diff --git a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.aux b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.aux index ec04ca7..6f201e8 100644 --- a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.aux +++ b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.aux @@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ \citation{nilson2015} \citation{bloom1971,kulik1990} \citation{nilson2015} -\citation{nilson2015,blackstone2018} +\citation{nilson2015,blackstone2019} \citation{passow2012} \citation{burguillo2010} \citation{carlile1998,morrison2004} @@ -22,15 +22,16 @@ \@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {1}{\ignorespaces Laboratory schedule for the 14-week semester in upper-level engineering course. Each box represents an assignment that includes measurements, statistical analysis, and lab report. The ``Mass Measurement Contest'' asks students to use a combination of methods from weeks 1-9 to predict the mass of an object attached to a vibrating beam. The final two weeks are used to measure a first-order convective heat transfer problem, incorporating statistical uncertainty, finite element analysis, and verification. \relax }}{3}\protected@file@percent } \providecommand*\caption@xref[2]{\@setref\relax\@undefined{#1}} \newlabel{timeline}{{1}{3}} +\citation{seabold2010} \citation{burguillo2010} \@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {2}{\ignorespaces Plotted above in (a) is the average change in lab report grade as a function of the first Report~\#0. The specification for passing Report \#0 is shown as a red line at 70 points. The green area above the ``Linear model change in grade''=0 shows the students that continuously improved their report grades throughout the semester. The dark red section in the lower-left, that has no student data, would be students that performed poorly and continued to decrease quality. The light-red section between 70 and 100 are the students that decreased quality to the point of risking failing Report~\#6. The yellow section between 70 and 100 above the orange risk section are students that decreased quality, but maintained high enough marks to not risk failing lab reports. There are three populations of students from Fall 2018 $\square $~markers and Fall 2019 $\circ $~markers:\IeC {\nobreakspace }Red indicates students that failed Report~\#0, but their scores increased throughout the semester, Green indicates students that passed Report~\#0 whose scores continued to increase throughout the semester, and orange are students that passed Report~\#0, but their scores decreased throughout the semester. The orange marks in the red sections, "maintain poor quality" were at risk of failing other lab reports. In (b), box plots of the scores from 2018 and 2019 on reports 0-6 are plotted. The median is shown by a horizontal line, the notches indicate the confidence interval, the whiskers denote the range of scores, with outliers marked as circles, and the upper- and lower-quartiles are shown by the boxes above and below the median lines. The red-dashed line indicates the specification for a passing grade on the reports. \relax }}{5}\protected@file@percent } \newlabel{quality}{{2}{5}} \@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {3}{\ignorespaces Plotted above is a histogram of the reported errors from Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 for the mass measurement contest. The average mass reported in Fall~2018 and Fall~2019 was 18~$\pm $~33~g and 41~$\pm $~27~g, respectively with error reported as standard deviation. The actual mass measurements were 32~$\pm $~2~g. The histogram is the error=(reported value - the actual value). \relax }}{6}\protected@file@percent } \newlabel{contest}{{3}{6}} -\bibstyle{unsrtnat} -\bibdata{ASEEpaper} \@writefile{lof}{\contentsline {figure}{\numberline {4}{\ignorespaces Plotted above is a histogram of the responses from senior capstone project students that either: took the project-based laboratory course concurrently with capstone, in the previous year, or not at all. The students were asked to rate the necessity of eight problem-solving and technical writing skills that were introduced in this project-based laboratory course.\relax }}{7}\protected@file@percent } \newlabel{contest}{{4}{7}} +\bibstyle{unsrtnat} +\bibdata{ASEEpaper} \bibcite{passow2017}{{1}{2017}{{Passow and Passow}}{{}}} \bibcite{evans1993}{{2}{1993}{{Evans et~al.}}{{Evans, Beakley, Crouch, and Yamaguchi}}} \bibcite{hume1739}{{3}{1739}{{Hume}}{{}}} @@ -38,15 +39,19 @@ \bibcite{lillis2001}{{5}{2001}{{Lillis and Turner}}{{}}} \bibcite{conrad2017}{{6}{2017}{{Conrad}}{{}}} \bibcite{nilson2015}{{7}{2015}{{Nilson and Stanny}}{{}}} -\bibcite{passow2012}{{8}{2012}{{Passow}}{{}}} -\bibcite{burguillo2010}{{9}{2010}{{Burguillo}}{{}}} -\bibcite{carlile1998}{{10}{1998}{{Carlile et~al.}}{{Carlile, Barnet, Sefton, and Uther}}} -\bibcite{morrison2004}{{11}{2004}{{Morrison}}{{}}} -\bibcite{awang2008}{{12}{2008}{{Awang and Ramly}}{{}}} -\bibcite{bell2010}{{13}{2010}{{Bell}}{{}}} -\bibcite{michieletto2018}{{14}{2018}{{Michieletto and Pagello}}{{}}} -\bibcite{kluyver2016}{{15}{2016}{{Kluyver et~al.}}{{Kluyver, Ragan-Kelley, P{\'e}rez, Granger, Bussonnier, Frederic, Kelley, Hamrick, Grout, Corlay, et~al.}}} -\bibcite{student1908}{{16}{1908}{{Student}}{{}}} +\bibcite{bloom1971}{{8}{1971}{{Bloom et~al.}}{{}}} +\bibcite{kulik1990}{{9}{1990}{{Kulik et~al.}}{{Kulik, Kulik, and Bangert-Drowns}}} +\bibcite{blackstone2019}{{10}{2019}{{Blackstone and Oldmixon}}{{}}} +\bibcite{passow2012}{{11}{2012}{{Passow}}{{}}} +\bibcite{burguillo2010}{{12}{2010}{{Burguillo}}{{}}} +\bibcite{carlile1998}{{13}{1998}{{Carlile et~al.}}{{Carlile, Barnet, Sefton, and Uther}}} +\bibcite{morrison2004}{{14}{2004}{{Morrison}}{{}}} +\bibcite{awang2008}{{15}{2008}{{Awang and Ramly}}{{}}} +\bibcite{bell2010}{{16}{2010}{{Bell}}{{}}} +\bibcite{michieletto2018}{{17}{2018}{{Michieletto and Pagello}}{{}}} +\bibcite{kluyver2016}{{18}{2016}{{Kluyver et~al.}}{{Kluyver, Ragan-Kelley, P{\'e}rez, Granger, Bussonnier, Frederic, Kelley, Hamrick, Grout, Corlay, et~al.}}} +\bibcite{student1908}{{19}{1908}{{Student}}{{}}} +\bibcite{seabold2010}{{20}{2010}{{Seabold and Perktold}}{{}}} \gdef \LT@i {\LT@entry {1}{52.97838pt}\LT@entry {2}{152.92795pt}\LT@entry diff --git a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.bbl b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.bbl index e288406..7aeeb57 100644 --- a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.bbl +++ b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.bbl @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -\begin{thebibliography}{16} +\begin{thebibliography}{20} \providecommand{\natexlab}[1]{#1} \providecommand{\url}[1]{\texttt{#1}} \expandafter\ifx\csname urlstyle\endcsname\relax @@ -58,6 +58,24 @@ L.~Nilson and C.J. Stanny. \newblock Stylus Publishing, 2015. \newblock ISBN 9781620362440. +\bibitem[Bloom et~al.