Effectiveness of Technology Education Learning ...

5 downloads 133972 Views 236KB Size Report
41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. T3H-1. Effectiveness of Technology Education Learning. Activities on the Improvement of Spatial Skills.
Session T3H

Effectiveness of Technology Education Learning Activities on the Improvement of Spatial Skills Susan K. Donohue University of Virginia, [email protected] Abstract – A skill set important to student success in engineering studies is spatial skills. It is important, therefore, to provide opportunities to improve these skills in the curriculum. Research has demonstrated that spatial skills are trainable, and the subsequent literature on initiatives and interventions is robust. We are interested in validating earlier research on the efficacy of traditional technology education learning activities, such as technical drawing, on the improvement of spatial skills. The results indicate that technical and perspective drawing and projects involving the manipulation of 3D objects contribute to improvements in spatial skill levels. These findings do validate previous work. The re-investigation of “old school” interventions may be of particular interest to P12 engineering educators working with constrained resources. Index Terms – engineering education, technical education, direct mastery learning activities, project-based learning, constructivism, spatial skills. INTRODUCTION Possession of good to excellent levels of spatial skills has long been acknowledged as critical to success in engineering studies and practice [1] – [2]. An engineer needs to be able to develop a mental picture of an object and “see” how it looks from different perspectives in order to determine relationships between it and another object or person, or in space. S/he also needs to be able to project how a person or object can travel successfully from point to point. These skills are important in efforts to create and realize deliverables throughout the design process, from initial design to product specifications to prototype to finished item. Therefore, the improvement of spatial skills and their subsequently successful use are important research topics in engineering education. Another reason for conducting this research is that facility with these skills is vital to success in disciplines in which female students are grossly underrepresented – and, not incidentally, the disciplines in which the great majority of undergraduate engineering degrees are awarded: civil (nonenvironmental) engineering, electrical and computer engineering, mechanical engineering, and computer science (within engineering). In Academic Year 2008, females earned only 8.5% of the bachelor degrees awarded in these majors, which account for 66% of all bachelor’s degrees awarded in engineering disciplines [3].

Research identifying non-gender based factors affecting the improvement of spatial skills suggests that a common underlying factor may be the level of access to and use of agents and activities shown to improve spatial skills, such as sports requiring hand-eye co-ordination, thus demonstrating the trainable nature of these skills. “Trainability,” as opposed to “inherent ability,” is an important message to convey. Otherwise, students experiencing difficulty with spatial relationships may conclude that they cannot improve their skills. In this paper, we present research results investigating the effectiveness of participation in Technological Studies (TST) 161, Creative Design, in the development and/or enhancement of spatial skills. This course is identified in an earlier research report as one that undergraduates believe is a primary contributor to the improvement of their spatial skills [4]. As a service course fulfilling a college humanities requirement, an instructor will have students with a variety of majors in his/her class. However, it is a required course for School of Engineering students, which include education majors in technological studies. While it is important that all students have the opportunity to improve their spatial skills, students in the School of Engineering will definitely have the chance to be and/or recruit the next generation of STEM professionals. Refer to Appendix I for the course description. Our goals for this research phase are to confirm the findings reported in [4] and to identify the project activities students believe contributed the most to the improvement of their spatial skills. Our overall goal is to incorporate projects based on these activities throughout the engineering and technological studies curricula to provide reinforcement of skills during a student’s undergraduate career. This paper is organized as follows. A brief overview of the literature on spatial skills is provided. The research’s theoretical frames are discussed; the research question addressed in this paper and researcher positionality are identified as part of this discussion. Next, the research methodology is reviewed. We end with a presentation of results, conclusions, and direction of future work. SPATIAL SKILLS: AN OVERVIEW Sorby [5] discusses the difference between “spatial abilities” and “spatial skills.” Technically, the former refers to innate abilities and the latter to learned abilities; however, the two terms are often used interchangeably. We consciously choose to use the term “spatial skills” in our research to emphasize that these skills can be learned.

