You are here:

Examining the Effects of Digital Fabrication in Middle School: Comparing Gifted and Non-Gifted Students
PROCEEDING

, Breckenridge ISD, United States ; , University of North Texas, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Las Vegas, NV, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-37-7 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

A large-scale grant funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) utilizes digital fabrication tools and curriculum designed to lead students through the creation of American Invention Kits. This study explores the efficacy of the NSF’s grant project on gifted students from rural middle schools and the effect the project has on gifted students’ knowledge and affinity toward science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Students from two middles schools in rural areas of north-central Texas (N = 190) took part in the project. The students were divided among four subgroups: gifted-contrast (n = 12), gifted-treatment (n = 8), nongifted-contrast (n = 76), and nongifted-treatment (n = 94). The students were measured on three surveys, including the STEM Semantics Survey, TIMSS-Limited, and a knowledge assessment for the specific curriculum unit focused on the solenoid. The STEM Semantics Survey is divided into five subsets. Thirty-two separate one-way repeated measures ANOVAs were performed across the surveys and subgroups. Statistically significant results were found on four comparisons. Implications from this study include gifted education advocacy and collection of data in the field.

Citation

Moore, V. & Tyler-Wood, T. (2019). Examining the Effects of Digital Fabrication in Middle School: Comparing Gifted and Non-Gifted Students. In K. Graziano (Ed.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 361-366). Las Vegas, NV, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved January 23, 2021 from .

© 2019 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Ambrose, D., VanTassel-Baska, J., Coleman, L.J., & Cross, T.L. (2010). Unified, insular, firmly policed, or fractured, porous, contested, gifted education? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(4), 453-478, 628, 631.
  2. Archambault, F.X., Westberg, K.L., Brown, S., Hallmark, B.W., Emmons, C., & Zhang, W. (1993). Regular classroom practices with gifted students: Results of a national survey of classroom teachers. Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
  3. Barnes, J. (2015). Cross-curricular learning 3-14. Third edition. London: Sage.
  4. Blikstein, P. (2013). Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: The democratization of invention. In J. WalterHerrmann & C. Büching (Eds.), FabLabs: Of Machines, Makers and Inventors. Bielefeld, Germany: Transcript Publishers.
  5. Bull, G., Standish, N., & Tyler, T. (2016). Teaching Science and Engineering through Reconstruction of Historic Inventions. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on (pp. 489-492). IEEE.
  6. Delisle, J.R., & Lewis, B. (2003). Survival guide for teachers of gifted kids: How to plan, manage, and evaluate programs for gifted youth. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.
  7. Frasineanu, E.S., & Ilie, V. (2017). Student-centered education and paradigmatic changes. Revista de Stiinte Politice, (54), 104.
  8. Gallagher, J.J. (2002). Gifted education in the 21st century. Gifted Education International, 16(2), 100-110.
  9. Gallagher, J.J. (2006). According to Jim: Best and worst of gifted education. Roeper Review, 29(1), 10.
  10. Jolly, J.L., & Makel, M.C. (2010). No child left behind: The inadvertent costs for high-achieving and gifted students. Childhood Education, 87(1), 35-40.
  11. Kauffman, J.M. (1989). The regular education initiative as Reagan-Bush education policy: A trickle-down theory of education of the hard-to-teach. Journal of Special Education, 23(3), 256-278.
  12. Kettler, T., & Puryear, J.S. (2015). Inequitable access to gifted education: Variance in funding and staffing based on locale and contextual school variables. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(2), 99-117.
  13. Osin, L., & Lesgold, A. (1996). A proposal for the reengineering of the educational system. Review of Educational Research, 66, 621–656.
  14. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36(2), 1-11.
  15. Rutter, J., Standish, N. & Bull, G. (2016). Using hands-on learning modules to address challenging concepts in electricity and magnetism. In G. Chamblee& L. Langub (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information
  16. Slykhuis, D.A., Martin-Hansen, L., Thomas, C.D. & Barbato, S. (2015). Teaching STEM through historical reconstructions: The future lies in the past. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(3), 255-264. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).
  17. Smith, S., Cohen, J. & Jones, M. (2017). Digital fabrication in education: A critical look at authentic integration. In P. Resta& S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (pp. 112-113). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of
  18. Spector, J.M., Johnson, T.E., & Young, P.A. (2015). An editorial on replication studies and scaling up efforts. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 63(1), 1-4.
  19. Standish, N.R. (2017). FabNet Invention Kits: Outcomes and Implementation (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from University of Virginia Library’s LibraETD Online Archive. Doi.org/
  20. Stansell, A., & Tyler-Wood, T. (2016). Digital Fabrication for STEM Projects: A Middle School Example. In Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT), 2016 IEEE 16th International Conference on (pp. 483-485).
  21. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory into Practice, 44(3), 211-217.
  22. Winebrenner, S. (2003). Teaching gifted kids in the regular classroom. Minneapolis, MN: Free Spirit Publishing.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Slides