(1971)]{bloom1971} +Benjamin~S Bloom et~al. +\newblock Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. +\newblock 1971. + +\bibitem[Kulik et~al.(1990)Kulik, Kulik, and Bangert-Drowns]{kulik1990} +Chen-Lin~C Kulik, James~A Kulik, and Robert~L Bangert-Drowns. +\newblock Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis. +\newblock \emph{Review of educational research}, 60\penalty0 (2):\penalty0 + 265--299, 1990. + +\bibitem[Blackstone and Oldmixon(2019)]{blackstone2019} +Bethany Blackstone and Elizabeth Oldmixon. +\newblock {Specifications Grading in Political Science}. +\newblock \emph{Journal of Political Science Education}, 15\penalty0 + (2):\penalty0 191--205, apr 2019. +\newblock ISSN 1551-2169. + \bibitem[Passow(2012)]{passow2012} Honor~J. Passow. \newblock {Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important @@ -122,4 +140,9 @@ Student. \newblock The probable error of a mean. \newblock \emph{Biometrika}, pages 1--25, 1908. +\bibitem[Seabold and Perktold(2010)]{seabold2010} +Skipper Seabold and Josef Perktold. +\newblock statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python. +\newblock In \emph{9th Python in Science Conference}, 2010. + \end{thebibliography} diff --git a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.blg b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.blg index 11904cb..4df652e 100644 --- a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.blg +++ b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.blg @@ -3,49 +3,47 @@ Capacity: max_strings=100000, hash_size=100000, hash_prime=85009 The top-level auxiliary file: ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.aux The style file: unsrtnat.bst Database file #1: ASEEpaper.bib -Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "bloom1971" -Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "kulik1990" -Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "blackstone2018" +Warning--empty journal in bloom1971 Warning--can't use both volume and number fields in carlile1998 -You've used 16 entries, +You've used 20 entries, 2481 wiz_defined-function locations, - 672 strings with 7267 characters, -and the built_in function-call counts, 6486 in all, are: -= -- 595 -> -- 254 -< -- 18 -+ -- 106 -- -- 74 -* -- 481 -:= -- 1005 -add.period$ -- 64 -call.type$ -- 16 -change.case$ -- 29 -chr.to.int$ -- 16 -cite$ -- 17 -duplicate$ -- 343 -empty$ -- 610 -format.name$ -- 100 -if$ -- 1404 + 694 strings with 7871 characters, +and the built_in function-call counts, 7928 in all, are: += -- 720 +> -- 320 +< -- 21 ++ -- 132 +- -- 92 +* -- 584 +:= -- 1229 +add.period$ -- 77 +call.type$ -- 20 +change.case$ -- 37 +chr.to.int$ -- 20 +cite$ -- 22 +duplicate$ -- 421 +empty$ -- 752 +format.name$ -- 127 +if$ -- 1714 int.to.chr$ -- 1 -int.to.str$ -- 17 -missing$ -- 19 -newline$ -- 102 -num.names$ -- 48 -pop$ -- 127 +int.to.str$ -- 21 +missing$ -- 23 +newline$ -- 123 +num.names$ -- 60 +pop$ -- 164 preamble$ -- 1 -purify$ -- 16 +purify$ -- 20 quote$ -- 0 -skip$ -- 209 +skip$ -- 254 stack$ -- 0 -substring$ -- 327 -swap$ -- 74 +substring$ -- 385 +swap$ -- 83 text.length$ -- 5 text.prefix$ -- 0 top$ -- 0 -type$ -- 103 -warning$ -- 1 -while$ -- 61 +type$ -- 131 +warning$ -- 2 +while$ -- 73 width$ -- 0 -write$ -- 243 -(There were 4 warnings) +write$ -- 294 +(There were 2 warnings) diff --git a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.log b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.log index f6bba35..4ae9715 100644 --- a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.log +++ b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.log @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.20 (TeX Live 2019/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2020.2.1) 4 FEB 2020 00:49 +This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.20 (TeX Live 2019/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2020.4.1) 2 APR 2020 16:25 entering extended mode restricted \write18 enabled. %&-line parsing enabled. @@ -412,110 +412,92 @@ LaTeX Font Info: Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <12> not available File: uni-0.def 2013/05/13 UCS: Unicode data U+0000..U+00FF ) [1 -{/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map}] -LaTeX Font Info: Font shape `OT1/ptm/bx/n' in size <8> not available -(Font) Font shape `OT1/ptm/b/n' tried instead on input line 108. - - -Package natbib Warning: Citation `bloom1971' on page 2 undefined on input line -108. - - -Package natbib Warning: Citation `kulik1990' on page 2 undefined on input line -108. - - -Package natbib Warning: Citation `blackstone2018' on page 2 undefined on input -line 113. - -[2] +{/var/lib/texmf/fonts/map/pdftex/updmap/pdftex.map}] [2] <./lab_schedule.png, id=12, 799.788pt x 411.939pt> File: ./lab_schedule.png Graphic file (type png) -Package pdftex.def Info: ./lab_schedule.png used on input line 170. +Package pdftex.def Info: ./lab_schedule.png used on input line 194. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 361.34999pt x 186.11253pt. - [3 <./lab_schedule.png>] -<./track_progress/report_quality.png, id=18, 433.62pt x 289.08pt> + [3 <./lab_schedule.png>] [4] +<./track_progress/report_quality.png, id=21, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> File: ./track_progress/report_quality.png Graphic file (type png) Package pdftex.def Info: ./track_progress/report_quality.png used on input lin -e 263. -(pdftex.def) Requested size: 252.94499pt x 168.63252pt. +e 297. +(pdftex.def) Requested size: 252.94499pt x 180.67456pt. -Overfull \hbox (18.06749pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 263--264 +Overfull \hbox (18.06749pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 297--298 [][] [] -<./track_progress/report_scores.png, id=19, 433.62pt x 289.08pt> +<./track_progress/report_scores.png, id=22, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> File: ./track_progress/report_scores.png Graphic file (type png) Package pdftex.def Info: ./track_progress/report_scores.png used on input line - 269. -(pdftex.def) Requested size: 216.81pt x 144.53964pt. + 303. +(pdftex.def) Requested size: 216.81pt x 154.86469pt. -Overfull \hbox (2.28001pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 261--273 +Overfull \hbox (2.28001pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 295--307 [][] [] [] -[4] [5 <./track_progress/report_quality.png> <./track_progress/report_scores.pn -g>] +[5 <./track_progress/report_quality.png> <./track_progress/report_scores.png>] <./track_progress/mass_measure.png, id=30, 505.89pt x 361.35pt> File: ./track_progress/mass_measure.png Graphic file (type png) Package pdftex.def Info: ./track_progress/mass_measure.png used on input line -325. +359. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 361.34999pt x 258.10966pt. -<./track_progress/survey_prep.png, id=31, 867.24pt x 361.35pt> + +[6 <./track_progress/mass_measure.png>] +<./track_progress/survey_prep.png, id=35, 867.24pt x 361.35pt> File: ./track_progress/survey_prep.png Graphic file (type png) Package pdftex.def Info: ./track_progress/survey_prep.png used on input line 3 -56. +89. (pdftex.def) Requested size: 433.62pt x 180.67456pt. - [6 <./track_progress/mass_measure.png>] (./ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.bbl [7 <./track_p -rogress/survey_prep.png>]) [8] -Overfull \hbox (7.44104pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 415--416 + [7 <./track_progress/survey_prep.png>] +(./ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.bbl [8]) [9] +Overfull \hbox (7.44104pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 449--450 []\OT1/ptm/m/n/10 Unacceptable [] -Overfull \hbox (4.35106pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 421--422 +Overfull \hbox (4.35106pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 455--456 []\OT1/ptm/m/n/10 Excellent (1)| [] -Overfull \hbox (84.02158pt too wide) in alignment at lines 409--427 +Overfull \hbox (84.02158pt too wide) in alignment at lines 443--461 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] -Overfull \hbox (2.46117pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 429--430 +Overfull \hbox (2.46117pt too wide) in paragraph at lines 463--464 []\OT1/ptm/m/n/10 Introduction| [] -Overfull \hbox (84.02158pt too wide) in alignment at lines 427--767 +Overfull \hbox (84.02158pt too wide) in alignment at lines 461--801 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] -Overfull \hbox (84.02158pt too wide) in alignment at lines 767--835 +Overfull \hbox (84.02158pt too wide) in alignment at lines 801--869 [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] - -Package natbib Warning: There were undefined citations. - -[9] (./ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.aux) +[10] (./ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.aux) LaTeX Warning: There were multiply-defined labels. ) Here is how much of TeX's memory you used: - 6914 strings out of 492167 - 96177 string characters out of 6131559 - 224702 words of memory out of 5000000 - 11138 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000 - 26581 words of font info for 65 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000 + 6923 strings out of 492167 + 96369 string characters out of 6131559 + 222193 words of memory out of 5000000 + 11148 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000 + 24955 words of font info for 63 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000 1141 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191 45i,8n,46p,1877b,485s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,80000s {/usr/share/texmf-dist/fonts/enc/dvips/base/8r.enc} -Output written on ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.pdf (9 pages, 334809 bytes). +Output written on ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.pdf (10 pages, 352565 bytes). PDF statistics: - 70 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607) - 42 compressed objects within 1 object stream + 73 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607) + 44 compressed objects within 1 object stream 0 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000) 26 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000) diff --git a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.pdf b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.pdf index d39c245..70e5b6e 100644 Binary files a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.pdf and b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.pdf differ diff --git a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.tex b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.tex index 7dd4b52..79af2a9 100644 --- a/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.tex +++ b/ASEE-DELOS_Cooper.tex @@ -61,14 +61,38 @@ problem-based learning (PBL) laboratories and a Project-based learning (PjBL) contest that had a cash prize. The technical writing skills were improved using specifications grading in all seven laboratories. Students were given a detailed rubric with a pass-fail threshold. Reports that did not meet the specification -for pass, were revised and resubmitted. In the project-based learning -competition, the students designed their own set of experiments including finite +for pass, were revised and resubmitted. The specifications grading provided a +method for students to learn from failure and over 50\% of students increased +technical writing quality. The Jupyter notebooks helped to close the gap between +rational, thinking design and empirical, hands-on design. In the project-based +learning, the students designed their own set of experiments including finite element analysis and experimental procedures. The students were graded upon their approach to the problem and quantification of uncertainties in measured -and predicted values. I discuss the impacts of specifications grading, -project-based learning competition, and detail the measured improvements in technical -writing throughout the semesters in Fall 2018 and Fall 2019. The impacts were -measured based upon a standardized rubric and qualitative interviews. +and predicted values. Using the 2019-2020 senior capstone students, I found a +statistically significant increase in preparation for engineering design from +taking the lab course with PjBL. I discuss the impacts of specifications +grading, project-based learning competition, and detail the measured +improvements in technical writing throughout the semesters in Fall 2018 and Fall +2019. The impacts were measured based upon a standardized rubric and qualitative +interviews. + +%In conclusion, this course included a number of novel features: Problem- and +%Project-based learning (PBL and PjBL), interactive lab handouts via JupyterHub, +%and specifications grading. PBL and PjBL increased student motivation and +%confidence when beginning senior capstone projects. The PjBL competition was a +%welcomed success by students. Most lab groups excelled in rational and empirical +%design processes for the competition. Groups that did not meet expectations +%revised their work and continued to improve technical writing quality. The +%specifications grading provided a method for students to learn from failure and +%over 50\% of students increased technical writing quality. Access to interactive +%notebooks increased the variety and use of the lab handouts. Using Jupyter +%notebook handouts created a medium that mixed background information, data +%processing, and simple engineering models. The Jupyter notebooks helped to close +%the gap between rational, thinking design and empirical, hands-on design. The +%project-based upper engineering lab course redesign has been a success. Using +%the 2019-2020 senior capstone