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3H-1

Session T3H “Spatial skills” refer to, in general, a collection of cognitive, perceptual, and visualization skills. While lists may differ, substantial agreement exists that the core spatial skills are [6, p. 115]: • the ability to visualize mental rotation of objects • the ability to understand how objects appear in different positions • the ability to conceptualize how objects relate to each other in space • three-dimensional (3D) understanding The traditional focus in research on spatial skills was on the understanding and manipulation of 2D space as well as 3D (cf. [5] and [7]). Advances in computer architecture, processor speed and applications during the past several decades, however, meant that 3D design software became more and more accessible to students; therefore, the focus was more and more on the understanding and manipulation of 3D spaces. This shift in research focus resulted in minimal, if any, attention paid to the need to expose students to 2D images and issues. We understand how and why this shift occurred, but recommend that attention be focused as well on 2D spaces and representations in interventions. Tests evaluate skills with respect to 2D as well as 3D representations, and 3D skills build on 2D ones (cf. [8]). Research on factors that affect the development and exercise of spatial skills has traditionally focused on gender differences in performance. Recent research efforts, however, indicates that other factors, such as socioeconomic status and working memory capacity, may be involved. Research identifying these other factors affecting skill levels further indicates that an underlying factor may be the level of access to and use of objects and activities shown to improve spatial abilities such as video games (cf. [9] and [10]) and Legos (cf. [11]): agents and activities which males are more likely to use than females. Sorby [11] mentions that pre-college participation in activities relying on hand-eye coordination tends to be high among postsecondary students with good to excellent spatial skills, including certain sports and technical education/industrial arts classes – again, activities that males are more likely to participate in than females. Levine, et al. [12] note that socioeconomic status may affect the development of spatial skills. However, they also note that males tend to outperform females with respect to spatial skills because males are more likely to participate more in activities to develop those skills, such as video games. Internalized gender stereotypes and expectations, therefore, likely determine interest and socioeconomic status likely determines access to these activities. Because conditioning may be difficult to overcome, females may need additional encouragement and ongoing support from a trusted source to feel comfortable participating in activities society tends to label “guys only.” Kaufman [13] investigates the role of working memory in demonstrated differences in the performance of males and females on 3D mental rotation and spatial visualization

tests. A secondary goal of his study is to identify the memory types or characteristics leading to gender differences in performance. Multiple tests of spatial working memory and spatial skills were administered to 50 males and 50 females who are high school juniors and seniors in Cambridge, England. Spatial working memory capacity is found to be the main factor in performance differences between the genders on spatial visualization (Differential Aptitude Test – Spatial Relations Subset, or DAT-SR) and, to a lesser extent, 3D mental rotation (Mental Rotation Test, or MRT) tests. Additionally, spatial shortterm memory is found to be more predictive of female performance on spatial ability tests than males. Stereotype theory provides insight into performance issues. It states that a person’s performance on a task may be compromised if the requirements go against stereotype or s/he belongs to a group about which negative performance expectations exist. McGlone and Aronson [14] find that female undergraduates who receive reminders about their identity as a student at a selective private college before taking the Vandenberg MRT did better than females who are reminded about their gender only or a test-irrelevant identity. The results are reversed for the male students in the study. A primary conclusion of this study is that both genders are aware of the stereotypes surrounding performance on tests of spatial ability, but have different reactions to reminders. These results are verified in Moe [15]. The finding reported in Voyer, Voyer, and Bryden [16] that gender differences in performance start appearing by age 13 and increase with age suggests that the longer a person has to internalize stereotypes regarding gender differences in spatial skills the more impact the stereotypes have on performance. Finally, there is ample evidence that spatial skills can be improved through training. The finding of trainability holds even for the skill for which the largest performance gender gap exists, mental rotation. Contero, et al. [17], report on the development of spatial visualization, freehand sketching, and normalized view generation skills realized through the use of learning support tools eREFER and eCIGRO. These tools were developed in response to the implementation of the Bologna Declaration in 1999. Ferguson, et al. [18] find that the use of handheld mechanical dissection manipulatives by students during lectures and exercises leads to increased scores on the PSVT: Rotations test. Hsi, Linn, and Bell [19] discover that instruction in successful solution strategies to spatial reasoning problems leads to an overall increase in performance, with gender differences in performance on the generation of orthographic projections eliminated on posttest. Sorby, et al. [2] is one of many reports about how instruction in 3D CAD modeling leads to increased scores on tests of spatial reasoning skills. However, interventions do not necessarily need to be computer-based to be effective; technical drawing, 3D modeling with craft materials, and drafting activities have been shown to help develop and improve spatial skills; see, for example, [4],

