Infusing Engineering Design into High School STEM Courses

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

Gender Differences in Confidence Levels, Group Interactions, and Feelings about Competition in an Introductory Robotics Course

Classroom environment influences each student's educational experience. The aim of this classroom evaluation was to gain a better understanding of how each gender functions in an introductory robotics class, where LEGOs and ROBOLAB were used as a tool to teach engineering principles and basic robotics concepts. A better understanding of how each gender performs in reaction to the classroom setup will hopefully lead to the development of a learning environment that is mutually beneficial to each gender. The course, a general freshman introduction to engineering, targeted for this evaluation required students to complete robotic challenges while working within groups and participating in design competitions. The present evaluation explored gender differences in self-confidence levels related to robotic tasks, feelings toward competitions as a component of the course, and differences in the way males and females interact within groups. Assessment was conducted through interviews, observations, and written questionnaires. Competency in robotics activities was found to be similar although males were found to be more confident of their own abilities. Both genders felt the competitions were enjoyable and integral to the atmosphere of the class. Males in the class took the competitions more seriously than did the females. Building and programming robots were thought to be their greatest areas of learning by the women. Males, on the other hand, cited working in groups and learning to compromise as the areas where they made the greatest improvements

Gender Differences In Confidence Levels, Group Interactions, And Feelings About Competition In An Introductory Robotics Course

Classroom environment influences each student's educational experience. The aim of this classroom evaluation was to gain a better understanding of how each gender functions in an introductory robotics class, where LEGOs and ROBOLAB were used as a tool to teach engineering principles and basic robotics concepts. A better understanding of how each gender performs in reaction to the classroom setup will hopefully lead to the development of a learning environment that is mutually beneficial to each gender. The course, a general freshman introduction to engineering, targeted for this evaluation required students to complete robotic challenges while working within groups and participating in design competitions. The present evaluation explored gender differences in self-confidence levels related to robotic tasks, feelings toward competitions as a component of the course, and differences in the way males and females interact within groups. Assessment was conducted through interviews, observations, and written questionnaires. Competency in robotics activities was found to be similar although males were found to be more confident of their own abilities. Both genders felt the competitions were enjoyable and integral to the atmosphere of the class. Males in the class took the competitions more seriously than did the females. Building and programming robots were thought to be their greatest areas of learning by the women. Males, on the other hand, cited working in groups and learning to compromise as the areas where they made the greatest improvements

Comparing two Lego robotics-based interventions for social skills training with children with ASD

This paper presents an analysis of two comparable studies with LEGO Robotics-based activities in a social skills training program for children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). One study has been carried out with a group of 16 children in the Unit of Pediatrics Psychology and Psychiatry in HSJD in Barcelona , Spain and the other with a group of 17 children at the Center for Education and Engineering Outreach (Tufts U.) in Boston, USA. The aim of this comparison is discuss lessons learnt and develop empirical based guidelines for intervention design