Paper ID #16886

Using Engineering Design Notebooks to Evaluate Student Understanding ofPhysics Concepts in a Design Challenge

Dr. Pamalee A. Brady, California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo

Pamalee Brady is an Associate Professor at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.She teaches courses in structural systems, concrete, steel and wood design as well as structural engineer-ing courses for architecture and construction management students. Prior to joining the faculty at CalPoly she worked in applied research at the U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory inChampaign, Illinois. She is current chair of the Education Committee of the ASCE Technical Council onForensic Engineering. Her research is in the areas of engineering education, including engineering casestudies in undergraduate education.

Jennifer H. Rushing, Central Coast New Tech High

Jennifer H. Rushing teaches Physics and Computer Science at a Project-Based Learning high school inNipomo, California called Central Coast New Tech High. She is passionate about engineering educationand providing high school students with a safe space to take risks and make mistakes. As the ProgrammingCoach for the NHS Titan Robotics Club, she has also assisted student teams competing in both the VEXRobotics National and World Championships. In addition, she has a sordid past of professional softwaredevelopment and spent a magical summer working for NASA.

c©American Society for Engineering Education, 2016

Using Engineering Notebooks to Evaluate Student Understanding of Physics Concepts in a Design Challenge

Abstract: This study focused on the application of engineering notebooks to support student learning of engineering design practices as well as content learning of math and science concepts applied during an engineering design challenge. A case study approach was used to analyze student teams in four high school physics classes tasked with designing Rube Goldberg Machines following a physics unit on forces, motion and energy. Teams were required to document their design and construction processes in an electronic engineering notebook. The notebooks were examined for evidence of student understanding and communication of the engineering design process, reflective learning, and kinematic principles as well as the level of participation of each individual in the team. Integrating engineering into math and science courses is new to many in­service teachers and research has documented that science teacher efforts focus more on engineering practices such as teamwork and communication rather than the application of the math and science concepts that are important to engineering problem solving. The research objective was to identify tools and practices which would aid K­12 teachers in effectively incorporating engineering into curricula in an integrated manner.

Introduction

The relatively new science standards outlined in the National Research Council’s “Framework for K­12 Science Education”1 and the “Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States”2 document three dimensions of all standards (1) a limited number of disciplinary core ideas (2) scientific and engineering practices for examining these ideas, and (3) crosscutting concepts. These are set within a context of an ongoing developmental process and integration or coupling of core ideas and scientific practices to develop performance expectations. The emphasis on practices help to promote a mindset of the integral nature of science and engineering in solving real world problems. The standards’ emphasis is on thinking more deeply, using processing skills similar to those of a mathematician, scientist, or philosopher.

Engineering notebooks are an essential tool of the inventive problem solving engineer; they parallel laboratory science notebooks used by researchers in investigating and describing scientific phenomena. From Kelley’s3 outline of the purpose and function of an engineering notebook it is clear that using notebooks can serve as a valuable pedagogical approach and assessment tool. He describes the importance of documenting new ideas, of assigning credit in cooperative work environments and in supporting reflective practices.

Similar artifacts have been used by other researchers to support evidence of student learning of the engineering process and math and science content. Moore, et al4 analyzed written work as well as observations of fifth grade student teams to conclude that these were effective tools for demonstrating student learning of engineering. Ruiz­Primo, Li, Tsai and Schneider5 proposed principles for analyzing the quality of middle school student notebooks to assess their learning of scientific concepts and reported on the link to student performance using other assessment tools.

Fentiman and Demel6 state the importance of documentation and presentation skills in the practice of engineering and outline instruction for undergraduate engineering students in developing these skills at each stage of the design process. Savarovsky and Shaffer7 studied design meetings along with student design notebooks to evaluate their pedagogical value, particularly in support of reflective thinking. Ekwaro­Osire and Orono8 focused on the evaluation of design notebooks as effective indicators of good teamwork. Indeed they found that the highest peer evaluation scores could be predicted by evidence in the design notebooks of content, continuity and duration of student participation.

