2014-15 Graduate Bulletin

After 2003 the University of Dayton Bulletin went exclusively online. This copy was downloaded from the University of Dayton\u27s website.https://ecommons.udayton.edu/bulletin_grad/1009/thumbnail.jp

Cross Case Study of an Elementary Engineering Task

Designerly play has been identified as a fundamental component of childhood learning (Baynes, 1994; Petroski, 2003). However, as students enter grade one and beyond, the increasing academic focus has resulted in the loss of opportunities for designerly play (Zhao, 2012). At the same time, there are increasing calls to increase the number, skill, and diversity of STEM workers (Brophy, Portsmore, Klein, & Rogers, 2008). The robotics based Elementary Engineering Curriculum (Heffernan, 2013) - used by students in this study - and other similar projects have the potential to increase the STEM pipeline but elementary engineering is not well-understood. Research is needed to understand how to teach engineering to students as their cognitive, motor, and social skills rapidly develop in elementary school (Alimisis, 2012; Crismond & Adams, 2012; Mead, Thomas, & Weinberg, 2012; Penner, Giles, Lehrer, & Schauble, 1997; Roth, 1996; Schunn, 2009; Wagner, 1999). The literature review and theoretical frameworks chapters of this study determined the most relevant theoretical frameworks, engineering design process models, and existing research that is relevant to a cross-sectional case study of six grade 2 and six grade 6 elementary robotics students in the context of established K-6 elementary robotics curriculum (Heffernan, 2013). Students were videotaped doing an open-ended engineering task based on LEGO robotics using talk-aloud (Ericsson & Simon, 1993) and clinical interview (Ginsburg, 1997) techniques. The engineering design processes were analyzed and compared by age and gender. Significant differences were found in final projects and engineering design process. However, the differences were not, for the most part, related to development or gender, but were related to the complexity of the ride they tried to build and the skills and structural knowledge they brought to the task. The key factors identified consisted of three executive function process skills of cognitive flexibility, causal reasoning, and planning ability, three domain specific process skills of application of mathematics and science, engineering design process skills, and design principles of stability, scale, and the structural knowledge they had of LEGO robotics, most pointedly, LEGO connection knowledge. Implications of these findings for teachers are given

2013-14 Graduate Bulletin

After 2003 the University of Dayton Bulletin went exclusively online. This copy was downloaded from the University of Dayton\u27s website.https://ecommons.udayton.edu/bulletin_grad/1008/thumbnail.jp

FROM INTERACTION TO INTERACTION: EXPLORING SHARED RESOURCES CONSTRUCTED THROUGH AND MEDIATING CLASSROOM SCIENCE LEARNING

Recent reform documents and science education literature emphasize the importance of scientific argumentation as a discourse and practice of science that should be supported in school science learning. Much of this literature focuses on the structure of argument, whether for assessing the quality of argument or designing instructional scaffolds. This study challenges the narrowness of this research paradigm and argues for the necessity of examining students' argumentative practices as rooted in the complex, evolving system of the classroom. Employing a sociocultural-historical lens of activity theory (Engestrӧm, 1987, 1999), discourse analysis is employed to explore how a high school biology class continuously builds affordances and constraints for argumentation practices through interactions. The ways in which argumentation occurs, including the nature of teacher and student participation, are influenced by learning goals, classroom norms, teacher-student relationships and epistemological stances constructed through a class' interactive history. Based on such findings, science education should consider promoting classroom scientific argumentation as a long-term process, requiring supportive resources that develop through continuous classroom interactions. Moreover, in order to understand affordances that support disciplinary learning in classroom, we need to look beyond just disciplinary interactions. This work has implications for classroom research on argumentation and teacher education, specifically, the preparation of teachers for secondary science teaching

An Investigation of the Test-Taking Skills and Associated Thinking Processes of Ninth Grade English Language Arts Students

Although much is known about how students perform on standardized tests, little research exists concerning how students think and process while taking such tests. This mixed methods action research study was designed to investigate if a constructivist approach to test preparation could yield improved results for 37 English language arts freshmen preparing for the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE). The researcher explored student performances on Princeton Review practice CAHSEE tests (versions A, B, and C) over a 3-month period and she performed several statistical tests including repeated measures ANOVA by individual classes (advanced, basic, below basic) to determine differences between and among groups. In addition, she examined students\u27 metacognitive processes as they participated in bi-monthly audio-taped classroom discussions of their thinking on specific multiple-choice items. After each of these discussions, all students independently wrote to a common prompt in their journals to articulate their thinking. In addition, six focus students recorded their thinking aloud while they tested on specific items and participated in end of study interviews about multiple aspects of the intervention. Emerging themes included how students read and interpreted test questions, eliminated answers, revisited the text, and felt about the intervention. While repeated measures ANOVA indicated a significant testing effect (p = .05) for advanced students early in the study, it was the below basic test-takers who actually made the greatest gains overall. And although students made improvement interpreting test questions and eliminating answers, all groups struggled with knowing how to strategically revisit the text. Approximately one-third of the students from all classes attributed laziness or tiredness as a factor influencing their performance. The more advanced focus students tended to respond to the test items in a cyclical pattern, practicing strategies repeatedly whereas the less advanced test-takers participated in more of a lock step, linear approach. Most focus students declared that the most useful aspect of the intervention was thinking aloud as they tested or listening to others during classroom discussions. Recommendations for future studies include more in-depth, multidimensional studies to capture students\u27 thought processes in order to shape classroom instruction that assists students in becoming better test-takers