12.16.11
KINDER-GINEERS
We tried the gumdrop and toothpick bridge design challenge. I will attach the relevant documents we used. JEN & JACKIE
Sustainable Design: Bringing Context to Curriculum
We tried the gumdrop and toothpick bridge design challenge. I will attach the relevant documents we used. JEN & JACKIE
It was a great institute last week! I always come away from DYF with lots of good stuff and full of enegy! Thanks again Beth
We discussed the feedback from the day before. We spent some time addressing the question:
- How do we set aside other “have tos” so we can teach engineering/more science in general?
The first answer folks provided was to teach integrated curriculum.
However, folks agreed that they did not need to have new integrated curriculum taught to them. Participants said that they already knew or had good curriculum. They felt the best use of their time would be to use professional development time working with other teachers across grade levels at their school to examine existing curriculum. Participants felt that the expertise exists at each school to identify holes, dovetail existing curriculum, remove duplicated curriculum, and expand and integrate when necessary.
However, one participant, who is the only person teaching her grade, at her school, said it was important to be able to visit other teachers at other sites to learn more about pedagogy as well as curriculum. Another participant agreed with the importance of watching someone implement new curriculum. Another participant mentioned that teachers could be videotaped, and those tapes available to others for learning about pedagogical approaches to presenting new curriculum. However, it takes time to develop safe relationships amongst teachers to share teaching experiences, particularly classroom observation.
One idea was to have a multi-year project where the first part of the project focused more on integrating curriculum at each school, so the focus would be “local”. Then, more ideas could be shared across schools on what types of integration seem to be working.
Participants discussed Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Participants felt they worked well when teachers could self identify weaknesses (based on data), discuss approaches and then design an intervention to address those weaknesses. However, PLCs were seen as less productive when PLC time was used to listen to hired consultants to talk about how to pass the test – “drive by professional development”.
Participants said that as long as there is one measure (STAR test) then it will be hard to have people change. There need to be multiple measures.
Participants discussed a project called THRIVE Teacher Incentive Fund Grant. This discussion brought out how they thought funds should be distributed. Participants suggested that funds be awarded to specific schools and not superintendents. If funds were to be awarded based on merit, then funds should go to the school fund and not to specific faculty. The funds would then go back to the students.
We watched a video from Engineer Your Life is site devoted to communicating to girls about engineering career options. We watched a video about Daniele, an Environmental Engineer.
Participants spent the rest of the morning preparing their presentations.
Some participants were ready at 1pm to work on new material, while others were not. So, those four participants worked on the Marshmallow Challenge.
A little later than expected, after just about all presentations were prepared, we went to SD 23 and learned more about engineering statics. We viewed Lonny’s presentation from two years ago and learned about statics, tension and compression.
We discussed the concept of science misconceptions. Some sources of misconceptions are below.
Ken pointed out to be sure to not point out misconceptions to students, as that they often only remember the misconception!
Participants were provided handouts from Building Big. Beth showed some of her favorite activities
We watched the video of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge failing .
Participants built gumdrop structures exploring the difference between triangles and squares. At the end we had an impromptu design competition. Others have a more careful approach to presenting a design challenge. Students should be sure to know how their designs will be tested.
After taking a break, participants returned to present their modules to visiting engineers, children and each other.
We discussed the feedback from the day before.
We got inspiration from Sheryl Steiner’s experience working with middle school children who ended up winning a national transportation design competition.
We watched the Build a Tower, Build A Team to learn that Kindergartners are great designers when working on teams.
We visited the Engineering Go For It site developed by the American Society for Engineering Education to learn about the different fields of engineering. This site tries to convey to children how engineers make a difference.
We learned there is a teacher resources site on eGFI and an online community of teachers teaching engineering.
Engineer Your Life is site devoted to communicating to girls about engineering career options. Again, this site is trying to convey what is great about studying engineering using the messages developed in Changing the Conversation as described in this NAE The Bridge article.
We then learned more about the Environmental Resources Engineering program at Humboldt State University and about how people become licensed engineers.
