<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<mods xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3" version="3.1" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/mods/v3 http://www.loc.gov/standards/mods/v3/mods-3-1.xsd">
  <titleInfo>
    <title>The impacts of two curricula on middle-level students’ engineering understanding    (Journal Article)</title>
  </titleInfo>
  <name type="personal">
    <namePart> Leslie Dietiker, Meghan Riling, Rashmi Singh et al ....</namePart>
    <role>
      <roleTerm authority="marcrelator" type="text">creator</roleTerm>
    </role>
  </name>
  <typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource>
  <originInfo>
    <place>
      <placeTerm type="text">USA</placeTerm>
    </place>
    <publisher>:  Taylor and Francis Group</publisher>
    <dateIssued>,2023</dateIssued>
    <issuance>monographic</issuance>
  </originInfo>
  <language>
    <languageTerm authority="iso639-2b" type="code">eng</languageTerm>
  </language>
  <physicalDescription>
    <form authority="marcform">print</form>
    <extent> 1-16 p</extent>
  </physicalDescription>
  <abstract>K-12 science teachers in the United States are encouraged to teach their students engineering. When incorporating engineering into their science curricula, teachers commonly either focus on (1) engineering and lace science throughout or (2) science and lace engineering throughout. This study explores middle school students’ nature of engineering understanding before and after instruction with different engineering foci through the collection and analysis of student surveys (n∼200) and interviews (n = 16). Findings demonstrated centering science while lacing engineering throughout allowed for a slight increase in the understanding that engineers use science and math, however, centering engineering allowed students to understand many more attributes of engineers (i.e., engineers invent/design/create, improve things, fix, and solve problems) after instruction than they did prior to instruction. These findings and their limitations are discussed in relation to the developing Nature of Engineering framework and the new content demands of the U.S. Next Generation Science Standards.

***______{For Hard Copy, Please visit Library.}________***</abstract>
  <subject>
    <topic>Design</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>education interview</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>learning</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>nature of engineering</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>science education</topic>
  </subject>
  <subject>
    <topic>surveys</topic>
  </subject>
  <classification authority="ddc"> 370</classification>
  <relatedItem type="series">
    <titleInfo>
      <title>The Journal of Educational Research,  Volume 116, 2023 - Issue 1</title>
    </titleInfo>
  </relatedItem>
  <identifier type="issn"> 0022-0671</identifier>
  <identifier type="uri">https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2022.2158156</identifier>
  <location>
    <url>https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2022.2158156</url>
  </location>
  <recordInfo>
    <recordCreationDate encoding="marc">231019</recordCreationDate>
    <recordChangeDate encoding="iso8601">20231020093359.0</recordChangeDate>
  </recordInfo>
</mods>