In this vein we sought to use engineering notebooks as a means of: (1) fostering practices critical to both project­based learning and engineering design including inquiry, reflection and redesign, (2) emphasizing and making evident physics concepts of motion, forces and energy that are important in the design of an engineering artifact, and (3) promoting teamwork and identifying participation throughout a design process.

Study Framework

The work was conducted collaboratively by an engineering faculty member at California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo and a teacher and teacher candidate at Central Coast New Tech High (CCNTH). As a New Tech Network high school CCNTH is ideally suited for incorporating engineering design into the curriculum as the school is shaped by the following learning outcomes:

Knowledge and Thinking ­ The ability to reason, problem­solve, make decisions, develop sound arguments, and create new ideas by using appropriate sources and applying the knowledge and skills of a discipline.

Collaboration ­ The ability to demonstrate effective communication, empathy, responsibility, initiative, and leadership in order to be a productive member of diverse teams.

Oral Communication ­ The ability to make meaning from verbal messages and effectively communicate content knowledge and thinking through oral interactions and presentations.

Written Communication­The ability to effectively communicate content knowledge and thinking in a written format using the discipline appropriate organizational patterns and conventions.

Agency ­ The ability to reflect on the development of a growth mindset and purpose for learning as well as demonstrate self­monitoring, learning strategies, study habits, and active participation.

The school is dedicated 100 percent to Project­ and Problem­based learning as their principal instructional strategy.9

By Project­based learning (PBL) we mean a student­centered model of instruction that revolves around projects. The projects are complex tasks based on a challenging question or problem that requires students to design, problem­solve, and investigate and culminate in realistic yet varied products. The Buck Institute for Education10 defines the essential project design elements as stimulated from a challenging problem or question, characterized by sustained inquiry, set within

an authentic context, offering students voice and choice, and providing opportunities for reflection, Figure 1.

At the core of engineering practice is problem solving through the use of the engineering design process (EDP)11,12 Consistent with this, the NGSS provides a framework for teaching the EDP to all students. Although there is no agreed­upon standard for the engineering design process, certain steps are recognized as essential for good engineering design.11,12 For this project, the EDP framework adopted is that developed by the Engineering is Elementary (EiE)13 curriculum team as shown in Figure 2. Although the EiE framework was developed with elementary students in mind, we like its simplicity and feel it is still an appropriate framework in which to cast this project. The EiE framework has just five one­worded steps elaborated on below:

Ask: What is the problem? What have others done to solve this? What are the constraints?

Imagine: What are possible solutions? What’s the advantage of one over another? Choose the best one.

Plan: What’s needed to execute the chosen solution? What additional skills, tools or materials are needed? Get the needed skills and materials.

Create: Build a model according to the plan and test it systematically. Improve: How could the design be improved? Redesign and retest.

This EDP model is cast as a cyclic process, with progress going in either direction in the cycle and sometimes shortcutting from one step to another, as is consistent with the iterative nature of engineering design.

Figure 1. Gold Standard PBL Figure 2. Engineering is Elementary design process

The challenge for teachers is integrating engineering practices ­ as embodied in the engineering design process ­ into the teaching of science.14

Study Design

Physics is one of a series of science courses students, from freshman through senior, are able to enroll in. A total of four classes with a total of eighty­one students were engaged in the study. The classes were a mix of fifty­one men and thirty women. There were seven freshman,

twenty­three sophomores and fifty­one juniors. All class sections met for 27 minutes on Mondays; two sections met for 100 minutes on each of Tuesday and Thursday; two section met for 100 minutes on each of Wednesday and Friday.