students, I found a statistically significant +%increase in preparation for engineering design from taking the lab course with +%PjBL. %------------------------------------------------ @@ -110,7 +134,7 @@ Students are given a detailed rubric and a minimum standard for passing the course. Failed assignments can be revised by using a token system\cite{nilson2015}. Specification grading is meant to decrease the time and effort spent on individual assignments; this time is spent providing critical -feedback\cite{nilson2015,blackstone2018}. Technical writing is a skill that +feedback\cite{nilson2015,blackstone2019}. Technical writing is a skill that every practicing engineer uses to communicate ideas and findings. The role of an upper-level engineering laboratory is to teach the connection @@ -153,7 +177,7 @@ Lab \#5 is a PjBL activity; I specified that the class needed to measure the mass of an object using a vibrating beam. Lab \#0 is used to introduce statistical significance in measurements. We relate discussions of rational models and empirical measurements with statistical analysis. All students work -with the same data set and submitt reports graded with the rubric in +with the same data set and submit reports graded with the rubric in Appendix A. Lab \#1 asks students to quantify differences in machining methods between band saw and computer numerical control (CNC) parts. Labs \#2-4 ask students to quantify differences between rational predictions using @@ -216,23 +240,33 @@ clear feedback on the final error in the predicted results. \section*{Results and Discussion} -The course focuses on problem-solving and technical writing. In -Fig.~\ref{quality}(a), the scores of each lab group is fit to a linear model to -determine the change in report grade per report between Labs \#0-4. The goal was -to have the entire class in the green ``continuous improvement''-area. In -Fall~2018, 56\% of the class continually improved and in Fall~2019, 59\% of the -class continually improved their scores. The ``maintain quality'' area -represents students that write reports of high quality initially, but do not -improve during the course of the class. In Fall~2018 and Fall 2019, the students that -maintained quality accounted for 43\% and 36\%, respectively. The remaining 1\% -and 4\% of the class did not improve or meet specifications for lab reports, in -Fall 2018 and 2019, respectively. The grades from Labs~\#5-6 are shown in -Fig.~\ref{quality}(b). Lab~\#5 was the PjBL contest and marked a significant -increase in expectations. The results of this study, suggest that students were -able to incorporate feedback from teaching assistants and myself and show -improvements in technical writing. The Labs increased in difficulty, so even the -groups of students that maintained their grade at the specified level show -marked improvement in communicating difficult concepts. +% Added F-value from repeated Anova +%Anova +%====================================== +% F Value Num DF Den DF Pr > F +%-------------------------------------- +%report 23.7442 4.0000 1776.0000 0.0000 +%====================================== +The course focuses on problem-solving and technical writing. The F-value in a +one-way repeated Analysis of Variance, using the Python package +statsmodels\cite{seabold2010} was 23.74 between labs 0-4 with 445 +students indicating that there was a statistically significant affect on lab +report grades. In Fig.~\ref{quality}(a), the scores of each lab group is fit to +a linear model to determine the change in report grade per report between Labs +\#0-4. The goal was to have the entire class in the green ``continuous +improvement''-area. In Fall~2018, 56\% of the class continually improved and in +Fall~2019, 59\% of the class continually improved their scores. The ``maintain +quality'' area represents students that write reports of high quality initially, +but do not improve during the course of the class. In Fall~2018 and Fall 2019, +the students that maintained quality accounted for 43\% and 36\%, respectively. +The remaining 1\% and 4\% of the class did not improve or meet specifications +for lab reports, in Fall 2018 and 2019, respectively. The grades from Labs~\#5-6 +are shown in Fig.~\ref{quality}(b). Lab~\#5 was the PjBL contest and marked a +significant increase in expectations. The results of this study, suggest that +students were able to incorporate feedback from teaching assistants and myself +and show improvements in technical writing. The Labs increased in difficulty, so +even the groups of students that maintained their grade at the specified level +show marked improvement in communicating difficult concepts. Regarding the effectiveness of specifications grading in technical writing, there is still a normal distribution of grades with the class mean between 80 @@ -243,7 +277,7 @@ I find a clear increase in grades throughout the semester, and the students that were in the ``maintaining poor quality'' regime did fail and redo lab reports. The students that did not improve found great difficulty in Labs~\#5-6, most failing those assignments and revising their work. The specifications grading -also has the most noticeable effect on underperforming students. The students +also has the most noticeable effect on under-performing students. The students that failed Lab~\#0 had an average grade increase of 5~pts/report. This increase would result in a score of 85-90 on these students Lab~\#6 reports, if the progress was sustained and labs did not become more demanding. @@ -331,25 +365,24 @@ happens whether or not the group wins\cite{burguillo2010}. \end{figure} I polled the 2019-2020 senior capstone project teams that took this -project-based upper-level engineering lab course in either Fall 2018, 2019, or not at -all. Students' comments about the course included ``Was a great and helpful -class'', ``Great class! Very helpful for senior design'', and ``ME3263 was a -great course for technical writing.'' The students were asked how useful each -skill that was introduced in this course is in relation to accomplishing a +project-based upper-level engineering lab course in either Fall 2018, 2019, or +not at all. Students' comments about the course included ``Was a great and +helpful class'', ``Great class! Very helpful for senior design'', and ``ME3263 +was a great course for technical writing.'' The students were asked how useful +each skill that was introduced in this course is in relation to accomplishing a senior capstone project. Over 50\% of the class of 270, agreed that all eight skills were useful and 50\% of the class considered technical writing to be a -\emph{crucial skill}. The last question in the survey is: ``How prepared did -you feel starting senior design with your background from ?'' Of -the students that took the course in Fall 2018 and Fall 2019, over 45\% felt -prepared