Medical Technology: organ harvesting and Transplants

More documents

Recommendations

Info

videotapes of traffic patterns around the school. (See Figure 2.) This lesson helped students experience the scientific inquiry process, including developing hypotheses about traffic flow, conducting observations and collecting data, analyzing data, reaching conclusions, and generating further questions. Figure 2. Students using a Lydar Gun to measure traffic speed for a lab activity developed at the Institute. Engineering and Education faculty providing brief, written feedback using specially prepared feedback forms. This feedback was invaluable in helping teachers refine their lessons prior to actual classroom implementation during the following school year. Teachers commented that they seldom have the opportunity to be observed by fellow teachers and receive useful feedback. Assistance provided to teachers by peer teachers, faculty, and graduate students extended beyond the two weeks of the Summer Institute portion of the project. For example, engineering faculty and their graduate assistants were available to develop simulations and videos of traffic patterns in specific Nebraska communities or schools. An engineering team also helped one teacher carry out an experiment with her middle school students related to traffic flow around their own school. The school was in the middle of a construction project, and the project focused on how traffic flow might be improved to promote safety. Graduate students assisted students in using Lydar guns to gauge speeds of individual cars to verify students’ calculations using the distance formulas. The university civil engineers also brought out a traffic van and produced Another lesson example is from two middle school teachers who developed a multi-lesson unit connecting middle school math to real-world transportation engineering problems. The lesson focused on collecting and graphing data, measuring, computing proportions, ratios and percents, and understanding capacity and capacity overflow. The data collection and graphing activity used a video developed by the university engineers showing traffic flow around one of the teachers’ schools. Students divided into groups and tallied the numbers of various kinds of cars to provide the raw data for construction of bar and line graphs. They then used these counts to determine ratios of the various kinds of cars. The unit opened the door for discussion of critical transportation issues such as car safety, alternative fuels, alternative means of transportation (subways, monorails, elevated railroads, bus), highway construction, etc. The unit is building towards a culminating project focusing on the use of distance formulas to design a traffic-flow plan around the school. In addition to developing and implementing a lesson plan using engineering examples, teachers were also asked to review and critique the lesson plan of one of the other teachers aimed at teaching the same subject area and grade level. Because we were developing (and continue to develop) an online repository of lesson plans, it was important that the instructional objectives and procedures be clear to fellow teachers. To aid in the consistency in form and intent, we asked the teachers to develop their lesson plans using a specific lesson plan template. After teachers received peer feedback, they were asked to make final revisions to their lesson plan and post it on the project website. This website is currently only available to teachers participating in the project, but we are working on updates and revisions so that it is in a format that will be useful to teachers nationally. We believe that these lessons, with their focus on real-world engineering examples illustrating math and science principles, will provide a viable way to infuse engineering into the middle and high school curriculum. Project Impact Teacher Impact. The project has undergone extensive testing to assess the impact of the professional development experiences in terms of teachers’ increased 16 • The Technology Teacher • April 2010
understanding and knowledge of engineering concepts and processes, technology, and pedagogy. A series of instruments were administered in a pre/post/follow-up timeframe, with pre measures completed prior to the Summer Institute, post measures completed on the last day of the Summer Institute, and follow-up measures completed approximately seven months following the institute (after teachers had the opportunity to implement the lesson they designed in their classroom). We have found that teachers significantly increased their knowledge of engineering, developed more positive attitudes towards technology, increased their self-efficacy in using and developing technology-based lessons, and increased their confidence in teaching math and science. In both years of the Institute teachers showed significant increases in engineering knowledge both immediately following the Institute, and seven months later (as measured by a multiple-choice assessment covering the engineering content presented during the Institute). Teachers were also asked to provide direct feedback about the Institute’s impact in increasing their knowledge and interest in applied engineering concepts (mean = 4.70 on a 5-point Likerttype scale from low to high), understanding of the job responsibilities of engineers (mean = 4.82), and introducing them to valuable new teaching resources and techniques (mean = 4.59). Results confirm the project’s impact in introducing teachers to the work of engineers and providing them with engineering-related resources that could support their teaching of fundamental and advanced math and Figure 3. Jerel Welker, recipient of 2007 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. science concepts and principles, simultaneously increasing students’ awareness of and interest in engineering fields. Regarding the technology measures, teachers began the Summer Institute with confidence in their technology skills (“good” to “very good” chance of performance); however, their participation in the Summer Institute significantly increased their confidence, and this confidence was maintained throughout the following school year. Their average stage of technology adoption moved from Stage 5 (“I can use technology in many applications and as an instructional aid”) to Stage 6 (“I am able to use technology as an instructional tool and integrate it into the curriculum”). The Institute impacted teachers’ confidence in their math and science teaching. Questions on this measure included such items as promoting student motivation to learn science, math, and/or engineering, teaching process and inquiry skills, teaching students to formulate and develop an experiment or scientific investigation, and assisting learners who are having difficulties mastering math, science, and/or engineering. The quality of the teacher-developed lessons is evident from the fact that three of the teachers have given presentations at regional and national math and industrial technology conferences based on the materials they developed during the Institute. In addition, one high school mathematics teacher who participated in the first year of the Summer Institute incorporated information he received during the Summer Institute as part of his successful application for the 2007 Presidential Award for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching. (See Figure 3.) Student Impact. Teachers were also asked about the impact of the lessons they developed on their students. Teachers reported that the lessons were effective in encouraging student interest in math, science, and engineering (mean = 4.10 on 5-point scale from low to high) and increasing student learning in those areas (mean = 4.12). Teachers were also asked to indicate the percentage of students scoring at the basic, proficient, and advanced levels on the lesson. Overall, teachers reported that 80% of their students either met or exceeded the established learning objectives for their lesson. In the second year of the Institute, specific feedback was solicited from students after the teachers had presented their lesson. Overall, 86% of students responded that they either “strongly agreed” or “agreed” that they learned something from the lessons and activities, and 75% reported that the lessons were interesting. Qualitative responses from both teachers and students confirmed the 17 • The Technology Teacher • April 2010
Page 1 and 2: A DIFFERENT ANGLE FOR TEACHING MATH
Page 3 and 4: Online Professional Development for
Page 5 and 6: On the ITEEA Website: Now Available
Page 7 and 8: STEM Calendar Calendar April 9-10,
Page 9 and 10: Resources in Technology Organ Harve
Page 11 and 12: healthy organ. A video on the proce
Page 13 and 14: educes the chance for rejection (Th
Page 15 and 16: Classroom Challenge A Radio-Control
Page 17 and 18: applications. Perhaps a professor o
Page 19: students to pursue engineering and
Page 23 and 24: present their lessons to the partic
Page 25 and 26: the definitive answer to alternativ
Page 27 and 28: eaction and separation of the biodi
Page 29 and 30: Conclusion This unit of instruction
Page 31 and 32: can spur the minds of the youth in
Page 33 and 34: You are invited to explore the powe
Page 35 and 36: 2010 Directory of ITEEA Institution
Page 37 and 38: 1,2 A,B,C Kent State University Col
Page 39 and 40: Are You Cutting Off STEM at the Roo

Medical Technology: organ harvesting and Transplants

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?