A PBL challenge to design and construct a Rube Goldberg machine was presented as a vehicle for incorporating engineering. The study was initiated in the fall semester of the high school academic year following a physics unit on motion, forces and energy. The driving question motivating the project was “How can we inspire school students (K­6) to pursue STEM career pathways by using engineering practices and the physics of motion and energy?” The machines were to be the central feature of a STEM carnival for K­6 students. This project facilitates a creative and demonstrative way of exhibiting understanding of physics principles related to kinematics ­ forces, motion, and energy and provides a hands­on experience with the engineering design process. As a Rube Goldberg machine is intended to be a complicated, over­engineered contraption which accomplishes a relatively simple task the student teams in each class were tasked with designing, building, and testing a series of simple machine components that fulfilled specified functional requirements and to link their designs together to form a continuous machine designed to explode multiple party poppers. The design challenge duration was ten weeks which followed a ten week study of motion and energy. Our study occurred in the second year of the design challenge; a Rube Goldberg project concluded the unit in the previous academic year however no engineering notebooks were employed.

The specific criteria established for the Rube Goldberg design challenge were modeled after work by Harms15: (1) Must fit on a single classroom table or within the same length and width (2) Runs for 30 seconds or less (extensions may be granted for special cases) (3) demonstrates 8 or more unique states (transitions or steps) (4) includes four or more different simple machines, (5) must complete at least three of the following challenges: linear motion – raise an object at least 20 cm (height), push an object at least 20 cm (distance); rotational motion – move and/or rotate an object at least 90 degrees; projectile motion – launch an object at least 10 cm height or 30 cm distance; electrical or magnetic – use an electrical or magnetic interaction to move an object; sound – incorporate music.

For the design challenge teams of four to six persons were formed based on self­identifying roles – project manager, graphic designer, master builder, communications director and art director ­ and random joining of individuals in these roles into teams. The project began with an explanation of the engineering design process by the physics instructor and a related mini design challenge with limited materials. One engineering faculty member observed students in two classes undertake this exercise. In week two of the project the instructor explained the purpose of engineering notebooks; specific guidance for content and format of the notebooks was provided based on a number of resources including Kowalski16. Students were encouraged (1) Not to delete anything!!, (2) that sketches are essential ­ 2D or 3D ­ they don’t have to be exact but must be labelled, (3) graphics may be any form ­ digital or photos/scans of drawings, (4) that text should refer to graphics as numbered figures ­ Figure 1, Figure 2, etc. and (5) that in their documentation they might want to include some of the following: calculations, experiments run, including detailed methods/measurements, problems encountered, quality of data acquired, questions for advisors, brainstorming on problem solutions, equipment and material requirements, various considerations: Scheduling, Budget, Skills, thoughts / inspirations,

School Wide Learning Objective (SWLO): Knowledge & Thinking Criteria Emerging Developing Proficient /College

Ready Advanced / College

Level

Engineering Design Process

Design process cycle is not evident

Documents some but not all steps in design cycle

Demonstrates forward and backward process through all steps in design cycle

Documents in great detail a forward and backward process through all steps in design cycle

Justify solution choices

No justification and/or analysis is mentioned but not undertaken

Choices are supported by evidence but scientific theory and analysis are inconsistent

Choices are supported by clear evidence and consistent scientific theory and analysis

Choices are supported by clear and specific evidence and consistent scientific theory and analysis

Solution Evaluation and Redesign

Limited evaluation is undertaken and no redesign occurs

Solution is evaluated and limited redesign occurs

Solution is evaluated and justified redesign occurs

Solution is evaluated and justified redesign occurs over several iterations

Communicating Solution

Solution is not documented and/or uses representations to communicate solution with inaccuracies or major inconsistencies with the evidence

Uses multiple representations (words, tables, diagrams, graphs and/or mathematical expression) to communicate most steps in solution with minor inconsistencies with the evidence

Uses multiple representations (words, tables, diagrams, graphs, and/or mathematical expressions) to Clearly communicate all steps in solution, which are consistent with the evidence

Uses multiple representations (words, tables, diagrams, graphs, and/or mathematical expressions) to clearly communicate all steps in solution, which are specific and consistent with the evidence

