Matching Items (5)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: science education
- Creators: Middleton, James
Description
Conceptual change has been a large part of science education research for several decades due to the fact that it allows teachers to think about what students' preconceptions are and how to change these to the correct scientific conceptions. To have students change their preconceptions teachers need to allow students to confront what they think they know in the presence of the phenomena. Students then collect and analyze evidence pertaining to the phenomena. The goal in the end is for students to reorganize their concepts and change or correct their preconceptions, so that they hold more accurate scientific conceptions. The purpose of this study was to investigate how students' conceptions of the Earth's surface, specifically weathering and erosion, change using the conceptual change framework to guide the instructional decisions. The subjects of the study were a class of 25 seventh grade students. This class received a three-week unit on weathering and erosion that was structured using the conceptual change framework set by Posner, Strike, Hewson, and Gertzog (1982). This framework starts by looking at students' misconceptions, then uses scientific data that students collect to confront their misconceptions. The changes in students' conceptions were measured by a pre concept sketch and post concept sketch. The results of this study showed that the conceptual change framework can modify students' preconceptions of weathering and erosion to correct scientific conceptions. There was statistical significant difference between students' pre concept sketches and post concept sketches scores. After examining the concept sketches, differences were found in how students' concepts had changed from pre to post concept sketch. Further research needs to be done with conceptual change and the geosciences to see if conceptual change is an effective method to use to teach students about the geosciences.
ContributorsTillman, Ashley (Author) / Luft, Julie (Thesis advisor) / Middleton, James (Committee member) / Semken, Steven (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Writing scientific explanations is increasingly important, and today's students must have the ability to navigate the writing process to create a persuasive scientific explanation. One aspect of the writing process is receiving feedback before submitting a final draft. This study examined whether middle school students benefit more in the writing process from receiving peer feedback or teacher feedback on rough drafts of scientific explanations. The study also looked at whether males and females reacted differently to the treatment groups. And it examined if content knowledge and the written scientific explanations were correlated. The study looked at 38 sixth and seventh-grade students throughout a 7-week earth science unit on earth systems. The unit had six lessons. One lesson introduced the students to writing scientific explanations, and the other five were inquiry-based content lessons. They wrote four scientific explanations throughout the unit of study and received feedback on all four rough drafts. The sixth-graders received teacher feedback on each explanation and the seventh-graders received peer-feedback after learning how to give constructive feedback. The students also took a multiple-choice pretest/posttest to evaluate content knowledge. The analyses showed that there was no significant difference between the group receiving peer feedback and the group receiving teacher feedback on the final drafts of the scientific explanations. There was, however, a significant effect of practice on the scores of the scientific explanations. Students wrote significantly better with each subsequent scientific explanation. There was no significant difference between males and females based on the treatment they received. There was a significant correlation between the gain in pretest to posttest scores and the scientific explanations and a significant correlation between the posttest scores and the scientific explanations. Content knowledge and written scientific explanations are related. Students who wrote scientific explanations had significant gains in content knowledge.
ContributorsLange, Katie (Author) / Baker, Dale (Thesis advisor) / Megowan, Colleen (Committee member) / Middleton, James (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
From the instructional perspective, the scope of "active learning" in the literature is very broad and includes all sorts of classroom activities that engage students with the learning experience. However, classifying all classroom activities as a mode of "active learning" simply ignores the unique cognitive processes associated with the type of activity. The lack of an extensive framework and taxonomy regarding the relative effectiveness of these "active" activities makes it difficult to compare and contrast the value of conditions in different studies in terms of student learning. Recently, Chi (2009) proposed a framework of differentiated overt learning activities (DOLA) as active, constructive, and interactive based on their underlying cognitive principles and their effectiveness on students' learning outcomes. The motivating question behind this framework is whether some types of engagement affect learning outcomes more than the others. This work evaluated the effectiveness and applicability of the DOLA framework to learning activities for STEM classes. After classification of overt learning activities as being active, constructive or interactive, I then tested the ICAP hypothesis, which states that student learning is more effective in interactive activities than constructive activities, which are more effective than active activities, which are more effective than passive activities. I conducted two studies (Study 1 and Study 2) to determine how and to what degree differentiated activities affected students' learning outcomes. For both studies, I measured students' knowledge of materials science and engineering concepts. Results for Study 1 showed that students scored higher on all post-class quiz questions after participating in interactive and constructive activities than after the active activities. However, student scores on more difficult, inference questions suggested that interactive activities provided significantly deeper learning than either constructive or active activities. Results for Study 2 showed that students' learning, in terms of gain scores, increased systematically from passive to active to constructive to interactive, as predicted by ICAP. All the increases, from condition to condition, were significant. Verbal analysis of the students' dialogue in interactive condition indicated a strong correlation between the co-construction of knowledge and learning gains. When the statements and responses of each student build upon those of the other, both students benefit from the collaboration. Also, the linear combination of discourse moves was significantly related to the adjusted gain scores with a very high correlation coefficient. Specifically, the elaborate type discourse moves were positively correlated with learning outcomes; whereas the accept type moves were negatively correlated with learning outcomes. Analyses of authentic activities in a STEM classroom showed that they fit within the taxonomy of the DOLA framework. The results of the two studies provided evidence to support the predictions of the ICAP hypothesis.