We started Lesson 4 of the EIE Unit: Water Water Every Where, Saving Salila’s Turtle. Folks worked in groups of three to design their own water filters that met the design challenge constraints. The filters needed to filter out tea, soil and cornstartch, not be too expensive and not be too slow. Folks had a chance to re-designed to try new ideas. In general, no one was satisfied with their filter’s ability to remove color, but most filters were able to move sediment and cornstarch.
We discussed the black box diagram used to help focus the designer on what the problem is. We discussed the importance of developing criteria before one begins to brainstorm on solutions.
Allison Oakland of the Schatz Energy Research Center(SERC) and Shannon Atherton of the Redwood Coast Energy Authority asked DYF III participants to review Energy Teaching Kits that were developed by ENGR 215 students. This activity was similar to the DYF activity reported in this blog. However, SERC is now funded by RCEA to update the most useful kits using the feedback from the DYF participants.
Richard Engel, SERC engineer, met with DYF participants and showed them the fueling station and vehicle.
The group discussed the following questions
What would you measure so you could facilitate learning to prepare a student to graduate in 2020 in Humboldt County?
What would you measure so you would facilitate the type of learning you think should happen in your classroom?
The teachers thought project based learning was the way to go. This type of learning allows cross curricular and integrated experiences that are real world because the are long term. A rubric could be used to assess how well a student performed. Some aspects to assess are
We discussed the importance of public education in preparing students to become active members in a democratic society. We discussed that PBL could be used to engage students in civic projects.
We focused more on what needs to be measured. We commented that if the student is competent in the affective domain (e.g. demonstrates resilience/persistance, has impulse control and core character values – trustworthy, respect, work ethic, honesty) that teaching/learning becomes very easy. So, it becomes important to work first on the affective domain.
We discussed the importance of students developing skills such as good study and homework habits, problem solving, project management, critical thinking, and creativity. We thought that helping students develop self assessment skills and meta-cognition around these skills and the affective domain characteristics was important.
Jen noted that in her experience, as guided by another professional development activity that overt, explicit grading had led to deeper learning. So, if we can find the right measures and communicate them carefully with students, parents, teachers and administrators, we thought we would could make a positive change.
Ken suggested an idea where a kindergartner is required to learn about one career, including the required preparation. Each year in school the child is required to investigate at least one career option. By senior year, you could require the investigation of 5 careers. So, by the time the student had graduated, they might have thought about 30 different careers. We also thought internships were very important.
One barrier that was discussed were parent attitudes about what should be taught at school. Many commented that parents are NOT interested in the assessment of their child in the affective domain. They are more interested in their child learning content knowledge. Some parents think more work means more learning. This group of teachers were concerned with “drill and kill”. Students need time to reflect and synthesize.
Another barrier was administrative control of the classroom. Project based learning can appear to be chaos to an administrator. PBL requires skilled educators and administrators do not know how to identify areas for professional development when a teacher is not successful with PBL. However, testing small bits of information (e.g. standardized tests) are easier for an administrator to manage.
Teachers discussed feeling put in the role of a villain because of films such as Race to No Where and Waiting for Superman.
We discussed the feedback from the day before.
We started Lesson 4 of the EIE Unit: A Long Way Down: Designing Parachutes. Folks worked in groups of three to design their own parachutes that met the design challenge constraints. All three teams met the design criteria their first try. So folks re-designed to try new ideas.
We discussed the black box diagram used to help focus the designer on what the problem is. We discussed the importance of developing criteria before one begins to brainstorm on solutions.
We discussed typical design criteria and how these criteria usually conflict with one another, so engineers have to consider trade-offs between different criteria. Most lists of engineering criteria include:
Participants shared ideas about how they help students learn how to work in groups. Some themes were team building, strategies for selecting teams, roles on teams.
Project Adventure has curriculum for building teams. Teaching Engineering Made Easy also has some team building curriculum.
Participants seemed to agree on the importance of taking time out of the school year to establish norms and expectations for team work.
Rocio shared the use of role playing to teach children how to behave during group work. She has them role play inappropriate group behavior and then have student process how that behavior made them feel. She then has them role play appropriate group work behavior and then asks them to process that as well. The children enjoy the role playing and they seem to learn from it.
