Advancing children's engineering through desktop manufacturing

Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 675-688

  Bull, Glen ^a   Chiu, Jennifer ^a   Berry, Robert ^a   Lipson, Hod ^b   Xie, Charles ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering   (United States)

^c Cornell University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Children's engineering; Desktop manufacturing; Digital fabrication; STEM

Indexed keywords

EID: 84978987842     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_54     Document Type: Chapter

References (82)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16(3), 183-198.
2. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669-681.
3. Atman, C., Chimka, J. R., Bursic, K. M., & Nachtmann, H. N. (1999). A comparison of freshman and senior engineering design processes. Design Studies, 20(2), 131-152.
4. Atman, C., Kilgore, D., & McKenna, A. (2008). Characterizing design learning: a mixed-methods study of engineering designers' use of language. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 309-326.
5. Bailey, R., & Szabo, Z. (2006). Assessing engineering design process knowledge. International Journal of Engineering Education, 22(3), 508-518.
6. Barsalou, L. W. (2010). Grounded cognition: Past, present, and future. Topics in Cognitive Science, 2, 716-724.
7. Berry, R. Q., III, Bull, G., Browning, C., Thomas, C. D., Starkweather, K., & Aylor, J. H. (2010). Preliminary considerations regarding use of digital fabrication to incorporate engineering design principles in elementary mathematics education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 10(2), 167-172.
8. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2007). Bifocal modeling: a framework for combining computer modeling, robotics and real-world sensing. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (AERA 2007), Chicago, USA.
9. Blikstein, P., & Wilensky, U. (2010). Materialsim: a constructionist agent-based modeling approach to engineering education. In M.J. Jacobson and P. Reimann (Eds.), Designs for learning environments of the future: 17 International perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 17-60). New York: Springer-Verlag.
10. Bradsher, K. (2010). China drawing high-tech researcher from U.S. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/business/global/18research.html?ref=keithbradsher&_r=0.
11. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cambridge, MA: Belkapp.
12. Bull, G., & Groves, J. (2009). The democratization of production. Learning and Leading with Technology, 37(3), 36-37.
13. Bull, G., Knezek, G., & Gibson, D. (2009). A rationale for incorporating engineering education into the teacher education curriculum. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(3), 222-225.
14. Bull, G., Smith, S & Stearns, P. (2011, March). Fab@School: children's engineering in the elementary classroom. Paper presented at the national conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Nashville, TN.
15. Burghardt, M. D. (2000). Developing the field of children's engineering, Paper presented at the ERM Division, ASEE 2000 Annual Conference, St. Louis.
16. Burghardt, M. D., Hecht, D., Russo, M., Lauckhardt, J., & Hacker, M. (2010). A study of mathematics infusion in middle school technology education classes. Journal of Technology Education, 22(1), 58-74.
17. Cantrell, P., Pekcan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95(4), 301-309.
18. Chiu, J. L., Bull, G., Berry, R. Q., & Kjellstrom, W. R. (2012). Teaching Engineering Design with Digital Fabrication: Imagining, Creating, and Refining Ideas.. In N. Levine & C. Mouza (Eds.), Emerging Technologies for the Classroom: A Learning Sciences Perspective. New York, NY: Springer.
19. Council, N. R. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: The National Academies.
20. Cunningham, C. M. (2009). Engineering is elementary. The Bridge, 30(3), 11-17.
21. Davis, E. E., Pitchford, N. J., & Limback, E. (2011). The interrelation between cognitive and motor development in typically developing children aged 4-11 years is underpinned by visual processing and fine manual control. British Journal of Psychology, 102(3), 569-584.
22. de Koning, B. B., & Tabbers, H. K. (2011). Facilitating understanding of movements in dynamic visualizations: An embodied perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 501-521.
23. Diamond, A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Development, 71, 44-56.
24. Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333, 959-964.
25. Duncan, R. G., & Reiser, B. J. (2007). Reasoning across ontologically distinct levels: Students' understandings of molecular genetics. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 938-959.
26. Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94(1), 103-120.
27. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., Mamlok, & Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41(10), 1081-1110.