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3H-2

Session T3H [7], and [17]. These studies serve as a reminder that effective interventions can also be low-cost and accessible, an important point to practitioners operating in resourcechallenged environments. THEORETICAL FRAME, RESEARCH QUESTION, AND RESEARCHER POSITIONALITY Our research is based on Bandura’s [20], [21] theories concerning the impact of direct mastery experiences on a person’s sense of self-efficacy, a motivational construct. Persons who successfully complete a given task are more likely to gain confidence in their abilities to be successful in completing related tasks. Baker, et al. [22] report results that support this assertion. The research team used a graduate course at Arizona State University in design, engineering, and technology (DET) for nine science education students, who are also K-12 science instructors, to identify and test interventions to assess and increase students’ levels of three psychosocial factors they believe affect participation of females in engineering: societal relevance, tinkering self-efficacy, and technical selfefficacy. Working in a hands-on, non-competitive environment on class projects resulted in increased levels of all three factors in both genders. Direct mastery activities are a form of project-based learning, an inductive learning method. Inductive learning methods are very effective strategies for success in STEM studies. They are also theoretically grounded in constructivism, a philosophy of education and learning that posits that a person constructs his/her own understanding of the world in which we live. Experiences are processed through self-generated “rules” and “mental models,” and learning occurs when the rules and models are adjusted based on the outcome of this processing [23]. Constructivism also informs the content of technology education courses, which, as a result, tend to use inductive methods. Ultimately, therefore, our work is based in the constructivist theoretical framework. Our research question for the work reported here, therefore, is whether the use of direct mastery activities in particular, and project-based learning in general, lead to improvements in students’ spatial skills. Our work is primarily influenced by the qualitative analytic tradition articulated and popularized by Miles and Huberman [24]; it is also influenced by qualitative analysis methods of Erickson [25]. In the former, the overall goal of research is the description and explanation of patterns of relationships among social phenomena; in the latter, the overall goals of research include the following which fit best with our research agenda: discovery of universals through concrete particulars, improvement in educational practice, and the identification of specific causal linkages. The dominant positionality is post-positivism, given our methodology, which is heavily reliant on surveys; our inquiry aims to identify project-based activities that support improvement of spatial skills.

METHODOLOGY The research period for this work is the Fall 2010 semester. We used a mixed methods approach in conducting this research. Two types of data are collected and reviewed in the effort to answer our research question: self-assessed levels of spatial skills before and after the course; and the number of correct answers on two tests of spatial skill levels, Guay and Lippa’s Visualization of Viewpoints (1976), a test of mental rotation skills, and the Educational Testing Service’s Paper Folding Test (1962), a test of spatial visualization skills. Both tests are timed tests, with eight minutes suggested for the first and three for the second by the tests’ developers. With respect to the first type of data, students were asked to complete a brief survey at the end of the semester in which they gave self-assessments of their spatial skill levels before taking TST 161 and after completing the course. The questions are listed in Figure 1. The survey was administered to two sections of the course (n = 27). Paired t-tests were performed on the responses to the first question. Data were segregated by gender; there was not sufficient diversity in the responses to other demographic data questions to warrant review by ethnicity, class level, or major. The responses to the next two questions were reviewed, and the responses to the third question coded for categorization purposes. Only two students, both females, responded to the second question, stating that they weren’t sure how to answer it. The responses to the fourth question established that gains in the self-assessed skill levels came 100% from participation in TST 161 for all but three students; those students reported that the course contributed from 40 to 60% to the increase in their self-assessed skill levels. The responses to the last question were recorded without coding.