SWLO: Written Communication Criteria Emerging Developing Proficient /College

Ready Advanced / College Level

Development Ideas and evidence are underdeveloped

Ideas and evidence are somewhat developed

Ideas and evidence are developed

Ideas and evidence are Thoroughly developed and elaborated

Organization Ideas and evidence are disorganized or loosely sequenced; relationships are unclear

Ideas and evidence are somewhat organized but not always logically sequenced to show relationships

Ideas and evidence are logically sequenced to show clear relationships

Ideas are logically sequenced to present a coherent whole

* Some rubric elements have been adapted from assessment tools developed by the Stanford Center for Assessment, Learning, and Equity (SCALE) and based on similar rubrics from Envision Schools and the New Tech Network.

Table 1. New Tech Network High School Rubrics

feedback from peers / advisors, questions for discussion, sketches / charts, formulas / functions, dead ends (problems that didn’t get solved), success (detailed accounts of solutions), flaws in machine design, lists of variables. Each team was responsible for a single notebook to which all participants were to contribute. The instructor established two templates by dividing the notebook into DESIGN and BUILD phases of the project to facilitate organization and encourage the use of best practices. The DESIGN notebook was divided into sections: Section 1 – Machine Design Notes, Section 2: Draft Machine Design, Section 3: Design Feedback and Revision and Section 4: Final Machine Design. This template prompted the students to respond to steps in the design process – ASK, IMAGINE, PLAN. At the culmination of this step the instructor reviewed the design with the team, provided feedback and approved progression to the next phase ­ Build. The BUILD notebook was similarly divided into sections: Section 5: Machine Build Notes (Part 1), Section 6: Design Reflections and Revision, Section 7: Machine Build Notes (Part 2) and Section 8: Machine Analysis. All templates were accessible to all team members through Google Docs. Student contributions to the notebook were identified by different colored text for each person.

Throughout the ten week project duration the engineering faculty member visited two of the four classes to observe student teams and reviewed student entries in the electronic notebooks following specific task deadlines in the design and build processes. This faculty member (1) evaluated each of the team’s interactions around the engineering design process, (2) stimulated reflection­in­action through questions in the engineering notebooks and (3) was an observer taking field notes on the students’ process and progress. The instructor, teacher candidate and engineering faculty member provided feedback to the student teams following general rubrics adopted by the high school and aligned to be specific to each stage of the process. Representative rubrics are shown in Table 1. At the conclusion of the project the instructor graded the notebooks. Students were also surveyed to obtain feedback regarding the duration, pace and preferred elements of the project as well as their comfort with the concepts and application of the engineering design process. The survey further sought to assess team member participation and student reflections on their learning.

Results

Class observations and examination of student team notebooks provided evidence of PBL and engineering practices, learning of physics concepts and teamwork participation. Further the notebooks served as a valuable assessment for the instructor and aided in effectively integrating engineering into the science course. In this section examples supporting student attainment of these practices and concepts as well as results of student participation are provided.

The DESIGN notebook guided student teams through the engineering design process with explicit prompts to ask, imagine and plan. Selected student responses to these steps are shown in Table 2 below. Student questions centered on what they already knew about the project, and what they needed to know to solve the problem uniquely defined by the project. At this stage

they further determined the particular challenges they wanted to address in their project solution thus connecting with the specific physics content inherent to the project. In the planning phase they proposed a variety of ways to meet the challenges. They began to evaluate the trade­offs between alternatives and to articulate issues of risk and reliability with regard to proposed solutions thus applying engineering thinking to their process.

Ask “What requirements does our team want to accomplish? How can we incorporate the theme of lights in our machine? How can our team make a lot of simple machines that connect? How can we figure out a way to make the machine as reliable as possible? How can we make the machine entertaining and fun to watch? How will we begin our machine process?”

Imagine “We can solve requirements such as linear motion, rotational motion and projectile motion. A possible solution would be to put the most reliable part of the machine at the beginning. We could start in an elevated position in the beginning to be able to work down and use gravity to our advantage.”