28. Funk, S. G., Sturner, R. A., & Green, J. A. (1986). Preschool prediction of early school performance: Relationship of McCarthy scales of Children's abilities prior to school entry to achievement in kindergarten, first and second grades. Journal of School Psychology, 24, 181-194.
29. Gershenfeld, N. A. (2005). Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop-from personal computers to personal fabrication. New York, NY: Basic Books.
30. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
31. Ginsburg, H. P., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The development of children's mathematical knowledge: Connecting research with practice.. In I. E. Sigel & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Child psychology in practice (5th Ed.), Vol. 4, pp. 401-476). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
32. Glenberg, A. M. (1997). What memory is for. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2, 1-55.
33. Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: a metaanalysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 2(1), 1-47.
34. Goldman, S. R. (2003). Learning in complex domains: When and why do multiple representations help? Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 239-244.
35. Grissmer, D., Grimm, K. J., Aiyer, S. M., Murrah, W. M., & Steele, J. S. (2010). Fine motor skills and early comprehension of the world: Two new school readiness indicators. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 1008-1017.
36. Hayes, C. C., Goel, A. K., Tumer, I. Y., Agogino, A. M., & Regli, W. C. (2011). Intelligent support for product design: Looking backward, looking forward. Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 11 (2), 021007.
37. Hickey, D. T., Kindfield, A. C. H., Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. A. T. (2003). Integrating curriculum, instruction, assessment, and evaluation in a technology-supported genetics learning environment. American Educational Research Journal, 40 (2), 495.
38. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 247-298.
39. Horwitz, P. (1995). Linking models to data: Hypermodels for science education. The High School Journal, 79(2), 148-156.
40. Horwitz, P., & Christie, M. (1999). Hypermodels: Embedding curriculum and assessment in computer-based manipulatives. Journal of Education, 181, 1-24.
41. Hsu, M., Cardella, M., & Purzer, S. (2010). Elementary students' learning progressions and prior knowledge on engineering design process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Science Teaching.
42. Hsu, M. C., Purzer, S., & Cardella, M. E. (2011). Elementary teachers' views about teaching design, engineering, and technology. Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER), 1 (2), 5.
43. Jin, Y., & Chusilp, P. (2006). Study of mental iteration in different design situations. Design Studies, 27(1), 25-55.
44. Jin, Y., & Li, W. (2007). Design concept generation: A hierarchical coevolutionary approach. Journal of Mechanical Design, Transactions of the ASME, 129(10), 1012-1022.
45. Johnstone, A. H. (1991). Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 7, 75-83.
46. Jonson, B. (2005). Design ideation: The conceptual sketch in the digital age. Design Studies, 26(6), 613-624.
47. Kaput, J., & Schorr, R. (2008). The case of SimCalc, algebra, and calculus. Research on Technology and the Teaching and Learning of Mathematics: Cases and Perspectives, 2, 211.
48. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (2009). Engineering in K-12 Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
49. Kelley, T. R. (2008). Cognitive processes of students participating in engineering-focused design instruction. Journal of Technology Education, 19 (2).
50. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., et al. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school classroom: Putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 495-547.
51. Kozma, R. (2000). The use of multiple representations and the social construction of understanding in chemistry. In M. Jacobson & R. Kozma (Eds.), Innovations in science and mathematics education: Advanced designs for technologies of learning, (pp. 314-322). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Kozma, R. (2003). The material features of multiple representations and their cognitive and social affordances for science understanding. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 205-226.
53. Lachapelle, C. P., & Cunningham, C. M. (2007). Engineering is elementary: Children's changing understandings of science and engineering. American Society for Engineering Education Annual. Honolulu, HI: Conference & Exposition.
54. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
55. Lakoff, G., & Núñez, R. E. (2000). Where mathematics comes from. New York, NY: Basic Books.
56. Landy, J. M., & Burridge, K. (1999). Fundamental motor skills and movement activities for young children. New York, NY: Centre for Applied Research in Education.
57. Leiner, H. C., Leiner, A. L., & Dow, R. S. (1993). The role of the cerebellum in the human brain. Trends in Neurosciences, 16(11), 453-454.
