Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011 - rees2009

Universidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM) Página 653 de 957
differences in children’s perceptions (Barraza, 1999; Bowker, 2007) and assess children’s
attitudes and misconceptions about scientists and engineers (Chambers, 1983; Knight &
Cunningham, 2004). For a more detailed account of how the DAET has been utilized and a
tested third-generation coding system, see Weber et al. (2011). These studies provide a
basis for this study.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to validate a comprehensive coding system to be used as a
stand-alone measure of pupils’ perceptions of engineers and engineering, thus eliminating
the need for an accompanying interview.
Theoretical Framework
It is common practice in school settings to encourage children to draw – not only in the
context of art education, but also in other curricular areas. Drawing is seen as an
alternative assessment instrument (Hein & Price, 1994), as an instrument to represent
meaning (Wells, 1985), and as a tool to express mood (Jolley & Thomas, 1995). Social
constructivists, such as Vygotsky (1962) and Wertsch (1991), posit a connection between
thought and speech, arguing that verbal thought can be represented in many ways
including drawings or symbols (Brooks, 2009; O’Loughlin, 1992; Wertsch, 1991). For
example, Brooks (2002) used the theory of social constructivism to study children’s
drawings as a “meaning-making tool” (p. 113).
Many believe that drawings are limited to artistic expression and are therefore an
inadequate substitute for verbal or mathematical skills assessments. However, this
proposal utilizes a theoretical framework of social constructivism to examine children’s
drawings as a communication tool of equal or greater value than the more explicit
communication channels such as the spoken or written word (e.g., interviews or openended
surveys).
Methods
Procedures
To provide evidence about whether the DAET could be used as a valid, stand-alone
assessment of students’ perception of engineers and engineering, this study was divided
into three distinct phases (Table 1): 1) an interview analysis, 2) an interview protocol
revision, and 3) a comparison of coded drawings and coded interviews. During Phase 1,
the current interview protocol was closely analyzed to determine how questions related to
the DAET coding system could be incorporated by focusing on time dedicated to the DAET
instrument during the interview, the interviewer and interviewee dynamics, and how, in
general, the protocol could be improved. In Phase 2, interview implementation guidelines
were developed and additional questions related to the DAET instrument were added.
Finally, in Phase 3, a quantitative comparison was made to validate the DAET coding
system. The validation was conducted by analyzing the pupils’ drawings and interviews
separately using the coding system and comparing the percentage of agreement.
Proceedings of Research in Engineering Education Symposium 2011
Madrid, 4 th - 7 th October 2011