FIGURE I SURVEY QUESTIONS

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3H-3

Session T3H With respect to the second type of data, paired scores from the two spatial skill tests administered at the beginning and the end of the semester were collected for statistical analysis. The number of paired scores are fewer than the number of self-assessed spatial skill levels due to inability to match all of the semester-ending tests, administered at the same time as the aforementioned survey, to tests administered at the beginning of the semester. RESULTS Descriptive statistics for the self-assessed spatial skill levels before and after the course and for the number of correct answers on the spatial skill tests are provided in Tables I and II, respectively. The results of the paired t-tests comparing differences in the self-assessed spatial skill levels and in the number of correct answers on the spatial skill tests are provided in Tables III and IV, respectively. Both genders report they believe that their spatial skills improved as a result of completing the activities, and the results of the paired t-tests indicate that the collective increase in skill levels is statistically significant (p = 0.000). This result is partially supported by the results of the paired t-tests on the differences in test scores. There is not a statistically significant difference, on the whole, between the before and after the course scores on the mental rotation tests for both genders (p = 0.58 for females and 0.27 for males). There is a statistically significantly difference between the before and after course scores on the paper folding test for both genders (p = 0.004 for females and 0.01 for males). This result is likely due to the types of project activities in the course and to the greater number of people completing the paper folding test at the end of the semester. Counts for coded responses to the third question that elicited explanations for increases in the self-assessed spatial skill levels are given in Table V. The activities most noted by the respondents as contributing to the self-assessed improvement in their spatial skills are drawing and activities involving the construction of 3D objects. These results validate research findings reported in, for example, [27] and [28]. Responses that did not map to codes for course activities include “repetition and practice” (3), “following the engineering design process” (1), “taking technology education courses” (1), “experience and repetition in shaping and visualizing” (1), “real life, hands on learning” (1), and “shading and space relationships” (1). The codes emerged from the review of the responses mentioned in the previous section. Not all students gave a response to the third question. The activities listed in response to the last survey question are reported in Table VI. A list of course activities

is given in Appendix II. Again, not all students gave a response to this question. TABLE V FREQUENCY/COUNT OF CODED RESPONSES FOR EXPLANATIONS FOR INCREASES IN SELF-ASSESSED SPATIAL SKILL LEVELS

Response Codes

Frequency/Count

Constructing 3D Objects Drawing

4 7

TABLE VI FREQUENCY/COUNT OF ACTIVITIES REPORTED AS CONTRIBUTING TO INCREASES IN SELF-ASSESSED SPATIAL SKILL LEVELS

Activity All Activities Drawing Foam Cubes Mobiles Portfolio Case Silk Screening

Frequency/Count 2 11 3 4 4 2

Plastic Bottle Repurposing Sculpture

1 1

CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK TST 161, a course grounded in constructivist principles and featuring project-based direct mastery activities, many of which are commonly found in the secondary technology education curriculum in New Jersey, provides students with the opportunities to improve their spatial skills through the physical manipulation of materials. This finding means that we may answer the research question in the affirmative. It also provides further proof that engineering educators should promote the use of inductive learning strategies in the curriculum, given that their use results in demonstrated benefits such as improvement in skills critical to success in engineering studies. Future work will investigate the efficacy of other technology education courses in the improvement of spatial skills. ACKNOWLEDGMENT I am grateful to Larry Richards, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering at the University of Virginia, for his mentorship and support; and to the undergraduates who completed the survey.

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3H-4

Session T3H TABLE I DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR SELF-ASSESSED RANKINGS OF SPATIAL SKILLS

Mean

Standard Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Females (n = 16) Semester Beginning Semester End

5.19 6.59

1.56 1.62

2 4

8 9

Males (n = 11) Semester Beginning Semester End

5.46 7.09

1.64 1.3

2 5

8 9

TABLE II DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS ON SPATIAL SKILL TESTS

Females (n = 14) Rotation Semester Beginning Semester End Paper Folding Semester Beginning Semester End Males (n = 10) Rotation Semester Beginning Semester End Paper Folding Semester Beginning Semester End