ContributorsMenekşe, Muhsin (Author) / Chi, Michelene T.H. (Thesis advisor) / Baker, Dale (Committee member) / Middleton, James (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2012
Description
The purpose of this paper is to provide a new and improved design method for the Formula Society of Automotive Engineering (FSAE) team. There are five tasks that I accomplish in this paper: 1. I describe how the FSAE team is currently designing their car. This allows the reader to understand where the flaws might arise in their design method. 2. I then describe the key aspects of systems engineering design. This is the backbone of the method I am proposing, and it is important to understand the key concepts so that they can be applied to the FSAE design method. 3. I discuss what is available in the literature about race car design and optimization. I describe what other FSAE teams are doing and how that differs from systems engineering design. 4. I describe what the FSAE team at Arizona State University (ASU) should do to improve their approach to race car design. I go into detail about how the systems engineering method works and how it can and should be applied to the way they design their car. 5. I then describe how the team should implement this method because the method is useless if they do not implement it into their design process. I include an interview from their brakes team leader, Colin Twist, to give an example of their current method of design and show how it can be improved with the new method. This paper provides a framework for the FSAE team to develop their new method of design that will help them accomplish their overall goal of succeeding at the national competition.
ContributorsPickrell, Trevor Charles (Author) / Trimble, Steven (Thesis director) / Middleton, James (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Program (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
Formula SAE is a student design competition where students design and fabricate a formula-style racecar to race in a series of events against schools from around the world. It gives students of all majors the ability to use classroom theory and knowledge in a real world application. The general guidelines for the prototype racecars is for the students to use four-stroke, Otto cycle piston engines with a displacement of no greater than 610cc. A 20mm air restrictor downstream the throttle limits the power of the engines to under 100 horsepower. A 178-page rulebook outlines the remaining restrictions as they apply to the various vehicle systems: vehicle dynamics, driver interface, aerodynamics, and engine. Vehicle dynamics is simply the study of the forces which affect wheeled vehicles in motion. Its primary components are the chassis and suspension system. Driver interface controls everything that the driver interacts with including steering wheel, seat, pedals, and shifter. Aerodynamics refers to the outside skin of the vehicle which controls the amount of drag and downforce on the vehicle. Finally, the engine consists of the air intake, engine block, cooling system, and the exhaust. The exhaust is one of the most important pieces of an engine that is often overlooked in racecar design. The purpose of the exhaust is to control the removal of the combusted air-fuel mixture from the engine cylinders. The exhaust as well as the intake is important because they govern the flow into and out of the engine's cylinders (Heywood 231). They are especially important in racecar design because they have a great impact on the power produced by an engine. The higher the airflow through the cylinders, the larger amount of fuel that can be burned and consequently, the greater amount of power the engine can produce. In the exhaust system, higher airflow is governed by several factors. A good exhaust design gives and engine a higher volumetric efficiency through the exhaust scavenging effect. Volumetric efficiency is also affected by frictional losses. In addition, the system should ideally be lightweight, and easily manufacturable. Arizona State University's Formula SAE racecar uses a Honda F4i Engine from a CBR 600 motorcycle. It is a four cylinder Otto cycle engine with a 600cc displacement. An ideal or tuned exhaust system for this car would maximize the negative gauge pressure during valve overlap at the ideal operating rpm. Based on the typical track layout for the Formula SAE design series, an ideal exhaust system would be optimized for 7500 rpm and work well in the range
ContributorsButterfield, Brandon Michael (Author) / Huang, Huei-Ping (Thesis director) / Trimble, Steven (Committee member) / Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering Program (Contributor) / Materials Science and Engineering Program (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05