Annotated Bibliography Summary (Week of 10/17/16)

Ayar, M. C. (2015). First-hand Experience with Engineering

Design and Career Interest in Engineering: An Informal     

STEM Education Case Study.Educational Sciences: Theory    

& Practice, 15(6), 1655. doi:10.12738/estp.2015.6.0134

The article is perfect for my research, as it describes a case study in which engineers and educators experiment with different styles of teaching as well as the implementation of newer updated curriculum standards. The trials of the case study come together to emphasize the importance of a more hands-on style of teaching engineering that results in an enriching experience for the kids, and higher levels of positive feedback. Engineering is the real-world application of math and sciences, so it would seem common sense teach in a style that promotes the application of modern standards and concepts, but because the field is always changing, the educational system and standard have a hard time keeping up. This results in standards that are outdated and inapplicable to the modern industry, and can even decrease student interest. Fortunately, case studies like the one in this article have shed light on the issue, and have suggested significant cause for the regular reformation of curriculum content and standards. The article describes a study in which practicing engineers worked with educators to host a summer camp in which they taught the kids through hands-on labs and activities. They compared the results to that of the standard classroom setting. What they found was that the flexibility provided through the lack of strict state mandated standards, in addition to the opportunities for students to exercise their creativity, resulted in much more positive results and feedback,

The goal of teaching engineering in schools in the first place is to excite kids about STEM areas of study and show them what a career in engineering might look like. I have experienced this first hand in my internship, where I have witnessed the difference in excitement between the hands on applications of standards through things like robotics, versus the confinements set forth by state mandated standards. Many of these standards have not been updated in nearly ten years, which is astounding if you consider how much technology has changed over the past decade. In these past few years we’ve seen revolutionary advancements such as the introduction of smartphones, further automation of robotic manufacturing, and even self-driving cars. However, the Georgia state standards suggest that engineering teachers should still be teaching things in a manner that does not accommodate these new changes in the field. The case study affirmed this idea in showing that students exhibited significantly more interest through hands-on experiences rather than standard classroom lectures. Of course, lectures are necessary sometimes, but this study would suggest that they’re useless without allowing the students to experience the application of the taught concepts first-hand. Another parallel between my observations and the study, is that learning through trial and error proves invaluable in the students’ retention of information. Just like you wouldn’t expect a student to know how to do algebra after a lecture without any practice, the same goes for the basic fundamentals of engineering.

All in all, the article was an excellent parallel to my research, because it showed many similarities between what I have begun to witness at my internship with robotics and engineering education, as well as the cons of having strict state-mandated standards. I feel the information presented in the article will be a highly valuable reference as I conduct my own research in the field of engineering and career tech education.