Mean

Standard Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

5.36 5.64

2.5 2.93

1 0

10 9

4.93 7.29

3.25 2.13

0 3

10 10

6.4 7.2

2.59 1.99

1 4

10 10

4.6 7.4

2.84 2.8

1 1

9 10

TABLE III RESULTS OF PAIRED T-TESTS COMPARING DIFFERENCES IN SELF-ASSESSED RANKINGS OF SPATIAL SKILLS

95% CI Bounds

Females Males

Mean Difference -1.41 -1.64

T-Value

P-Value

Lower

Upper

-7.03 -8.05

0 0

-1.83 -2.09

-0.98 -1.18

TABLE IV RESULTS OF PAIRED T-TESTS OF COMPARING DIFFERENCES IN NUMBER OF CORRECT ANSWERS ON SPATIAL SKILL TESTS

95% CI Bounds Mean Difference

T-Value

P-Value

Lower

Upper

Females Rotation Paper Folding

-0.29 -2.36

-0.56 -3.44

0.583 0.004

-1.38 -3.84

0.81 -0.88

Males Rotation Paper Folding

-0.8 -2.8

-1.18 -3.28

0.269 0.01

-2.34 -4.73

0.74 -0.87

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3H-5

Session T3H REFERENCES [1] [2]

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[14] [15] [16]

Findley, W.G., “Using Tests to Select Engineers,” Proceedings of the IRE 39(11), 1951, pp. 1364 – 1367. Sorby, S.A.; Drummer, T.; Hungwe, K.; Parolini, L.; and Molzan, R., “Preparing for Engineering Studies: Improving the 3-D Spatial Skills of K-12 Students,” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Engineering Education (2006), pp. T3E-6 – T3E10. Gibbons, M.T., “The Year in Numbers,” 2008 Profiles of Engineering and Engineering Technology Colleges, Washington, DC: The American Society for Engineering Education, 2010. Donohue, S.K., “Work in Progress: Identifying Undergraduate Courses Which Develop and Enhance Spatial Abilities,” Proceedings of the 40th Frontiers of Education (2010), pp. F4E-1 – F4E-2. Sorby, S.A., “Developing 3-D Spatial Visualization Skills,” Engineering Design Graphics Journal 63(2), Spring 1999, pp. 21 – 32. Sutton, K. and Williams, A., “Developing a Discipline-Based Measure of Visualization,” UniServe Science Proceedings (2008), pp. 115 – 120. Olkun, S., “Making Connections: Improving Spatial Abilities with Engineering Drawing Activities,” International Journal of Mathematics Teaching and Learning, April 2003, pp. 1 – 10. Sutton, K.; Heathcote, A.; and Bore, M., “Implementing a Web-based Measurement of 3D Understanding,” Proceedings of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group Conference (2005). Feng, J.; Spence, I.; and Pratt, J., “Playing an Action Video Game Reduces Gender Differences in Spatial Cognition,” Psychological Science 18(10), 2007, pp. 850 – 855. Sorby, S.A. and Veurink, N., “Are the Visualization Skills of FirstYear Engineering Students Changing?,” Proceedings of the 117th ASEE Conference and Exposition (2010). Sorby, S.A., “Developing 3D Spatial Skills for Engineering Students,” Australasian Journal of Engineering Education 13(1), 2007, pp.1 – 11. Levine, S.C.; Vasilyeva, M.; Lourenco, S.F.; Newcombe, N.S.; and Huttenlocher, J., “Socioeconomic Status Modifies the Sex Difference in Spatial Skill,” Psychological Science 16(11), 2005, pp. 841 – 845. Kaufman, S.B., “Sex Differences in Mental Rotation and Spatial Visualization Ability: Can They be Accounted for by Differences in Working Memory Capacity?,” Intelligence 35(3), May – June 2007, pp. 211 – 223. McGlone, M.S. and Aronson, J. “Stereotype Threat, Identity Salience, and Spatial Reasoning,” Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 27(5), 2006, pp. 486 – 493. Moe, A., “Are Males Always Better than Females in Mental Rotation? Exploring a Gender Belief Explanation,” Learning and Individual Differences 19(1), 2009, pp. 21 – 27. Voyer, D.; Voyer, S.; and Bryden, M.P., “Magnitude of Sex Differences in Spatial Abilities: A Meta-Analysis and Consideration

