More Like this

1. Characterizing student argument justifications in small group sociotechnical discussions

   https://doi.org/10.18260/1-2--43187  

   Andrews, Chelsea; Rahman, Fatima (June 2023, Annual ASEE Conference and Exhibition)

   There have been increased calls to include sociotechnical thinking–grappling with issues of power, history, and culture–throughout the undergraduate engineering curriculum. One way this more expansive framing of engineering has been integrated into engineering courses is through in-class discussions. There is a need to understand what students are attending to in these conversations. In particular, we are interested in how students frame and justify their arguments in small-group discussions. This study is part of an NSF-funded research project to implement and study integrating sociotechnical components throughout a first-year computing for engineers course. In one iteration of the revised course, each week students read a news article on a current example of the uneven impacts of technology, then engaged in in-class small-group discussions. In this study, we analyze students’ discourse to answer the research questions: What arguments do students use to argue against the use of a technology? How do these arguments relate to common narratives about technology? In this qualitative case study, we analyzed videorecordings of the small group discussions of two focus groups discussing the use of AI in hiring. We looked closely at the justifications students gave for their stated positions and how they relate to the common narratives of technocracy, free market idealism, technological neutrality, and technological determinism. We found all students in both groups rejected these common narratives. We saw students argue that (1) AI technology does not solve the hiring problem well, (2) it is important to regulate AI, (3) using AI for hiring will stagnate diversity, and (4) using AI for hiring unfairly privileges some groups of people over others. While students in both groups rejected the common narratives, only one group explicitly centered those who are harmed and how this harm would likely occur, and this group did so consistently. The other group managed to consistently reject the narratives using vague, safe language and never explicitly mentioned who is harmed by the technology. As a result, only one group’s discussion was clearly centered on justice concerns. These results have implications for how to scaffold small group sociotechnical discussions, what instructors should attend to during these discussions, and how to support students to orient toward systemic impacts and sustain a focus on justice. 

   more » « less
2. A balancing act: Elementary teachers and their students balancing tradeoffs in engineering design projects

   Johnson, Matthew M.; Gil, Minyoung (August 2022, ASEE annual conference proceedings)

   This fundamental research in pre-college education engineering study investigates the ways in which elementary school students and their teacher balance the tradeoffs in engineering design. STEM education reforms promote the engagement of K-12 students in the epistemic practices of disciplinary experts to teach content.1,2,3 This emphasis on practices is a paradigm shift that requires both extensive professional development and research to learn about the ways in which students and teacher learn about and participate in these practices. Balancing tradeoffs is an important practice in engineering but most often in classroom curricula it is embedded in the concept of iteration1,4; however, improving a design is not always the same as balancing trade-offs.1 Optimizing a multivariate problem requires students to engage in a number of engineering practices, like considering multiple solution, making tradeoffs between criteria and constraints, applying math and science knowledge to problem solving, constructing models, making evidence-based decisions, and assessing the implications of solutions5. The ways in which teachers and students collectively balance these tradeoffs in a design has been understudied1. Our primary research questions are, “How do teachers and students make decisions about making tradeoffs between criteria and constraints” and “How do experiences in teacher workshops affect the ways they implement engineering projects in their classes.” We take an ethnographic perspective to investigate these phenomena, and collected video data, field notes, student journals, and semi-structured interviews of eight elementary teachers in a workshop and similar data from two of the workshop teachers’ classes as they implemented the curriculum they learned in the workshop. Our analyses focus on the disciplinary practices teachers and students use to make decisions for balancing tradeoffs, how they are supported (or impeded) by teachers, and how they justify these decisions. Similarly, we compared two of the teachers wearing their “student hat” in the workshop as well as their “teacher hat” in the classroom5. Our analyses suggest three significant findings. First, teachers and students tended to focus on one criterion (e.g. cost, performance) and had few discussions about trying to minimize cost and maximize performance. Second, curriculum design significantly impacts the choices students make. Using two examples, we will show the impact of weighting criteria differently on the design strategies teachers and students make. Last, we noted most of the feedback given was related to managing classroom activity rather than supporting students’ designs. Implications of this study are relevant to both engineering educators and engineering curriculum developers. 

