Modal engagements in precollege engineering: Tracking math and science concepts across symbols sketches, software, silicone and wood

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages

  Nathan, Mitchell J ^a   Walkington, Candace ^a   Srisurichan, Rachaya ^a   Alibali, Martha W ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Center on Education and Work ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADHESION; COMPUTER AIDED DESIGN; CURRICULA; EDUCATION; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; SILICONES; TEACHING;

COLLEGE PREPARATIONS; COORDINATING REPRESENTATIONS; HIGH SCHOOL CLASSROOMS; K-12 ENGINEERING EDUCATION; LEARNING EXPERIENCES; MATERIAL CONSTRUCTIONS; MATHEMATICAL EQUATIONS; TECHNICAL EDUCATIONS;

STUDENTS;

EID: 85029077690     PISSN: None     EISSN: 21535965     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (50)

1. Courter S.S., M.J. Nathan, L.A. Phelps. 2007. Aligning educational experiences with ways of knowing engineering. AWAKEN Project: Authors.
2. Grose T.K. 2006. Trouble on the horizon. Prism 16: 26-31.
3. Katehi, L., Pearson, G. & Feder, M. (Eds.) (2009). Engineering in K-12 education: Understanding the status and improving the prospects. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
4. Pellegrino, J.W., N. Chudowsky, and R. Glaser. 2001. Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
5. Chang, K. (2009). White House Begins Campaign to Promote Science and Math Education (Published: November 23, 2009). http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/ science/24educ.html Last accessed on Dec. 12, 2010.
6. Committee on Standards for K-12 Engineering Education of the National Research Council. (2010). Standards for K-12 Engineering Education? Washington, DC: National Academy Press; National Research Council [NRC]. 2007. Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press.
7. Public Law 105-332 1998, http://www.cccs.edu/Docs/SBCCOE/PerkinsAct1998. pdf (last accessed March 2009)
8. For a complete list of affiliated colleges of engineering see http://www.pltw.org/professionaldevelopment/affiliates/affiliates-old-dominion. html accessed on 1/13/09.
9. From http://www.pltw.org/Engineering/Curriculum/Curriculum-high-school. cfm accessed on 1/13/09.
10. PLTW (2009). From http://www.pltw.org/Engineering/Curriculum/Curriculum- high-school.cfm accessed 1/3/11.
11. Hall, R., & Nemirovsky, R. (2010). Mathematical and scientific concepts in light of embodied cognition: Modal engagements as conceptual fabric. Working document. Tangibility for the Teaching, Learning, and Communicating of Mathematics.
12. Nathan, M. J., Oliver, K., Prevost, A., Tran, N., & Phelps, L. A. (2009). Classroom learning and instruction in high school pre-college engineering settings: A video-based analysis. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) 2009 (Paper no. AC 2009-1577, pp. 1-23.) Austin, TX: ASEE Publications.
13. Tran, N. & Nathan, M. J. (2010a). An investigation of the relationship between pre-college engineering studies and student achievement in science and mathematics. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(2), 143-157.
14. Tran, N. & Nathan, M. J. (2010b). Effects of pre-college engineering studies on mathematics and science achievements for high school students. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(5), 1049-1060.
15. Bottoms G., & Uhn, J. (2007). Project Lead the Way works: A new type of career and technical program. Southern Educational Review Board. http://publications.sreb.org/2007/07V29-Research-Brief-PLTW.pdf
16. Phelps, L.A., Camburn, E., & Durham, J. (2009, June). Engineering the math performance gap. Research Brief. Madison: Center on Education and Work, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved from http://www.cew.wisc.edu/docs/ resource-collections/CEW-PTLW-Brief-UWMadison.pdf
17. Prevost, A., Nathan, M. J., Stein, B., Tran, N., & Phelps, L. A. (2009). Integration of mathematics in pre-college engineering: The search for explicit connections. Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education (ASEE) 2009 (Paper no. AC 2009-1790, pp. 1-27.) Austin TX: ASEE Publications;
18. Austin, TX: ASEE Publications; Nathan, M. J., N. Tran, L. A. Phelps, and A. Prevost. (2008). The structure of high school academic and pre-engineering curricula: Mathematics. In Proceedings of the American Society of Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA.
19. Welty, K., Katehi, L., & Pearson, G. (2008). Analysis of K-12 engineering education curricula in the United States: A preliminary report. In Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference and Exposition. Pittsburgh, PA.
20. Porter A.C., Kirst, M.W., Osthoff, E.J., Smithson, J.S., & Schneider, S.A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms.