Plan “We plan to meet these additional requirements: linear motion, electrical/magnetic interaction, projectile motion and possibly sound. We decided to use lights in the machine that are different colors. We will make the machine easy to follow with no more than two things happening at one so that the audience can tell what is happening throughout the machine. We plan to use materials such as pulleys, tracks, tubes, balls, party poppers, clips, rubber bands, tape, Legos, pipes string, weights, dominoes, lights, a fan, balloons, gears and much more. We plan to use simple machines such as pulleys, inclined planes, wheel+ axle, and levers.”

Table 2. Examples of Engineering Design Notebook Responses

Each team’s notebook documented draft plans of their engineering solution. These were either drawn by hand or in Google SketchUp (Figures 3 and 4) and were accompanied by notes and a detailed explanation of each step and list of needed materials. These elements all supported communication of their engineering ideas.

The draft designs were evaluated by the physics instructor, teacher candidate and university engineering faculty member. Feedback was provided through the engineering design notebook comments in Section 3. An example of this feedback is shown in Figure 5. Collaboration of the team participants was also evaluated through observations and entries in the notebook. The physics instructor graded the work progress and collaboration. As demonstrated by notebook entries of the nine teams monitored in the two classes four teams exhibited full participation by all team members, the remaining five teams demonstrated full participation by 50% or more of the participants and in three of these teams the remaining members exhibited participation

deemed to be average. In two teams ½ of the members had not demonstrated their participation. In general classroom observations of student team member participation paralleled notebook evidence at this stage.

To achieve the final design of their machines students were prompted in the notebook to revisit the engineering design process and respond to the feedback provided by their facilitators and peers. Teams identified problems within their overall design, examined solutions ­ some of which they had observed in other teams, and broke their plan down analyzing the time and effort required to verify solutions to problems. Final designs were similarly documented in drawing, steps and materials. These final plans were approved by the instructor.

During the BUILD stage the notebooks prompted the student teams to create an analytical or physical model of their design solution. They were encouraged to include images of these in the notebook. They were further prompted to test their models by first devising a test method, anticipating the test results, conducting the test and then reflecting on what was effective/ineffective. This was followed by steps prompting design reflection and revision, build notes and machine analysis. In this phase of the project student teams were more focused on the hands­on aspects of building than documenting their process in the notebook. Of the nine team notebooks examined only brief responses to the prompts were provided in Steps 5 through 6 and generally only one team member provided the majority of the responses. Engineering faculty also observed waning team member participation particularly in those teams that had not demonstrated broad participation in the design phase. Through motivational talk instructors worked to achieve broader team member participation by encouraging those with builder roles to engage other team members in role specific aspect in the construction process. This was evidenced by each team member establishing goals at the beginning the work time and reporting progress at the period end.

In Step 8 – Machine Analysis ­ each student was tasked with analyzing their machine for one of the following requirements: (A) Describe two types of different motion exhibited by machine components, (B) Describe the distinction between displacement, velocity, and acceleration through data gathered from machine components, (C) Describe two types of forces exhibited by machine components, (D) Describe two energy transfers exhibited by machine components, (E) Describe two steps where conservation of energy is exhibited by machine components, (F) Using single machine stages, demonstrate through calculation an accurate understanding of potential energy and kinetic energy, and (G) measure at one stage a comparison of collected data and predicted data; describing differences between actual conditions and prediction that contribute to errors in data. ‘A’ and ‘D’ addressed the relationship between machine functional requirements and physics concepts. The balance of the requirements called upon students’ prior knowledge to simply analyze the physics of their machine.