Elizabeth shared the strategy of leaving the teamwork norms on the wall for constant reference.
A number of participants were familiar with the Jigsaw or Numbered Heads Together approach to facilitating group work, but holding individual’s accountable for their own learning, as expected in cooperative learning.
Beth discussed the idea that a team is a group of people that will work together for a long time (e.g. 10 weeks or more) while a group of people that are not together for long, will not really have a chance to become a team. In engineering education, teams are usually selected to increase diversity in learning/thinking styles as well as backgrounds. More diverse teams have higher potential of being more creative, but it is harder to work with a diverse team. We avoid isolating students because of gender or underrepresented background. When forming teams, we almost never allow students to choose their teammates.
However, when working in groups for a short task, it is not seen as critical to form teams based on learning style etc. Some strategies for choosing groups are
Participants discussed that sometimes students need to learn through experience why it may not be a good idea to work with a friend.
We discussed that peer evaluation can be helpful to include individual accountability to teamwork. Beth has used a software package developed at Purdue called CATME. There are also tools to help teams self monitor their progress with team processes.
Beth shared that four main roles are introduced to HSU engineering students and Jen added a 5th that works well in K classes:
We discussed that all students need to learn all these skills. Students should try to learn from others that perform these roles well. Some times a cynic is needed on a team and sometimes someone needs to be encouraged to not be a cynic!
The following comes from Concurrent Engineering. “There are nine team roles defined to help the team function more effectively:
- Organizer – a person who visualizes and plans for the whole design process.
- Motivator – a person who takes care of the schedule and goals of the team.
- Pusher – an active person who makes team work faster.
- Solver – an imaginative person who deals mainly with problem resolution.
- Gatherer – a person who is good at collecting information and communicating with other teams.
- Listener – a perceptive person, who can listen and combine the ideas and statements of others.
- Completer – a careful person who specializes in eliminating design defects.
- Specialist – a dedicated person who is extremely skilled and has a lot of knowledge in a specific area.
- Evaluator – a person who has good strategic skills, keeps the balance between immediate needs and long-term goals, and weighs consequences (Skalak, Susan).”
Ken showed us some demonstrations using dry ice.
Ken has tubs. Send him an email and he will have them delivered to your school via courier when school starts.
Participants completed Lesson 3 of the Environmental Engineering module.
Each participant chose one of the EIE modules to present on Thursday. Some participants are working in pairs.
Participants were invited to watch this video before coming to the institute.
As folks signed in, they completed paperwork, including pre-assessments.
The DYF institute started by introducing the facilitators (Beth Eschenbach, Shanna Atherton, Erin Cearley, Allison Oakland and Richard Engel). Julie Van Sickle, Redwood Science Project Co-Director was introduced.
Participants had the following expectations:
Beth then presented an overview of why it is important to teach engineering to K-12 students. We tied engineering to local needs as described by the Decade of Difference project, based on the Targets of Opportunity. We defined STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics) and discussed national efforts to effectively use private funds improve K-12 education - Change the Equation. We discussed the difference between science, engineering and technology.
We started with the Prep Lesson. Teachers worked in groups and discussed a specific technology (purpose, materials etc). Teachers also addressed the questions of what was a likely recent design improvement and what was an improvement that was needed.
For Lesson 1 we reviewed the book about Paulo.
For Lesson 2 we reviewed the handouts on the planets.
For Lesson 3 we first watched a golf ball fall in water and in air and discussed the concepts of atmosphere and drag. We then had teachers work in three groups and explore the impact of the following items on the speed of a falling parachute.
Teachers then reflected on the curriculum and considered what modifications might be necessary and what were possible barriers
Modifications discussed included
Barriers discussed included
The second followup for the DYF Teacher Institute II occurred on May 23, 2010 from 8am- 4pm at Humboldt State University. Links to the materials provided at the institute are available below.
Seven DYF teachers attended Brooks Franklin, Byron Giese, Dave Haller, Ellen Osten, Maggie Peters, Rebecca Schuler, Forrest Stamper. The instructors were Jim Zoellick of the Schatz Energy Research Center and Beth Eschenbach of Environmental Resources Engineering at HSU.