and students that hadn't taken the course less than 30\% felt -prepared. Using a one-way analysis of variance on the responses -(0:unprepared-4:very prepared), 121 students from Fall 2018, 24 from Fall 2019, -and 17 N/A, the f-statistic=2.2 with a p-value of 0.11 between all three. While, -considering just the difference between Fall 2018-Fall 2019, the f-statistic is -0.01 and p-value of 0.93. There is a statistically significant difference -between students that took the PjBL course and those that did not. This -measurement gages the students' perceived preparation for the senior capstone -project. +\emph{crucial skill}. The last question in the survey is: ``How prepared did you +feel starting senior design with your background from this course?'' Of the +students that took the course in Fall 2018 and Fall 2019, over 45\% felt +prepared and students that hadn't taken the course less than 30\% felt prepared. +Using a one-way analysis of variance on the responses (0:unprepared-4:very +prepared), 121 students from Fall 2018, 24 from Fall 2019, and 17 N/A, the +f-statistic=2.2 with a p-value of 0.11 between all three. While, considering +just the difference between Fall 2018-Fall 2019, the f-statistic is 0.01 and +p-value of 0.93. There is a statistically significant difference between +students that took the PjBL course and those that did not. This measurement +gages the students' perceived preparation for the senior capstone project. \begin{figure}[ht!] \centering @@ -390,7 +423,8 @@ fraction of the class has measurable increase in writing quality without this process. I assume the PjBL competition was a big motivational and preparational tool, but there may be other sources of motivation and preparation. Some future work is to compare results between a competition-based PjBL and -PjBL component with no competition. +PjBL component with no competition and to incorporate senior design grades into +the analysis of the effectiveness of the course. %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- % REFERENCE LIST diff --git a/ASEEpaper.bib b/ASEEpaper.bib index f5e1d32..0e002bb 100644 --- a/ASEEpaper.bib +++ b/ASEEpaper.bib @@ -1,3 +1,40 @@ +@article{blackstone2019, + author = {Blackstone, Bethany and Oldmixon, Elizabeth}, + issn = {1551-2169}, + journal = {Journal of Political Science Education}, + month = {apr}, + number = {2}, + pages = {191--205}, + title = {{Specifications Grading in Political Science}}, + volume = {15}, + year = {2019} +} + +@inproceedings{seabold2010, + title={statsmodels: Econometric and statistical modeling with python}, + author={Seabold, Skipper and Perktold, Josef}, + booktitle={9th Python in Science Conference}, + year={2010}, +} + +@article{bloom1971, + title={Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning.}, + author={Bloom, Benjamin S and others}, + year={1971}, + publisher={ERIC} +} + +@article{kulik1990, + title={Effectiveness of mastery learning programs: A meta-analysis}, + author={Kulik, Chen-Lin C and Kulik, James A and Bangert-Drowns, Robert L}, + journal={Review of educational research}, + volume={60}, + number={2}, + pages={265--299}, + year={1990}, + publisher={Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA} +} + @book{kant1781, title={Critique of pure reason}, author={Kant, Immanuel}, diff --git a/ASEEpaper.log b/ASEEpaper.log new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cfa46cc --- /dev/null +++ b/ASEEpaper.log @@ -0,0 +1,32 @@ +This is pdfTeX, Version 3.14159265-2.6-1.40.20 (TeX Live 2019/Arch Linux) (preloaded format=pdflatex 2020.4.1) 2 APR 2020 00:39 +entering extended mode + restricted \write18 enabled. + %&-line parsing enabled. +**ASEEpaper.bib +(./ASEEpaper.bib +LaTeX2e <2019-10-01> patch level 1 + +! LaTeX Error: Missing \begin{document}. + +See the LaTeX manual or LaTeX Companion for explanation. +Type H for immediate help. + ... + +l.1 @ + article{bloom1971, +? x + +Here is how much of TeX's memory you used: + 7 strings out of 492167 + 283 string characters out of 6131559 + 59380 words of memory out of 5000000 + 4468 multiletter control sequences out of 15000+600000 + 3640 words of font info for 14 fonts, out of 8000000 for 9000 + 1141 hyphenation exceptions out of 8191 + 5i,0n,4p,37b,14s stack positions out of 5000i,500n,10000p,200000b,80000s +No pages of output. +PDF statistics: + 0 PDF objects out of 1000 (max. 8388607) + 0 named destinations out of 1000 (max. 500000) + 1 words of extra memory for PDF output out of 10000 (max. 10000000) + diff --git a/blackstone.bib b/blackstone.bib new file mode 100644 index 0000000..3902e9a --- /dev/null +++ b/blackstone.bib @@ -0,0 +1,14 @@ +@article{Blackstone2019, +author = {Blackstone, Bethany and Oldmixon, Elizabeth}, +doi = {10.1080/15512169.2018.1447948}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Blackstone, Oldmixon - 2019 - Specifications Grading in Political Science.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {1551-2169}, +journal = {Journal of Political Science Education}, +month = {apr}, +number = {2}, +pages = {191--205}, +title = {{Specifications Grading in Political Science}}, +url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15512169.2018.1447948}, +volume = {15}, +year = {2019} +} diff --git a/mendeley.bib b/mendeley.bib index e46ab0c..6fc9947 100644 --- a/mendeley.bib +++ b/mendeley.bib @@ -1,17 +1,114 @@ -@article{Conrad2017, -author = {Conrad, Susan}, -doi = {10.1002/jee.20161}, -file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/Conrad-2017-Journal{\_}of{\_}Engineering{\_}Education.pdf:pdf}, -issn = {1069-4730}, -journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, +@inproceedings{Carlile1998, +abstract = {In response to the explosion in medical information, there have been considerable recent changes in medical curriculum development. The move to problem based learning (PBL) is, in part, a result of these changes. The Faculty of Medicine at the University of Sydney has exploited a WWW based intranet for the development, delivery, management and evaluation of it's problem based, graduate medical program (GMP). This system has been employed to develop the 72 medical problems that contribute to the first two years of the GMP. The activities of more than 400 members of the faculty have been coordinated using the intranet to develop the wide range of resources to support learning in the program. Daily management of the curriculum is also enabled using Web site posting of bulletins, e-mail and ongoing development of technology training. Coupled with the PBL problems is a formative assessment system that provides questions and feedback that cover the whole range of learning topics. Part of the student and staff evaluation is supported both informally and formally through the use of a 'Feedback' button on each web page and web delivered structured formal evaluations, respectively.