Carr and Strobel 7B

3 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
[4] Brophy, Sean, et al., "Advancing Engineering Education in P-12. Classrooms ... [13] Pearson, Greg and Young, Thomas A. Technically speaking: why all.
Session 7B

Integrating Engineering into Secondary Math and Science Curricula: A Course for Preparing Teachers Ronald L. Carr and Johannes Strobel Purdue University, [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract – Future secondary math and science teachers, engineering education doctoral students and engineering graduate students participated in a graduate level course designed to provide strategies for integrating engineering in stand-alone or integrated environments. A hybrid setting of face-to-face and online instruction modeled project based learning that provided the opportunity for students to apply research based methods of integration and engineering instruction throughout the learning process. Concepts, knowledge and attitudes were assessed using student products, concept maps and student feedback. Index Terms – Integration, Secondary Education, STEM INTRODUCTION Integrating Engineering into Secondary Math and Science Curricula, a graduate level course, was designed to meet the needs of students with varied interests such as future secondary teachers in math and science as well as graduate students from engineering education and engineering programs. The first course of its kind to be offered at Purdue University, the initial design focused on training participants of a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship- sponsored STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) Goes Rural program. While STEM teacher training programs do exist, there are very few in which engineering is explicitly mentioned and is the focus of the integration rather than as an afterthought to science and math. The University of Minnesota, Tufts University and The College of New Jersey are examples of those that do. Indiana is set to implement engineering standards in the K-8 science standards, which provides an impetus for this focus [1]. The primary goal of this course, based on empirically supported instructional strategies, was to provide opportunities for designing and implementing engineering applications in stand-alone or integrated environments. As many definitions of integration exist in literature, the most common understandings of integration including interdisciplinary, thematic, connected, immersed and blended, [1,2] are incorporated into the teaching of this course. A project-based approach was modeled throughout, as students created pieces of an overall instructional unit to apply research-based methods of integration and engineering /10/$25.00 ©2011 IEEE

instruction from carefully selected readings. The course design was based on a hybrid model of instruction that utilized online and face-to-face learning. Along with student feedback, instructional products and concept maps were used to assess changes in knowledge and attitudes. CASE FOR INTEGRATION Research shows that along with a declining interest in engineering, students are less prepared in STEM subjects than their international counterparts. It is believed that integration of engineering into P-12 education and increasing awareness of the engineering fields in the early grade levels will help overcome these problems [3]. Integration of engineering in P-12 schools is necessary because it promotes the importance of engineering in a way that is desired by school corporations that are looking for problem-based, hands-on and inquiry- related activities to use in math and science classrooms. Engineering, or the “missing E,” is a vital portion of STEM that allows for integration of activities into instruction [4]. Engineering provides a meaningful context for applying math and science principles [5] and leads to improvements in math, science and technological literacy [6]. The population of this course included current teachers, engineering majors that have returned to school to focus on education, engineering education PhD. students, a PhD. student in physics and a graduate student in science. Both the practical applications of engineering integration and the research base had to be considered in the design of this course to provide differentiation to the wide range of science, technology and math backgrounds that participants brought into the course. Engineering students and participants of a program designed to prepare science, technology, engineering and math graduates to teach in rural schools had technical experience from their undergraduate studies and work careers but little or no classroom experience or pedagogical knowledge. The engineering education students came into the classroom with education and engineering backgrounds from across the spectrum. Additionally, established teachers’ wants and needs for extending engineering teacher professional development were used to help build the content design in a way that would help differentiate between the learners [7].

