved. In formal, school contexts, design problems are often more constrained, allowing many fewer degrees of freedom in their representations, processes, or solutions and are therefore more well-structured.

Understanding of Student Task Interpretation, Design Planning, and Cognitive Strategies during Engineering Design Activities in Grades 9-12

Oenardi Lawanto — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:39 PST

The objective of this study was to describe the task interpretation of students engaged in a design activity and determine the extent to which students translate their understanding of their design task to their planning and cognitive strategies. Twenty-nine students at one Colorado high school participated in this study. Students worked individually in the Architectural Design class (n=7), and in teams in the Robotics Design class (n=22). To capture students’ perceptions of their understanding of the task, planning strategies, and cognitive strategies, the Engineering Design Questionnaire (EDQ) was used. The development of the EDQ was guided by Butler and Cartier’s Self-Regulated Learning (SRL) model. Besides the EDQ, a Web-based Engineering Design Notebook was developed to facilitate students reporting planning activities and engineering design strategies. Graphical views are used to present quantitative and qualitative analysis of data collected in this study. In addition, the mean scores of design phases (i.e., SRL dimensions) were compared across SRL features (i.e., task interpretation, planning strategies, and cognitive strategies). From the analysis, the findings suggest that the level of understanding of the task were high in problem definition, conceptual design, and preliminary design. In contrast, students were found to be lacking on those three design process components in the area of planning strategies. Students performed well in cognitive strategies except for problem definition.

Engineering Design Thinking and Information Gathering Final Report

Nathan Mentzer — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:38 PST

The objective of this research was to explore the relationship between information access and design solution quality of high school students presented with an engineering design problem. This objective is encompassed in the research question driving this inquiry: How does information access impact the design process? This question has emerged in the context of an exploratory DR-K12 grant project titled, Exploring Engineering Design Knowing and Thinking as an Innovation in STEM Learning. The research work presented here has expanded the data set developed in the DR-K12 and examined the larger data set with a focus on how information access impacts design thinking. The opportunity to explore the impact of information gathering was not afforded in the DR-K12, but emerged as an area of interest during the pilot phase.

Team Based Engineering Design Thinking

Nathan Mentzer — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:36 PST

The objective of this research was to explore design thinking among teams of high school students. This objective is encompassed in the research question driving this inquiry: How do teams of high school students allocate time across stages of design? Design thinking on the professional level typically occurs in a team environment. Many individuals contribute in a variety of ways to facilitate the successful development of a solution to a problem. Teachers often require students to work in groups, but little is known about how the group functions in the context of design and the potential interaction between group performance and authentic design challenges. Few research results are available to guide teachers in developing successful design teams and encouraging them in their efforts.

Design Principles for High School Engineering Design Challenges: Experiences from High School Science Classrooms

Christian Schunn — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:34 PST

At the University of Pittsburgh, we have been exploring a range of approaches to design challenges for implementation in high school science classrooms (Apedoe, Reynolds, Ellefson, & Schunn, 2008; Ellefson, Brinker, Vernacchio, & Schunn, 2008; Schunn, Silk, & Apedoe, in press). In general, our approach has always involved students working during class time over the course of many weeks. So, our understanding of what works must be contextualized to that situation (i.e., without significant home support, by students enrolled in traditional classrooms, involving content that is connected to traditional science classrooms). However, our approach has been implemented with thousands of students in over 80 classrooms ranging from 9th grade biology or general science to 11th grade physics, from traditional mainstream science classrooms to elective Biology II or Honors Chemistry, and from high needs urban classrooms to affluent suburban classrooms. In other words, there is some important generality to these experiences. We have also conducted a number of studies on students in these settings, to understand a range of factors that influence student learning and affect outcomes (Apedoe & Schunn, 2009; Doppelt & Schunn, 2008; Reynolds, Mehalik, Lovell, & Schunn, 2009; Silk, Schunn, & Strand-Cary, 2009). This white paper provides a brief summary of principles that appear to guide successful experiences for students.

A Possible Pathway for High School Science in a STEM World

Cary Sneider — Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:44:33 PST

Today‘s high school science teachers find themselves in a period of transition. For the past decade there have been calls for replacing a narrow focus on science education—the traditional courses in physics, chemistry, biology, and Earth and space science—with a broader curriculum on STEM (that is, the four allied fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). However, at present there are no guidelines on what that broader curriculum should include or how it should be designed, and the gulf that has separated science and mathematics seems as wide as ever, despite decades of efforts to bridge the two disciplines. Next Generation National Standards for Science Education are currently being written, but they will not be released until at least 2013. To meet the challenge this paper suggests that educators look to the Technology and Engineering Literacy Framework for the 2014 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) as a source of principles on which to start the process of remodeling the high school science curriculum to better prepare our students to enter the STEM world of the 21st century.

How programming fits with technology education curriculum

G. A. Wright et al. — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:46:53 PDT

Learning effects and attitudes of design strategies on high school students

R. Wicklein et al. — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:46:52 PDT

Essential concepts of an engineering design curriculum in secondary technology education

R. G. Wicklein et al. — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:46:52 PDT

Perceptions of parents related to Project Lead The Way

G. werner et al. — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:46:51 PDT

Understanding designs of mechanical systems

E. Thompson et al. — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:46:50 PDT

Appendix B: Curriculum projects: Descriptive summaries

K. Welty — Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:46:50 PDT