Increasing Student And School Interest In Engineering Education By Using A Hands On Inquiry Based Programming Curriculum

Many high schools nation-wide recognize the need, and are showing interest in engineering education, however, only a small percentage of those schools have been able to fully integrate an engineering component into their curriculum. The reasons for this are: lack of infrastructure, lack of training, lack of appropriate and sustainable curriculum, and lack of student interest. Paradoxically, many schools have maintained or increased the teaching of programming in their schools (Dewar, 2008). Strangely there has been little effort to correlate these two activities. Prensky (2008) stated that one of the stated core skills today’s engineer need is: an understanding of computer programming. Coincidently the 2008 – 2009 employment and labor report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics predicts the need for engineers with programming experience will be one of the careers with the largest numerical increase and demand. This research outlines: 1) the need for engineering in k-12 environments, 2) analyzes the reasons for which schools have had a difficult time fully integrating engineering into school curriculum, 3) proposes a mixed content and pedagogical approach to teaching engineering and programming based on a hands-on inquiry approach, and 4) outlines additional benefits of using a blended content approach such as this (e.g., improved student mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving skills). The research project is in its second year of implementation. Last year 120 students were introduced into the course, and this year 80 more students are involved in the project. Thus far, the results of the project have shown a strong correlation between student engineering interest, aptitude, programming understanding, and an increased understanding of mathematics. Introduction Mathematics has long been regarded as an essential skill, as noted by the American Society for Engineering Education’s mathematics division (Selingo, 2008). The Cold-War era “space race” pushed engineering awareness, mathematical, and scientific ability to the fore of our educational system. And yet, the United States exited the 20th century in a quandary over the status of its educational progress in math and science. This was due in part to the first international Trends in Mathematics and Science Study in 1995, which revealed that the U.S. fell behind its industrialized counterparts in advancing mathematical and scientific skills as students got older. One result was the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). An outcome of NCLB has been the refocusing of curriculum to allow more time-on-task for mathematics and language arts (Paris, 2000). Many districts are currently focusing their attention on more traditional classes (i.e., English, mathematics, history), reducing traditional engineering related classes, such as P ge 15722.2 2 technology and engineering fundamentals, applied physics, technology 1 and 2. While the intent is to focus more heavily on fundamental language arts and mathematics understanding, recent international tests demonstrate that there has been no increase in U.S. students’ mathematics scores under this new curriculum. In 2003, the U.S. participated in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), which tested 15-year-olds’ science and math skills, placing above average internationally in both categories. Three years later, on this same test, U.S. students’ scores were statistically identical, but they were outperformed by 16 other industrialized nations in science, and by 23 nations in mathematics (only 30 nations participated). Narrowing the curriculum is not advancing the U.S.’s educational system and is inadequately preparing students to compete in a 21st century world.