1st Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) 7B-1

April 2, 2011, Ewing, NJ

Session 7B COURSE DESIGN Varied students' needs and lack of an existing suitable textbook lead to an extensive literature review built around the main concepts outlined in the course objectives in four categories: • • • •

Engineering and STEM Education Integrated Instruction Instruction and Application Self-Assessment and Improvement

In addition to research articles, two reports from the National Academy of Engineering, Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects (2009) and Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? (2010), and Technically Speaking: Why All Americans Need to Know More about Technology from the National Academy of Sciences (2002), were used to outline the current state of engineering education at the precollegiate level and how engineering education and technology education can be utilized in building STEM education. Engineering and STEM education have gained prominence in recent years, as research shows the context of engineering strengthens student knowledge and application of science and math concepts [8]. Content application in an engineering context allows for students to apply their knowledge in real-world applications that are meaningful to themselves [5] which significantly aids the ability to build internal alternative models to accommodate science and math concepts into existing schema [9]. Engineering habits of mind [10] and thinking like an engineer [11] reading and discussion looked at engineering competencies expected from college graduates [12] and students in this class were challenged to bridge the gap through their future instruction and in-class project INTEGRATION Integrated STEM instruction that previously overlooked “the missing E,” or engineering [13], can be facilitated through mapping and infusion, as outlined by the National Academy of Engineering's (NAE) Committee on Standards [14]. The NAE report indicates that infusion is done through putting engineering into other content standards and mapping involves creating connections to existing content in order to find opportunities to tie two subjects together [14]. A major component of the instruction dealt with mapping by using engineering contexts with science and math content [15]. Furthermore, Davidson, et al [2], have outlined five types of integration for math and science teachers that apply to engineering integration: discipline specific, content, process, methodological and thematic. The five steps contain the common themes found in the definitions of integration such as interdisciplinary, thematic, connected, immersed and blended [1]. /10/$25.00 ©2011 IEEE

Looking at the strategies of mapping, infusion, contexts, content and the five types of integration built a comprehensive understanding of integration for the students of this course to apply in teaching, instructional design and research. During the course, students discussed and applied some of those five types into their units and other products. Discipline specific integration, such as what often happens in real life, combines content from two disciplines, such as biology and chemistry from science, geometry and calculus from math, or mechanical and industrial engineering. Content integration can occur when content from math or science can be combined with specific engineering content so that both concepts are being taught and students are able to make connections between the two. Process integration builds on the process nature of the disciplines and can be done through applying the scientific process to provide information needed in the engineering design process [14]. Methodological integration uses a method from one area to examine principals from another such as applying mathematical models in engineering design [2]. Thematic integration, traditionally and widely used in language arts instruction, combines all discipline instruction based around one common theme [16]. An example would be a thematic unit on islands integrating economics, geography, geology, number systems, and engineering design challenges. INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES Specific strategies of instruction discussed in the class included facilitating higher-level thinking through hands-on, student-centered activities. Problem-based learning (PBL) in an engineering context uses ill-structured problems and challenges students to combine traditional content-related research of PBL with an engineering challenge [17]. Model-eliciting activities use an engineering context of meeting the needs of a client in a math-based, ill-structured problem where the solution is a model or process that can be applied to additional sets of data [18]. Teaching through case studies, designing engineering challenges around content standards and developing integrated units of instruction were other instructional approaches discussed in the course. Assessment of students and self-assessment by the teachers for future improvement were discussed due to their importance in the classroom. Students learned how assessments can be used to monitor student knowledge and in turn be used to direct the instruction so that it better meets the needs of the learners [19]. The learning sequence was designed to move from conceptual implications to concrete applications. Weekly readings from research journals focused on the main topics of the course: • •

Engineering, roles of engineers and technology STEM, engineering and P-12 integration

1st Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) 7B-2

April 2, 2011, Ewing, NJ

Session 7B • • • • • • •

Engineering design and engineering thinking Technological literacy Existing P-12 engineering programs General integration strategies and specific activities Standards and assessment Advocacy Pedagogical implications