58. Lewis, J., & Wood-Robinson, C. (2000). Genes, chromosomes, cell division and inheritance-do students see any relationship? International Journal of Science Education, 22(2), 177-195.
59. Lipson H., & Kurman, M., (2010). Factory@Home: The emerging economy of personal fabrication. Report commissioned by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy.
60. Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: a sleeping giant for talent identification and development. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 344-351.
61. Luo, Z., Jose, P. E., Huntsinger, C. S., & Pigott, T. D. (2007). Fine motor skills and mathematics achievement in East Asian American and European American kindergartners and first graders. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 25(4), 595-614.
62. Magill, F. N. (Ed.). (1996). International encyclopedia of psychology. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.
63. Malone E., Lipson H., (2006) Fab@Home: the personal desktop fabricator kit, Proceedings of the 17th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin TX.
64. Marbach-Ad, G., & Stavy, R. (2000). Students' cellular and molecular explanations of genetic phenomena. Journal of Biological Education, 34(4), 200-205.
65. Mentzer, N., & Park, K. (2011). High school students as novice designers. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Society for Engineering Education, Vancouver, BC.
66. Moskal, B. M., Skokan, C., Kosbar, L., Dean, A., Westland, C., Barker, H., et al. (2007). K-12 outreach: Identifying the broader impacts of four outreach projects. Journal of Engineering Education, 96(3), 173-189.
67. National Academy of Engineering, 2012 Bernard M. Gordon Prize. Retrieved January 5, 2012, from http://www.nae.edu/Activities/Projects/Awards/GordonPrize.
68. National Science Board. (2007). National action plan for addressing the critical needs of the U.S. science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education system. Washington, DC: National Science Board.
69. Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow C. P. (2010). Recognizing spatial intelligence: our schools, and our society, must do more to recognize spatial reasoning, a key kind of intelligence. Scientific American, Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=recognizing-spatial-intel.
70. Rivoli, G. J., & Ralston, P. A. S. (2009). Elementary and middle school engineering outreach: Building a STEM pipeline.. In B. Bernal, (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2009 ASEE Southeastern Section Conference. Retrieved from http://icee.usm.edu/ICEE/conferences/ASEE-SE-2010/Conference%20Files/ASEE2009/ASEE2009SE%20frame.htm.
71. Robertson, B. F., & Radcliffe, D. F. (2009). Impact of CAD tools on creative problem solving in engineering design. Computer-Aided Design, 41(3), 136-146.
72. Rogers, C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education, 5(3-4), 17-28.
73. Seitz, J. A. (2000). The bodily basis of thought. New Ideas in Psychology, 18(1), 23-40.
74. Silk, E. M., Schunn, C. D., & Strand-Cary, M. (2009). The impact of an engineering design curriculum on science reasoning in an urban setting. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(3), 209-223.
75. Smith, J. P., diSessa, A., & Roschelle, J. (1994). Misconceptions reconceived: A constructivist analysis of knowledge in transition. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 3(2), 115-163.
76. Society of Manufacturing Engineering. (2009). SME unveils annual Innovations that could change the way you manufacture. Retrieved from http://www.sme.org/cgi-bin/get-press.pl?&&20090016&PR &&SME&.
77. Svihla, V., & Petrosino, A. J. (2008). Improving our understanding of K-12 engineering education. Paper presented at the International Conference on Engineering Education. Heraklion, Greece.
78. Tseng, T., Bryant, C., & Blikstein, P. (2011) Mechanix: an interactive display for exploring engineering design through a tangible interface. Proceedings of Tangible and Embedded Interaction (IDC 2011), Madeira, Portugal.
79. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). National Educational Technology Plan 2010: Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology. Washington DC: Office of Educational Technology, U.S. Department of Education.
80. Voelcker-Rehage, C. (2005). Der Zusammenhang zwischen motorischer und kognitiver Entwicklung im frühen Kindesalter - Ein Teilergebnis der MODALIS-Studie, [The relationship between motoric and cognitive development in early childhood - A partial result from the MODALIS Study]. Deutsche Zeitschrift für Sportmedizin, 56, 358-359.
81. Woodbury, R., & Burrow, A. (2006). Whither design space. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 20(1), 63-82.
82. Zucker, A. (2008). Transforming schools with technology: How smart use of digital tools helps achieve six key education goals. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Publishing Group.