   more » « less
3. The Impact of Pre-Service Teachers’ Perceptions of Engineering on Their Self-Efficacy with Teaching Engineering

   Chesnutt, Betsy; Mountain, Daniel; Faber, Courtney (July 2023, ASEE annual conference exposition)

   Although engineering is becoming increasingly important in K-12 education, previous research has demonstrated that, similar to the general population, K-12 teachers typically hold inaccurate perceptions of engineering, which affects their ability to provide students with relevant engineering experiences. Studies have shown that K-12 teachers often confuse the work of engineers with that of automotive mechanics or construction workers or assume that engineering is only for “super smart” students who are naturally gifted or who come from higher socioeconomic backgrounds. This indicates that many teachers do not understand the nature of engineering work and have stereotypical attitudes about who is qualified to be an engineer. These inaccurate perceptions of engineering among K-12 teachers may influence the way that teachers introduce engineering practices to their students and make connections between engineering and the other STEM disciplines. In addition, teacher self-efficacy has been shown to not only influence teachers’ willingness to engage with a particular topic, but also to have a significant influence on the motivation and achievement of their students. Research also indicates that high-efficacy teachers typically exert more effort and utilize more effective instructional strategies than low-efficacy teachers. The goal of this study was to examine the perceptions that pre-service K-12 teachers hold about engineers and engineering, and to further explore how those perceptions influence their self-efficacy with teaching engineering and beliefs about what skills and resources are necessary to teach engineering in a K-12 classroom. We first developed a survey instrument that included questions taken from two previously published instruments: the Design, Engineering, and Technology survey and the Teaching Engineering Self-Efficacy Scale for K-12 Teachers. Forty-two students enrolled in an undergraduate program at {Name Redacted} in which students simultaneously pursue a bachelor’s degree in a STEM field and K-12 teacher licensure completed the survey. Based on survey responses, six participants, representing a range of self-efficacy scores and majors, were selected to participate in interviews. In these interviews, participants were asked questions about their perceptions of engineers and were also asked to sort a list of characteristics based on whether they applied to engineers or not. Finally, interview participants were asked questions about their confidence in their ability to teach engineering and about what skills and/or resources they would require to be able to teach engineering in their future classrooms. The results of this study indicated that the participants’ perceptions of engineering and engineers did impact their self-efficacy with teaching engineering and their beliefs about how well engineering could be incorporated into other STEM subjects. A recurring theme among participants with low self-efficacy was a lack of exposure to engineering and inaccurate perceptions of the nature of engineering work. These pre-service teachers felt that they would not be able to teach engineering to K-12 students because they did not personally have much exposure to engineering or knowledge about engineering work. In future work, we will investigate how providing pre-service teachers with training in engineering education and exposure to engineers and engineering students impacts both their perceptions of engineering and self-efficacy with teaching engineering. 

   more » « less
4. Why do teachers vary in their instructional change during science PD? The role of noticing students in an iterative change process

   https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21853  

   Preminger, Linda; Hayes, Kathryn N; Bae, Christine L; O'Connor, Dawn (May 2024, Science Education)

   Instructional shifts required by equitable, reform‐based science instruction are challenging, especially in the elementary context. Such shifts require professional development (PD) that supports teacher internalization of new pedagogical strategies as well as changes in beliefs about how students learn. Because of this complexity, many PD programs struggle to foster lasting pedagogical shifts, necessitating further investigation into why some teachers successfully embrace reform practices while others do not. This qualitative study uses a nonlinear, iterative model of teacher learning (Interconnected Model of Professional Growth; Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002) alongside professional noticing to help understand why elementary teachers in science PD differentially make sense of and internalize new pedagogies. Findings indicate that teachers most likely to adopt reform‐based instructional practices from the PD were those who clearly connected student learning to their instructional moves. In addition, teachers who more actively attended to student sensemaking and productive struggle took up pedagogies from the PD more substantively than did colleagues who attended solely to student engagement and affect. Finally, teachers who attended to and valued novel ideas from students’ lived experiences were more likely to change their beliefs about students’ capacity to learn science, and thus more likely to see the value of instructional practices from the PD. In sum, structuring PD to build on these specific teacher noticing skills can encourage more teachers to move away from traditional, teacher‐directed instructional practice, and more fully support reform‐based instructional practices. 

   more » « less
5. Cogenerative Dialogues and Development of the Culturally Relevant Pedagogical Guidelines for Computational Thinking and Computer Science.