Students selected articles and led discussions for three of the final weeks to represent topics they thought were important, that needed more clarification or to give further insight on integration strategies for their areas of interest. The specific strategies covered in the readings included problem-based learning, model-eliciting activities, case studies, active learning, and design challenges. EPICS High, Project Lead the Way, Engineering Your Future and Engineering is Elementary were among the existing programs that were recommended for a program evaluation assignment utilizing student created rubrics. A semester-long project was utilized for students to practice and apply new concepts while serving as an assessment instrument along with a series of concept maps covering engineering knowledge and pedagogy. The project, an integrated unit of instruction, was created by each student with due dates for specific pieces being staggered throughout the semester. A unit introduction and timeline, a student-created engineering design challenge, a model-eliciting activity, an assessment plan and an advocacy letter were required parts of the units that were to be integrated into existing or traditional science and math units. The students were challenged to not only design a new learning unit or improve an existing unit, but also to incorporate knowledge from the readings. In particular, PBL could be applied at the start of a unit by using a design challenge that requires P-12 students to frame the problem through questioning which will create a need for the math or science content in order to solve the problem [17]. Engineering design challenges were discussed and examples of teaching an engineering design process [7] and the relationship between engineering design and the scientific process was demonstrated [6]. Students were free to choose among the five types of integration [2] to integrate math and science into the design of model-eliciting activities (MEAs). By definition, the MEAs needed to be set in an engineering context, openended and designed for group work [18]. Following readings about MEA design, the students of this course participated in the instruction of an MEA in order to see and experience the instructional strategies of the implementation. A demonstration on the six principles of MEA design followed so the students could understand the criteria for successful MEA design: 1) facilitates process or model construction; 2) is set in a realistic context; 3) involves self-assessment through prescribed or implied criteria; 4) requires documentation; 5) has a solution that can be shared or modified; and 6) leads to a usable prototype [18]. /10/$25.00 ©2011 IEEE

Research articles about using case studies in engineering instruction served as an introduction prior to students locating examples to discuss in the classroom. Similarly, a classroom discussion preceded an activity assignment in which pairs of students created criteria for evaluating existing P-12 engineering programs, which they then applied to evaluate programs that were mentioned in literature. The students then presented the criteria and evaluations and discussion evolved towards a group list of criteria that students could use to evaluate their own programs. OUTCOMES The concept maps, class discussions and integrated units showed growth and change in pedagogical knowledge and content knowledge throughout the semester: while the advocacy letter could not show attitude change, student statements in class from some initially resistant students indicate complete buy-in; most of the integrated units, intended to be open-ended, were far more elaborate in the integration of math and science concepts than anticipated; similarly, some of the model-eliciting activities and engineering design challenges were exemplary and have potential for immediate use in secondary and post-secondary engineering contexts (1), initial concept maps showed a theoretical connection between math, science and engineering; final concept maps showed concrete examples of knowledge of integration, specific instructional strategies from the activities, assigned reading and additional, voluntary readings and research.; the depth of change indicated in the concept maps showed immeasurable gains for those with little engineering background to shifts in thinking about the pedagogy behind engineering education for those with engineering backgrounds. (2) represents the level of complexity developed through the course with the first concept map showing some theoretical relationships between the subjects and the final concept map showing specific ties with specific strategies and relationships being identified.

FIGURE 1 SAMPLE FROM STUDENT-DESIGNED MODEL-ELICITING ACTIVITY

1st Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) 7B-3

April 2, 2011, Ewing, NJ

Session 7B Students have reported that the class has already had an impact in their current studies and future planning. One student provided a list of readings to fellow classmates which was comprised of most of the readings from this course. Proposals for graduate research projects from participants show the influence of the course in articles that have been cited, direction of research and classroom interventions proposed and types of assessment considered.