[17]

[18]

[19] [20] [21] [22]

[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

of Critical Variables,” Psychological Bulletin 117(2), 1995, pp. 250– 270. Contero, M.; Naya, F.; Company, P.; and Saorín, J.L., “Learning Support Tools for Developing Spatial Abilities in Engineering Design,” International Journal of Engineering Education 22(3), 2006, pp. 470 – 477. Ferguson, C.; Ball, A.; McDaniel, W.; and Anderson, R.; “A Comparison of Instructional Methods for Improving the SpatialVisualization Ability of Freshman Technology Seminar Students,” Proceedings of the IAJC-IJME International Conference (2008). Hsi, S.; Linn, M.C.; and Bell, J.E., “The Role of Spatial Reasoning in Engineering and the Design of Spatial Instruction,” Journal of Engineering Education 86(2), 1997, pp. 151 – 158. Bandura, A., “Self-Efficacy: Towards a Unifying Theory of Behaviorial Change,” Psychological Review 84, 1977, pp. 191 – 215. Bandura, A., “Self-Efficacy,” V.S. Ramachaudran, ed., Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 4, pp. 71 – 81, New York: Academic Press, 1994. Baker, D.; Krause, S.; Yaşar, S.; and Roberts, C., “An Intervention to Address Gender Issues in a Course on Design, Engineering, and Technology for Science Educators,” Journal of Engineering Education 96(3), 2007, pp. 213 - 236. Prince, M.J. and Felder, R.M., “Inductive Teaching and Learning Methods: Definitions, Comparisons, and Research Bases,” Journal of Engineering Education 95(2), 2006, pp. 123 – 138. Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M., Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc, 1994. Erickson, F., “Qualitative Methods in Research on Teaching,” M.C. Wittrock (ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching, (3rd edition), pp. 119-161, New York: Macmillan, 1986. Donohue, S.K., TST 161 Syllabus and Schedule (unpublished), AY 2010, Department of Technological Studies, School of Engineering, the College of New Jersey. Sorby, S., “Educational Research in Developing 3-D Spatial Skills for Engineering Students,” International Journal of Science Education 31(3), 2009, pp. 459 – 480. Strong, S. and Smith, R., “Spatial Visualization: Fundamentals and Trends in Engineering Graphics,” Journal of Industrial Technology 18(1), 2002, pp. 1 – 5.

AUTHOR INFORMATION Susan K. Donohue, Lecturer, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, 434.953.5190, [email protected]. Her research interests include the identification and remediation of misconceptions about math and engineering principles and investigating strategies for developing spatial skils.

APPENDIX I TST 161 COURSE DESCRIPTION [26] TST 161 is a foundational course in design that looks at the elements and principles of design as related to products, systems, and environments. It introduces students to the creative process as practiced by artists, designers, and engineers; this knowledge is valuable to them as both future producers and consumers in our human-designed world. Content includes thinking, drawing, and modeling skills commonly used by designers; development of a design vocabulary; the nature and evolution of technological design; the impacts of design on the individual, society, and the environment; patents and intellectual property; human factors; team design; and appropriate technology, risk analysis, and forming techniques. Design problems are presented within real-world contexts through field trips and outside speakers. Students complete a major design project, document their work through a design portfolio, and present their solutions before the class. Regular critiques of class projects build a student’s fluency, confidence, and creativity. APPENDIX II TST 161 COURSE ACTIVITIES, FALL 2010 Section1 Section 2 Plastic Bottle Repurposing Challenge Foamboard Cubes Paper Engineering Challenge (origami and airplanes) Silk Screening Drawing Challenge (Value, Isometric, and Orthographic Drawings) Drawing (Isometric, Orthographic, and Perspective) Energy Challenge (Solar Ovens) Mobiles Assistive Technology Device Challenge Portfolio Construction Sculpture Design Collective Materials Challenge (make an object from tile, wood, and paper)

978-1-61284-469-5/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEE October 12 - 15, 2011, Rapid City, SD 41st ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference T3H-6