   Sirrakos, G. (January 2023, American Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies Annual Meeting)

   In this proposal, we will share some initial findings about how teacher and student engagement in cogenerative dialogues influenced the development of the Culturally Relevant Pedagogical Guidelines for Computational Thinking and Computer Science (CRPG-CSCT). The CRPG-CSCT’s purpose is to provide computer science teachers with tools to enhance their instruction by accurately reflecting students’ diverse cultural resources in the classroom. Additionally, the CRPG-CSCT will provide guidance to non-computer science teachers on how to facilitate the integration of computational thinking skills to a broad spectrum of classes in the arts, humanities, sciences, social sciences, and mathematics. Our initial findings shared here are part of a larger NSF-funded research project (Award No. 2122367) which aims to better understand the barriers to entry and challenges for success faced by underrepresented secondary school students in computer science, through direct engagement with the students themselves. Throughout the 2022-23 academic year, the researchers have been working with a small team of secondary school teachers, students, and instructional designers, as well as university faculty in computer science, secondary education, and sociology to develop the CRPG-CSCT. The CRPG-CSCT is rooted in the tenets of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 1995) and borrows from Muhammad’s (2020) work in Cultivating Genius: An Equity Framework for Culturally and Historically Responsive Literacy. The CRPG-CCT is being developed over six day-long workshops held throughout the academic year. At the time of this submission, five of the six workshops had been completed. Each workshop utilized cogenerative dialogues (cogens) as the primary tool for organizing and sustaining participants’ engagement. Through cogens, participants more deeply learn about students’ cultural capital and the value of utilizing that capital within the classroom (Roth, Lawless, & Tobin, 2000). The success of cogens relies on following specific protocols (Emdin, 2016), such as listening attentively, ensuring there are equal opportunities for all participants to share, and affirming the experiences of other participants. The goal of a cogen is to reach a collective decision, based on the dialogue, that will positively impact students by explicitly addressing barriers to their engagement in the classroom. During each workshop, one member of the research team and one undergraduate research assistant observed the interactions among cogen participants and documented these in the form of ethnographic field notes. Another undergraduate research assistant took detailed notes during the workshop to record the content of small and large group discussions, presentations, and questions/responses throughout the workshops. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the field notes. Additionally, at the conclusion of each workshop, participants completed a Cogen Feedback Survey (CFS) to gather additional information. The CFS were analyzed through open thematic coding, memos, and code frequencies. Our preliminary results demonstrate high levels of engagement from teacher and student participants during the workshops. Students identified that the cogen structure allowed them to participate comfortably, openly, and honestly. Further, students described feeling valued and heard. Students’ ideas and experiences were frequently affirmed, which served as an important step toward dismantling traditional teacher-student boundaries that might otherwise prevent them from sharing freely. Another result from the use of cogens was the shared experience of participants comprehending views from the other group’s perspective in the classroom. Students appreciated the opportunity to learn from teachers about their struggles in keeping students engaged. Teachers appreciated the opportunity to better understand students’ schooling experiences and how these may affirm or deny aspects of their identity. Finally, all participants shared meaningful suggestions and strategies for future workshops and for the collective betterment of the group. Initial findings shared here are important for several reasons. First, our findings suggest that cogens are an effective approach for fostering participants’ commitment to creating the conditions for students’ success in the classroom. Within the context of the workshops, cogens provided teachers, students, and faculty with opportunities to engage in authentic conversations for addressing the recruitment and retention problems in computer science for underrepresented students. These conversations often resulted in the development of tangible pedagogical approaches, examples, metaphors, and other strategies to directly address the recruitment and retention of underrepresented students in computer science. Finally, while we are still developing the CRPG-CSCT, cogens provided us with the opportunity to ensure the voices of teachers and students are well represented in and central to the document. 

   more » « less