Teachers took home their own Kill-A-Watt meter, a box of Engineering Go For It magazines, and Engineer Your Life brochures.
In the morning Beth shared information from HSU’s 2010 Institute for Diversity in Learning and Teaching. The group reviewed demographics of the US and compared those demographics to the current demographics of the Science and Engineering (S&E) workforce. We noted that, although the diversity of the S&E workforce has increased over the years, it still does not reflect the diversity of our nation. In addition, we learned that the average 12th grade student is not meeting the Basic level of National Assessment of Educational Preparedness science assessment, with underrepresented minorities consistently scoring lower than white and Asian students.
We then considered the idea of developing a “Scientific Temper”, a term which was used by India’s Prime Minister Nehru in the 1950′s and brought into the conversation of science education by Editor-in-chief Science magazine Bruce Alberts. Alberts points out that much excellent hands-on K-12 curriculum exists, but our current testing paradigm does not support excellent science education. Alberts calls for using a new approach for fostering excellence and innovation in science education; an approach seen in industry and science. In particular, he calls for a paradigm shift, similar to that seen in the US auto industry 40 years ago, where excellent teachers would join those who lead education reform. Alberts also suggests we apply our best understanding of how people learn and how people learn history, math and and science into the classroom. This work is summarized on the National Academies of Press website and can be downloaded at no cost.
The last part of the conversation was based on Ken Bain‘s presentation and focused on how to inspire students to use deep learning approaches instead of surface or strategic learning approaches.
People are most likely to take a deep approach to their learning when they are trying to solve problems or answer questions that the learner regards as important, intriguing or beautiful. – Ken Bain
As we discussed ideas, we shared some favorite books and websites: Cadillac Desert, Monkey Wrench Gang, Physics by Inquiry and Google physics.
Brooks shared information from the workshop he had attended on Career and Technical Education (CTE) and Mathematics. The approach suggested starting with a typical CTE situation then present similar CTE situations and then, only then present the “naked math”. They focused on linking existing curriculua to CTE. Brooks also shared a video presented at the workshop. This version is still funny, but a little longer.
Multiple times the conversation touched on the difficulties of teaching hands-on curriculum in a setting that is driven by high stakes testing.
Jim joined the group a little after 10am as we were talking about “hooks” for secondary science and math students. Jim provided an overview of the Schatz Energy Research Center’s involvement a project sponsored by the California Energy Commission to study Humboldt County’s potential to rely on renewable energy in the future.
We went outside to see the hydrogen fuel cell powered vehicle.
Then we came in and set up the HyTEC kits and began to move through lessons 2-5. Teachers learned that they can
Byron had the kits mailed to his school. He told Jim how he changed the kits and the handouts when working with this students, since the kits had arrived missing a few tubes. Jim learned the kits are more flexible than imagined.

Jim shows Dave, Maggie and Brooks the HSU hydrogen fueling station. K12 students and teachers are welcome to come to campus for similar tours.
During lunch Jim took participants on rides in the fuel cell vehicle.
DYF teachers provided input for this summer’s institute which will occur July 19-23. Topics may include polishing some of the RCEA kits, learning new engineering curriculum, design and planning time for incorporating new ideas into already full courses.
The first Followup for the DYF Teacher Institute II occurred on May 16, 2010 from 8am- 4pm at Humboldt State University. Links to the materials provided at the institute are available below.
Seven DYF teachers attended Brooks Franklin, Ellen Osten, Rebecca Schuler, Errin Odell, Ken Pinkerton, Forrest Stamper, and Sheryl Steiner. The instructors were Lonny Grafman and Beth Eschenbach of the Environmental Resources Engineering at HSU. ERE students Elisabeth Johnson and Holly Leopardi presented the Windbelts RCEA kit and ERE student Bobby Voeks presented the Power Drill Generator RCEA kit.
Teachers took home their own windbelt, a box of Engineering Go For It magazines, and Engineer Your Life brochures.