21. Porter, A. C. (2004). Curriculum assessment. In J. C. Green, G. Camill & P. B. Elmore (Eds). Complementary methods for research in education (3rd edition), Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
22. Schunn, C. (2009, March). What need to be put back into S, T, and E? Well chosen M. Presentation to the. MiddleSchool Math Infusion STEM Symposium, Singer Island, Fl. NSF/Hofstra CTL Middle School Grades Math Infusion in STEM Symposium: Author.
23. Latour, B. (1996). On interobjectivity. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(4), 228-245.
24. McNeill D. & Duncan, S. D. (2000). Growth points in thinking-for-speaking. In D. McNeill (Ed.). Language and gesture: Window into thought and action (pp. 141-161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25. Alibali M. W., Nathan, M. J. & Fujimori, Y. (in press). Gestures in the classroom: What's the point? In Stein, N. L. (Ed.) Developmental Cognitive Science Goes to School.
26. Nathan, M. J. (2008). An embodied cognition perspective on symbols, grounding, and instructional gesture. In DeVega, M., Glenberg, A, M. & Graesser, A. C. (Eds.) Symbols, Embodiment and Meaning: A Debate (pp. 375-396). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27. Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? Oxford University Press.
28. Lakoff G., & Núñez, R. (2000). Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being. New York: Basic Books.
29. Newman J. R. (2000). The world of mathematics. New York: Dover Publications.
30. Hersh, R. (1997). What is mathematics, really? Oxford University Press.
31. Aristotle. Physics, Book II. (trans. R. P. Hardie & R. K. Gaye, 1984).
32. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Wright, T., & Tierney, C. (2001). Experiencing change: The mathematics of change in multiple environments. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 85-108.
33. Nemirovsky,R.,Tierney,C.,& Wright,T.(1998).Body motion and graphing. Cognition & Instruction, 16, 119-172.
34. Wittgenstein, L. (1958). Philosophical investigations (3rd ed., G. E. M. Anscombe, Trans.). Macmillan. p. 32
35. Noble, T., Nemirovsky, R., Wright, T., & Tierney, C. (2001). Experiencing change: The mathematics of change in multiple environments. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 85-108.
36. Gentner, D., & Markman, A. B. (1997). Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. American Psychologist, 52(1), 45-56.
37. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by, Univ. of Chicago Press.
38. Gainsburg, J. 2006. The mathematical modeling of structural engineers. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8 (1): 3-36.
39. Hall, R., Stevens, R., & Torralba, A. (2002). Disrupting Representational Infrastructure in Conversations Across Disciplines. Mind Culture & Activity, 9,179-210.
40. Barron, B. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research on problem- and project-based learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences. 7 (3&4), 271-311.
41. Baker W. D., Green, J. L. & Skukauskaite, A. (2008). Video-enabled ethnographic research: a micro ethnographic perspective. In Walford, G. (Ed.). How do you do educational ethnography. (pp. 76-114). London: Tufnell Press.
42. Nathan, M. J., Kintsch, W., & Young, E. (1992). A theory of algebra word problem comprehension and its implications for the design of computer learning environments. Cognition and Instruction, 9(4). 329-389.
43. Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. A. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L.B. Resnick, J.M. Levine, & S.D. Teasley (Eds.) Perspectives on socially shared cognition, (pp. 127-149). Washington, DC, US: APA.
44. Harnad, S. (1990). The symbol grounding problem. Physica D, 42, 335-346.
45. Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem solving. Cognitive Science, 32(2), 366-397.
46. Blumenfeld, PC, Soloway, E., Marx, RW, Krajcik, JS, Guzdial, M., & Palinscar, A.(1991). Motivating projectbased learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369-398.
47. Hmelo, C. E., Holton, D. L., & Kolodner, J. L. (2000). Designing to learn about complex systems. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9, 247-298.
48. Jurow, A.S. (2005) Shifting engagements in figured worlds. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 35-67.
49. Palmer, S. E. (1978). Fundamental aspects of cognitive representation. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 259-303). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
50. diSessa, A. A. (2004). Metarepresentation: Native competence and targets for instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(3), 293-331.