Using computer simulations to support STEM learning

International Journal of Engineering Education

Volumn 27, Issue 4 PART II, 2011, Pages 766-777

  Richardson, Jayson W ^a   Moore, Tamara J ^b   Sales, Gregory C ^c   Mackritis, Matthew V ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^c Seward Incorporated   (United States)

Author keywords

MEA; Model eliciting activities; Problem based learning; Simulations; STEM; Technology

Indexed keywords

EID: 80051595650     PISSN: 0949149X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. K. Wallace, Losing the global edge, Readers Digest, http://www.rd.com/ your-america-inspiring-people-and-stories/americas-math-and-science-crisis/ article24076.html, Assessed 28 February 2010.
2. The National Academies, Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. http://www7.nationalacademies. org/ocga/testimony/Gathering-Storm-Energizing-and-Employing-America2. asp#TopOfPage, Accessed 31 December 2007.
3. S. A. Jackson, Falling short in producing American scientific and technical talent, http://www.rpi.edu/homepage/quietcrisis/index.html, Accessed 21 December 2007.
4. The National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century, Before it's too late. Washington DC, U.S. Department of Education, 2000.
5. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000.
6. National Research Council, National science education standards. Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1996.
7. Massachusetts Department of Elementary & Secondary Education, Office of mathematics, science, and technology engineering, www.doe.mass.edu/omste/, Accessed15 December 2009.
8. Minnesota Department of Education, Get STEM, http://www.getstem-mn.com/ pages/default.aspx, Accessed 28 February 2010.
9. Oregon Department of Education, Industrial and engineering system, http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=311, Accessed 28 February 2010.
10. Texas Education Agency, Texasscience, technology, engineering and mathematics initiative (T-STEM), http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index3.aspx?id=4470, Accessed 28 February 2010.
11. Institute of Educational Sciences, The nation's report card, http://nces.ed.gov/NationsReportCard/, Accessed 23 December 2008.
12. Institute of Educational Sciences, The nation's report card, http://nces.ed.gov/NationsReportCard/, Accessed 23 December 2008.
13. Institute of Educational Sciences, The nation's report card, http://nces.ed.gov/NationsReportCard/, Accessed 23 December 2008.
14. H. S. Barrows, Practice-based learning: Problem-based learning applied to medical education, Springfield IL, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, 1994.
15. K. A. Smith, S. D. Sheppard, D. W. Johnson and R. T. Johnson, Pedagogies of engagement: Classroom-based practices. Journal of Engineering Education Special Issue on the State of the Art and Practice of Engineering Education Research, 94(1), 2005, pp. 87-102.
16. M. A. Albanese and S. Mitchell, Problem based learning: A review of literature on its outcomes and implementation issues, Academic Medicine, 68(1), 1993, pp. 52-81. (Pubitemid 23064441)
17. D. A. Vernon and R. L. Blake, Does problem-based learning work? A meta-analysis of evaluative research, Academic Medicine, 68(7), 1993, pp. 550-563. (Pubitemid 23209488)
18. C. Angeli, Teachers' practical theories for design and implementation of problem-based learning, Science Educational International, 13(3), 2002, pp. 9-15.
19. K. Hendrix, G. Gilbert, L. Kozlowski, E. Bradley, L. Austin and R. Valois, The impact of teacher training on utilization of problem-based learning in classroom health education, American Journal of Health Education, 33(5), 2002, pp. 258-264.
20. F. K. Lester and P. E. Kehle, From problem solving to modeling: The evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity, in R. Lesh & H. M. Doer (eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 501-517.
21. Z. Dienes, Building up mathematics, London England, Hudson Educational, 1960.
22. F. K. Lester and P. E. Kehle, From problem solving to modeling: The evolution of thinking about research on complex mathematical activity, in R. Lesh & H. M. Doer (eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 501-517.
23. R. Lesh and H. Doerr, Foundations of a models and modeling perspectives on mathematics, teaching, learning, and problem solving, in R. Lesh & H. M. Doer (eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 3-34.
24. H. A. Diefes-Dux, T. Moore, J. Zawojewski, P. K. Imbrie, and D. Follman, A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: Model-eliciting activities, Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah GA, 2004.