[2] [3] [4] [5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[10] [11] [12]

FIGURE 2 ONE STUDENT’S CONCEPT MAPS FROM EARLY AND LATE SEMESTER

[13]

CONCLUSION

[14]

A problem-based approach was used in the instruction of graduate students, current and future secondary teachers of math and science, in order to teach methods and strategies for integrating engineering. Preliminary findings show that the course was successful in meeting the stated objectives and the potential impact of the course on the research and teaching by the course participants shows promises of great significance. Further research, including longitudinal interviews and surveys, will be implemented in order to further determine the value of the instruction. Following up with the students will allow the course designers to assess the quality of teaching and the value of strategies promoted and can be used to direct improvements to the course for future semesters. Additionally, a comprehensive P-12 Engineering Education course and a P-8 course for integrating engineering are possible future applications of this framework. The instruction from the model-eliciting activity portion of the course is already being used in the planning for model- eliciting instruction workshops for teachers, math facilitators and researchers. REFERENCES [1]

Czerniak, Charlene M., et al., "A literature review of science and

/10/$25.00 ©2011 IEEE

[15]

[16] [17] [18]

[19]

mathematics integration", School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 99, 1999, 17-December, pp. 421-430. Davison, David M., Miller, Kenneth W. and Metheny, Dixie L., "What does integration of science and mathematics really mean?" School Science and Mathematics, Vol. 5, 1995 May, pp. 226-230. Purdue University College of Engineering, "Global preschool-12 (P12) engineering: A strategic plan for P-12 learning, discovery, and engagement," Purdue University College of Engineering, 2006. Brophy, Sean, et al., "Advancing Engineering Education in P-12 Classrooms," Journal of Engineering Education, 2008, pp. 369-387. Chae, Yoojung, Purzer, Senay and Cardella, Monica, "Core concepts for engineering literacy: The interrelationships among STEM disciplines," American Society for Engineering Education 2010 Annual Conference and Exposition. Tate, Derrick, et al., "Matching pedagogical intent with engineering design process models for precollege education.," Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 24, pp. 379-395. Liu, Wei, Carr, Ronald L and Strobel, Johannes, "Extending teacher professional development through an online learning community: A case study," Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, Vol. 2, 2009, pp. 99-112. Chandler, John, Fontenot, A. Dean and Tate, Derrick, "Obstablces to implementing pre-college engineering in K-12 education," Journal of Pre- College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 2011 April (In Press). [9] Linn, Marcia, et al., "Can research on science learning and instruction inform standards for science education?", Journal of Science Education and Technology, Vol. Vol. 3, 1994, pp. 7-15. Felder, RM and Brent, Rebecca, "The intellectual development of science and engineering students," Journal of Engineering Education, 2004, pp. 279-291. Dym, Clive, et al., "Engineering design thinking, teaching and learning," Journal of Engineering Education, 2005 Harris, Kara S. and Rogers, George E., "Secondary engineering competencies: A Delphi study of engineering faculty," Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, Vol. 45, 2008, pp. 3-25. Pearson, Greg and Young, Thomas A. Technically speaking: why all Americans need to know more about technology. Washington, DC : National Academy Press, 2002. Committee on Conceptual Framework for New Science Education Standards, A Framework for science education: Preliminary public draft. Washington, DC : National Research Council of the National Academies, 2010. Norman, Ke Wu, Moore, Tamara J. and Kern, Anne L., "A graduate level in-service teacher education curriculum integrating engineering into science and mathematics contents," The Montana Math Enthusiast, Vol. 7, 2010, pp. 443-446. Lipson, Marjorie Y., et al., "Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning," Language Arts, Vol. 70, 4, April 1993, pp. 252-263. Savery, John., " Overview of problem-based learning: Definitions and distinctions," The Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based learning, Vol. 1, 1, 2006, pp. 9-20. Diefes-Dux, Heidi, et al., "Model-eliciting activities for engineering education," [ed.] J.S. Zawojewski, Heidi Diefes-Dux and K Bowman. Models and modeling in engineering education: Designing experiences for all students. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 2008, pp. 17-36. Committee on Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. Classroom Assessment and the National Science Education Standards. 2001.

AUTHOR INFORMATION Ronald L. Carr, Doctoral Student, Learning Design & Technology, Purdue University. Johannes Strobel, Director, INSPIRE, Institute for P-12 Engineering Research and Learning, Assistant Professor, Engineering Education, Purdue University.

1st Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC) 7B-4

April 2, 2011, Ewing, NJ