}, +author = {Carlile, Simon and Barnet, Stewart and Sefton, Ann and Uther, James}, +booktitle = {International Journal of Medical Informatics}, +doi = {10.1016/S1386-5056(98)00073-2}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Carlile et al. - 1998 - Medical problem based learning supported by intranet technology A natural student centred approach.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {13865056}, +keywords = {Graduate medical program,Intranet,Problem based learning}, +month = {jun}, +number = {1-3}, +pages = {225--233}, +publisher = {Elsevier Sci Ireland Ltd}, +title = {{Medical problem based learning supported by intranet technology: A natural student centred approach}}, +volume = {50}, +year = {1998} +} +@article{Morrison2004, +author = {Morrison, Jillian}, +doi = {10.1016/s0140-6736(03)15298-1}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Morrison - 2004 - Where now for problem based learning.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {1474547X}, +journal = {Lancet}, +month = {jan}, +number = {9403}, +pages = {174}, +title = {{Where now for problem based learning?}}, +volume = {363}, +year = {2004} +} +@article{Burguillo2010, +abstract = {This paper introduces a framework for using Game Theory tournaments as a base to implement Competition-based Learning (CnBL), together with other classical learning techniques, to motivate the students and increase their learning performance. The paper also presents a description of the learning activities performed along the past ten years of a course where, in five of them, Competition-based Learning has been used. Finally, the experience gained is described together with an analysis of the feedback obtained from the students' surveys. The good survey results, and their similarity along the years, suggest that the combination of game theory with the use of friendly competitions provides a strong motivation for students; helping to increase their performance. {\textcopyright} 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.}, +author = {Burguillo, Juan C.}, +doi = {10.1016/j.compedu.2010.02.018}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Burguillo - 2010 - Using game theory and Competition-based Learning to stimulate student motivation and performance.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {03601315}, +journal = {Computers and Education}, +keywords = {Competition-based Learning,Cooperative/collaborative learning,Improving classroom teaching,Teaching/learning strategies}, +month = {sep}, +number = {2}, +pages = {566--575}, +title = {{Using game theory and Competition-based Learning to stimulate student motivation and performance}}, +volume = {55}, +year = {2010} +} +@inproceedings{Michieletto2018, +abstract = {This paper presents a graduate course project based on a challenging industrial task as a way to learn basic concepts in robotics. The students had to face a simplified version of a task proposed as part of an European Competition. The general aim is to identify an object and place a manipulator in a certain target position with respect to it. Students have to use information provided by a stereo camera in order to guarantee a good pose estimation. The object is not placed in a fixed and predefined spot, but the pose can vary in a range within a maximum of 5 cm in position and 3 degrees in rotation on each direction. The learning objectives of both course and project are introduced and compared with the students' background. We discuss the solutions proposed by the students, together with the amount of time they and their instructors dedicated to solve the task. Answers to a survey have been collected and discussed in order to better evaluate the students' experience.}, +author = {Michieletto, Stefano and Pagello, Enrico}, +booktitle = {18th IEEE International Conference on Autonomous Robot Systems and Competitions, ICARSC 2018}, +doi = {10.1109/ICARSC.2018.8374179}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Michieletto, Pagello - 2018 - Competitions and industrial tasks as a way to learn basic concepts in robotics.pdf:pdf}, +isbn = {9781538652213}, +keywords = {Educational Robotics,Industrial Tasks,Industry 4.0,Project-Based Learning,ROS,Robotics Competitions}, +month = {jun}, +pages = {173--178}, +publisher = {Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.}, +title = {{Competitions and industrial tasks as a way to learn basic concepts in robotics}}, +year = {2018} +} +@article{Blackstone2019, +author = {Blackstone, Bethany and Oldmixon, Elizabeth}, +doi = {10.1080/15512169.2018.1447948}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Blackstone, Oldmixon - 2019 - Specifications Grading in Political Science.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {1551-2169}, +journal = {Journal of Political Science Education}, month = {apr}, number = {2}, -pages = {191--217}, -title = {{A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil Engineering}}, -url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jee.20161}, +pages = {191--205}, +title = {{Specifications Grading in Political Science}}, +url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15512169.2018.1447948}, +volume = {15}, +year = {2019} +} +@article{Passow2017, +author = {Passow, Honor J. and Passow, Christian H.}, +doi = {10.1002/jee.20171}, +issn = {10694730}, +journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, +month = {jul}, +number = {3}, +pages = {475--526}, +title = {{What Competencies Should Undergraduate Engineering Programs Emphasize? A Systematic Review}}, +url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/jee.20171}, volume = {106}, year = {2017} } +@article{Passow2012, +author = {Passow, Honor J.}, +doi = {10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00043.x}, +issn = {10694730}, +journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, +month = {jan}, +number = {1}, +pages = {95--118}, +title = {{Which ABET Competencies Do Engineering Graduates Find Most Important in their Work?}}, +url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2012.tb00043.x}, +volume = {101}, +year = {2012} +} +@article{Evans1993, +author = {Evans, D. L. and Beakley, G. C. and Crouch, P. E. and Yamaguchi, G. T.