In the morning Beth Eschenbach reviewed the importance of increasing the number of students interested in studying STEM (Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics). The DYF teachers discussed the importance of school culture and parent involvement to support students’ success in STEM. Errin reminded us of the 2020 Initiative: Decade of Difference and its focus on developing a culture in Humboldt County where all students are expected to graduate from high school and continue their education in a vocational, technical or professional area. Errin shared his story of visiting a school in S. California that changed its culture and in 5 years went from scores of 500 to 700. FHUS is experiencing its own culture shift. Students are tardy less and coming in at lunch to make up tests, because they do not want to perform required remedial work.
Beth described the Family Engineering program being funded to NSF to help parents learn the importance of engineering. Brooks relayed a story of how involving parents correlated with a dramatic increase in test scores.
Ken shared his recent epiphany that more science and engineering would be taught in classes if hands on activities required less prep or if teachers could have more assistance with prep from either parents, volunteers or students. Any kits designed for STEM K-12 education needs to have lower prep requirements.
Participants discussed the current approach to teaching math is an emphasis is on “drill and kill” and not on projects. Some felt that some administrators are not as supportive of hands-on project because they require “stuff”, which can make a classroom “messy” and do not provide as many completed worksheets for accountability.
Beth shared the National Academy of Engineers summary of 14 engineeirng challenges http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/ and the related K-12 site http://www.grandchallengek12.org/about which provide examples of how teachers can include the 14 grand challenges into science and math lessons.
Ellen shared how her 4th period exploratory student worked with the HyTec electrolizer by showing them the DVD and let them figure it out. Then one group taught another group.
Ellen let us know that Vince had the GATE kids meet with the school board and then design a playground. The students then presented their design to the board. The students like the fuel cell and the play ground. Next week they will make pasta bridges, by bringing their own pasta to school.
Brooks
Brooks shared pictures of the Engineering Club he started at EHS. Students met for 30 minutes for lunch to complete various activities such as the pasta bridges and Save the Penguins. Thirty minutes is not enough time to do a lot, and these students are not available after school. Brooks and the HROP teacher will be attending a conference at the end of the week on production.
Ken and others shared about related engineering/project sites.
After reporting out, the DYF teachers completed a pre-assessment.
Lonny provided an overview of the Redwood Coast Energy Authority Kits project completed by the HSU Introduction to Design engineering students using a presentation software called prezi.
Bobby Voeks introduced the Can You WorKIT activity to the participants. Teachers provided feedback on how the kits might work in their own classrooms.
Oliver Hulland of the Redwood Coast Energy Authority and Lonny presented all the Redwood Coast Energy Authority Kits. Allison Oakland, Outreach Coordinator of the Schatz Energy Research Center also reviewed the kits. More here Lonny?
After lunch, participants met with Elisabeth and Holly and made their own windbelts, which was one of the RCEA kits. These windbelts were prepared ahead of time by Team Aero.
During the break, participants visited the roof of Science D to learn more about ERE student and faculty research occurring in Kenya and Bhutan.
The last part of the day was spent thinking about what the focus of the next DYF institute. Participants thought the community should know more about what engineering is and what students could be doing. They thought if parents knew what their children could be doing, they would request such coursework. Our next institute may include a public portion where participants share information about engineering education with the public.
Another idea that was discussed was including a summer camp for students as part of a teacher development workshop. One idea was that each teacher would bring one or two students to experience engineering at HSU. Those students would serve as ambassadors to other students.
In preparation for the Sunday workshop, Team Aero members Andres Pineda, Elisabeth Johnson, Holly Leopardi, and Nathen Theobald worked with CNRS Equipment Tech Marty Reed to build ten half-windbelts in one day!
You can see a video of their windbelt working below.
The Redwood Coast Energy Authority, HSU course Engineering 215, and Design Your Future have partnered to build energy education boxes for classrooms. These boxes will aim to build standards based educational packages focused on energy conservation, renewable energy or climate change curriculum. The boxes will contain lesson plans and other instructions, and be housed at the RCEA in Eureka for teachers to use or docents to bring into classrooms.
If you can help give guidance to the student design teams or if you would like a box designed specifically for your classroom, please comment here or contact Lonny at lonny at humboldt dot edu.