25. R. Lesh, M. Hoover, B. Hole, A. Kelly and T. Post, Principles for developing thought-revealing activities for students and teachers, in A. Kelly and R. Lesh (eds.), Handbook of Research Design in Mathematics and Science Education, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2000, pp. 591-645.
26. H. A. Diefes-Dux, T. Moore, J. Zawojewski, P. K. Imbrie, and D. Follman, A framework for posing open-ended engineering problems: Model-eliciting activities, Frontiersin Education Conference, Savannah GA, 2004.
27. T. J. Moore and H. A. Diefes-Dux, Developing model-eliciting activities for undergraduate students based on advanced engineering context, Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah GA, 2004.
28. T. J. Moore and H. A. Diefes-Dux, Developing model-eliciting activities for undergraduate students based on advanced engineering context, Frontiers in Education Conference, Savannah GA, 2004.
29. J. Zawojewski, R. Lesh and L. English, Models and modeling perspective on the role of small group learning activities, in R. Lesh & H. M. Doerr (eds.), Beyond Constructivism: Models and Modeling Perspectives on Mathematics Problem Solving, Learning, and Teaching, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 337-358.
30. K. A. Smith, Teamwork and project management, New York NY, McGraw-Hill, 2004.
31. G. S. Aikenhead, Integrating Western and aboriginal sciences: Cross-cultural science teaching. Research in Science Education, 31, 2001, pp. 337-355.
32. J. Anyon, Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform, New York NY, Teachers College Press, 1997.
33. S. Lynch, Equity and science education reform, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Earlbaum, 2000.
34. B. Upadhyay and C. DeFranco, Elementary students' retention of environmental science knowledge: Connected science instruction versus direct instruction. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20, 2008, pp. 23-37.
35. M. M. Atwater, Social constructivism: Infusion into the multicultural science education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 33, 1996, pp. 821-837. (Pubitemid 126420871)
36. A. C. Barton, The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 2000, pp. 899-917.
37. L. Hammond, Notes from California: An anthropological approach to urban science education for language minority families, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 2001, pp. 983-999. (Pubitemid 33655599)
38. A. C. Barton, The culture of power and science education: Learning from Miguel, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 2000, pp. 899-917.
39. Seward Incorporated, SimMath, www.simmath.com, Accessed 10 March 2011.
40. S. F. Chipman, J. M. Schraagen and V. Shalin, Introduction to cognitive task analysis, in J. M. Schraagen, S.F. Chipman, and V. L. Shalin (eds.), Cognitive task analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000, pp. 3-24.
41. J. Annett, Theoretical and pragmatic influences on task analysis methods, in J.M. Schraagen, S. F. Chipman, and V. L. Shalin (eds.), Cognitive task analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000, pp. 25-40.
42. G. Klein, Cognitive task analysis of teams, in J.M. Schraagen, S.F. Chipman, and V. L. Shalin (eds.), Cognitive task analysis, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000, pp. 417-430.
43. L. G. Militello and R. J. B. Hutton, Applied cognitive task analysis (ACTA): A practitioner's toolkit for understanding cognitive task demands, Ergonomics, Special Issue: Task Analysis, 41, 1998, pp. 1618-1641. (Pubitemid 28497648)
44. M. J. Nathan and K. R. Koedinger, Teachers' and researchers' beliefs of early algebra development, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 2000, pp. 168-190.
45. T. Muir, K. Bestwick and J.C. Williams, I'm not very good at solving problems: An exploration of students' problem solving behaviours, Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27, 2008, pp. 228-241.
46. R. Lesh and G. Harel, Problem solving, modeling, and local conceptual development, Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 5(2&3), 2003, pp. 157-189. (Pubitemid 36543744)
47. R. Lesh and J. Zawojewski, Problem solving, in T. Post (ed.), Teaching mathematics in grades K-8: Research-based methods, Boston MA, Allyn & Bacon, 1987, pp. 40-77.
48. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston VA, National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000.
49. National Research Council, National science education standards. Washington DC, National Academy Press, 1996.
50. R. Lesh and H. Doerr, Foundations of a models and modeling perspectives on mathematics, teaching, learning, and problem solving, in R. Lesh & H. M. Doer (eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching, Mahwah NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003, pp. 3-34.