}, +doi = {10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb01075.x}, +issn = {10694730}, +journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, +month = {oct}, +number = {4}, +pages = {203--211}, +title = {{Attributes of Engineering Graduates and Their Impact on Curriculum Design}}, +url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/j.2168-9830.1993.tb01075.x}, +volume = {82}, +year = {1993} +} @article{Cantonwine2000, author = {Cantonwine, Emily}, doi = {10.1094/PHI-T-2014-1222-01}, @@ -110,6 +207,156 @@ journal = {Los Altos, CA: Noyce Foundation}, title = {{How cross-sector collaborations are advancing STEM learning}}, year = {2014} } +@book{national2009learning, +author = {Council, National Research and Others}, +file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/learningScience{\_}inInforalSetting.pdf:pdf}, +publisher = {National Academies Press}, +title = {{Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits}}, +year = {2009} +} +@article{Services2002, +author = {Services, Institute of Museum}, +file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/TrueNeedsTruePartners98Highlights.pdf:pdf}, +title = {{True Needs, True Partners: Museum Serving Schools}}, +url = {https://www.imls.gov/assets/1/AssetManager/TrueNeedsTruePartners98Highlights.pdf}, +year = {2002} +} +@article{Coburn2012, +abstract = {Scaling up instructional improvement remains a central challenge for school systems. While existing research suggests that teachers' social networks play a crucial role, we know little about what dimensions of teachers' social networks matter for sustainability. Drawing from a longitudinal study of the scale-up of mathematics reform, we use qualitative social network analysis and qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to investigate the relationship between teachers' social networks and sustainability. Teachers' social networks in the first 2 years of the initiative influenced their ability to sustain reform-related instructional approaches after supports for reform were withdrawn. Social networks with combinations of strong ties, high-depth interaction, and high expertise enabled teachers to adjust instruction to new conditions while maintaining the core pedagogical approach. This research contributes to our understanding of the dynamics of sustainability and to social network theory and research.}, +author = {Coburn, Cynthia E. and Russell, Jennifer L. and Kaufman, Julia Heath and Stein, Mary Kay}, +doi = {10.1086/667699}, +issn = {0195-6744}, +journal = {American Journal of Education}, +month = {nov}, +number = {1}, +pages = {137--182}, +publisher = { University of Chicago Press Chicago, IL }, +title = {{Supporting Sustainability: Teachers' Advice Networks and Ambitious Instructional Reform}}, +url = {https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/667699}, +volume = {119}, +year = {2012} +} +@article{Krajcik2014, +abstract = {AbstractThe National Research Council's Framework for K-12 Science Education and the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS Lead States in Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, 2013) move teaching away from covering many isolated facts to a focus on a smaller number of disciplinary core ideas (DCIs) and crosscutting concepts that can be used to explain phenomena and solve problems by engaging in science and engineering practices. The NGSS present standards as knowledge-in-use by expressing them as performance expectations (PEs) that integrate all three dimensions from the Framework for K-12 Science Education. This integration of core ideas, practices, and crosscutting concepts is referred to as three-dimensional learning (NRC in Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The National Academies Press, Washington, 2014). PEs state what students can be assessed on at the end of grade level for K-5 and at the end of grade band for 6...}, +author = {Krajcik, Joseph and Codere, Susan and Dahsah, Chanyah and Bayer, Renee and Mun, Kongju}, +doi = {10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2}, +file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/18802.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {1046-560X}, +journal = {Journal of Science Teacher Education}, +keywords = {Crosscutting concepts,Disciplinary core ideas,Framework for K-12 Science Education,Next Generation Science Standards,Performance expectations,Science and engineering practices}, +month = {apr}, +number = {2}, +pages = {157--175}, +publisher = {Routledge}, +title = {{Planning Instruction to Meet the Intent of the Next Generation Science Standards}}, +url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10972-014-9383-2}, +volume = {25}, +year = {2014} +} +@article{Karplus1977, +author = {Karplus, Robert and Butts, David P.}, +doi = {10.1002/tea.3660140212}, +issn = {0022-4308}, +journal = {Journal of Research in Science Teaching}, +month = {mar}, +number = {2}, +pages = {169--175}, +title = {{Science teaching and the development of reasoning}}, +url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tea.3660140212}, +volume = {14}, +year = {1977} +} +@article{Haag2015, +author = {Haag, Susan and Megowan, Colleen}, +doi = {10.1111/ssm.12145}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Haag, Megowan - 2015 - Next Generation Science Standards A National Mixed-Methods Study on Teacher Readiness.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {00366803}, +journal = {School Science and Mathematics}, +keywords = {curriculum,curriculum development,mixed‐methods study,professional development,science/science education,teacher education}, +month = {dec}, +number = {8}, +pages = {416--426}, +publisher = {John Wiley {\&} Sons, Ltd (10.1111)}, +title = {{Next Generation Science Standards: A National Mixed-Methods Study on Teacher Readiness}}, +url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/ssm.12145}, +volume = {115}, +year = {2015} +} +@techreport{Mcdonald2015, +author = {Mcdonald, James}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Mcdonald - 2015 - The Next Generation Science Standards Impact on College Science Teaching.pdf:pdf}, +number = {1}, +pages = {13}, +title = {{The Next Generation Science Standards: Impact on College Science Teaching}}, +url = {www.flinnsci.com}, +volume = {45}, +year = {2015} +} +@article{Pruitt2014, +abstract = {AbstractBeginning in January of 2010, the Carnegie Corporation of New York funded a two-step process to develop a new set of state developed science standards intended to prepare students for college and career readiness in science. These new internationally benchmarked science standards, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were completed in April of 2013. From his perspective as the coordinator of the development of the NGSS, the author discusses the background regarding the development, key features and some of the challenges ahead in implementing the NGSS.}, +author = {Pruitt, Stephen L.}, +doi = {10.1007/s10972-014-9385-0}, +file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/The Next Generation Science Standards The Features and Challenges.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {1046-560X}, +journal = {Journal of Science Teacher Education}, +keywords = {A Framework for K-12 Science Education,Next Generation Science Standards,Science education,Standards}, +month = {apr}, +number = {2}, +pages = {145--156}, +publisher = {Routledge}, +title = {{The Next Generation Science Standards: The Features and Challenges}}, +url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10972-014-9385-0}, +volume = {25}, +year = {2014} +} +@article{Bybee2014, +abstract = {AbstractThis article centers on the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) and their implications for teacher development, particularly at the undergraduate level. After an introduction to NGSS and the influence of standards in the educational system, the article addresses specific educational shifts—interconnecting science and engineering practices, disciplinary core ideas, crosscutting concepts; recognizing learning progressions; including engineering; addressing the nature of science, coordinating with Common Core State Standards. The article continues with a general discussion of reforming teacher education programs and a concluding discussion of basic competencies and personal qualities of effective science teachers.}, +author = {Bybee, Rodger W.}, +doi = {10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4}, +file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/NGSS and the Next Generation of Science Teachers.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {1046-560X}, +journal = {Journal of Science Teacher Education}, +keywords = {Common Core State Standards,Educational shifts,Learning progressions,Nature of science,Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS),Three dimensions}, +month = {apr}, +number = {2}, +pages = {211--221}, +publisher = {Routledge}, +title = {{NGSS and the Next Generation of Science Teachers}}, +url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1007/s10972-014-9381-4}, +volume = {25}, +year = {2014} +} +@article{Duschl2014, +abstract = {The shift from science inquiry to science practices as recommended in the US reports A Framework for K-12 Science Education: Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas and the Next Generation Science Standards has implications for classroom/school level instruction and assessment practices and, therefore, for teacher's professional development. We explore some of these implications and the nuances of adopting a practice orientation for science education through the lens of one NGSS practice ‘Planning and Carrying Out Investigations' (PCOI). We argue that a focus on any one practice must necessarily consider embracing a ‘suite of practices' approach to guide in the design of the curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation. We introduce the 5D model as a curriculum and instruction framework (1) to examine how unpacking PCOI can help teachers bridge to other less-familiar-to-teachers NGSS practices and (2) to help capture the ‘struggle' of doing science by problematizing and unpacking for students the 5D component elements of measurement and observation. 1. Deciding what and how to measure, observe, and sample; 2. Developing or selecting procedures/tools to measure and collect data; 3. Documenting and systematically recording results and observations; 4. Devising representations for structuring data and patterns of observations; and 5. Determining if (1) the data are good (valid and reliable) and can be used as evidence, (2) additional or new data are needed, or (3) a new investigation design or set of measurements are needed. Our hypothesis is that the 5D model provides struggle type experiences for students to acquire not only conceptual, procedural and epistemic knowledge but also to attain desired ‘knowledge problematic' images of the nature of science. Additionally, we further contend that PCOI is a more familiar professional development context for teachers wherein the 5D approach can help bridge the gap between the less familiar and the more complex practices such as building and refining models and explanations.}, +author = {Duschl, Richard A and Bybee, Rodger W}, +doi = {10.1186/s40594-014-0012-6}, +file = {:home/ryan/.local/share/data/Mendeley Ltd./Mendeley Desktop/Downloaded/Duschl, Bybee - 2014 - Planning and carrying out investigations an entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {2196-7822}, +journal = {International Journal of STEM Education}, +keywords = {Educational Technology,Mathematics Education,Science Education}, +month = {dec}, +number = {1}, +pages = {12}, +publisher = {Nature Publishing Group}, +title = {{Planning and carrying out investigations: an entry to learning and to teacher professional development around NGSS science and engineering practices}}, +url = {http://www.stemeducationjournal.com/content/1/1/12}, +volume = {1}, +year = {2014} +} +@article{Conrad2017, +author = {Conrad, Susan}, +doi = {10.1002/jee.20161}, +file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/Conrad-2017-Journal{\_}of{\_}Engineering{\_}Education.pdf:pdf}, +issn = {1069-4730}, +journal = {Journal of Engineering Education}, +month = {apr}, +number = {2}, +pages = {191--217}, +title = {{A Comparison of Practitioner and Student Writing in Civil Engineering}}, +url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jee.20161}, +volume = {106}, +year = {2017} +} @article{Lillis2001, abstract = {In this paper, we focus on the 'problem' of student writing in higher education. We set out to explore this problem from two perspectives: first, from the perspective of 'non-traditional' student-writers as they attempt to engage in academic writing and, second, from the perspective of a cultural-historical tradition of scientific rationality. A common frame of reference for these perspectives we see as a 'discourse of transparency', whereby language is treated as ideally transparent and autonomous. We illustrate how this discourse of transparency is currently enacted and historically situated. We argue that current academic practices need to be located within a broader historical and epistemological framework both in order to reach a deeper understanding about what's involved in student writing and in order to inform meaningful pedagogies.}, author = {Lillis, Theresa and Turner, Joan}, @@ -125,16 +372,14 @@ title = {{Student Writing in Higher Education: Contemporary confusion, tradition volume = {6}, year = {2001} } -@article{Karplus1977, -author = {Karplus, Robert and Butts, David P.}, -doi = {10.1002/tea.3660140212}, -issn = {0022-4308}, -journal = {Journal of Research in Science Teaching}, -month = {mar}, -number = {2}, -pages = {169--175}, -title = {{Science teaching and the development of reasoning}}, -url = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tea.3660140212}, -volume = {14}, -year = {1977} +@article{penuel2007, +author = {Penuel, William R and Riel, Margaret}, +file = {:home/ryan/Downloads/003172170708800813.pdf:pdf}, +journal = {Phi Delta Kappan}, +number = {8}, +pages = {611--615}, +publisher = {SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA}, +title = {{The ‘new'science of networks and the challenge of school change}}, +volume = {88}, +year = {2007} }