Figure 3. Emerging Machine Draft Plan, Explanation and Material Needs

Before completing the machine analysis section, students were presented with a workshop outlining proficient answers to the prompts based on the work by Harms. However, the quality of notebook documentation of this analysis varied greatly. Five of the nine teams provided extensive descriptions and data supporting their analyses, an example of which is shown as “Proficient” in Figure 6 and Figure 7. The balance of the teams provided minimal response to the prompts, which is represented in the same figures as the student examples labelled “Emerging”. In some cases, a single team member documented the responses in the notebook;

however, instructors met with each team member to discuss their analysis requirement and response. These analyses provide examples of student understanding of physics concepts and demonstrate engineering communication.

Figure 4. Proficient Machine Draft Plan, Explanation and Material Needs.

Figure 5. Example of Draft Machine Design Feedback

A. Describe two types of different motion exhibited by machine components

Emerging (Low) Proficient (High) The gears display rotary motion The basket rises, displaying linear motion

In stage 7 of our machine, we experience rotational motion, motion that that follows in a curved path. The “hose knob,” (stage 7) that is set off by small weighted balls getting poured into a cup (stage 6), rotates until it sets two weights that hit our “pinball mechanism” (stage 8) releasing a marble that will go around a track (stage 9) setting off the mousetrap (stage 10), in order for the guillotine (stage 11) to cut the string that starts the next team’s machine. In these 6 stages both rotational and projectile motion are experienced, stages 7 and 8. Projectile Motion­ The pinball machine that activates the guillotine. Linear­ Also the pinball machine when the ball moves across the track. (possibly the ramp at the beginning as well.)

D. Describe two energy transfers exhibited by machine components

Emerging (Low) Proficient (High) Pinball machine exerting its energy into the impact of the ball. Balls falling into cup activating pinball. Cart hitting wood that activates pulley.

Kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. In our machine he coaster going down hill changes speed so it uses kinetic energy. Thermal energy that comes from heat. This heat is generated by the movement of tiny particles within an object. The faster these particles move, the more heat is generated. the rope on the pulley

Figure 6. Student Response to Machine Analysis Requirements A and D

B. Describe the distinction between displacement, velocity, and acceleration through data gathered from machine components Emerging (Low) Proficient (High)

Displacement is seen, when the ball in step 5 is hit by the dominoes, it than interacts with step 6 the turning on of the power cord.

Velocity involving the car going down it's slight incline. As well as the marble being pushed down by dominoes to allow the marble to reach a velocity of…

When addressing Acceleration(the rise in speed) in my groups machine, the big bouncy ball getting pushed by the blow dryer allows it to start off at zero and once put in motion down the track; gravity does the rest, until it reaches the bottom and stops.

Acceleration, velocity, and displacement are three different things. First acceleration is the rate at which an object gains or loses velocity. This is demonstrated on our machine by the pinball mechanism which when released rapidly punches and accelerates the ball down the track. Acceleration is found using the formula v/t or velocity over time. Second velocity is the measurement of an object's speed in a certain direction. You can find velocity in our machine by looking at the pinball which accelerates the marble to a certain velocity to get it around the track. To find the velocity of an object you can divide the position(distance traveled) by the time it takes to travel that distance. Finally displacement refers simply to how much ground an object has covered during its movement. Since the track in total is about 100 cm long we can say that the displacement of the ball is about 100 cm. pinball track=60 cm from launch to curve in track With data gathered from our machine put into logger pro we can see that when the marble is first struck by the pinball mechanism it reaches a maximum velocity of 1.46 m/s. The acceleration of the ball is very fast peaking at 8.36 m/s before making contact with the track and slowing to about 5.7 m/s.

C. Describe 2 types of forces exhibited by machine components

Emerging (Low) Proficient (High) We have gravitational forces, with our baskets going up and down We have tension forces. Our catapult relies on tension to give it potential energy.

The domino at the end of the beginning when it hits the car. That action is both gravitational and contact force. Gravitational because it is being pulled down by gravity and contact because it hits and pushes the hot wheel down the ramp. Contact force is also exhibited when the hot wheel hits the lego stand and knocks it down.

E. Describe 2 steps where conservation of energy is exhibited by machine components

Emerging (Low) Proficient (High) when the ball falls and transfers it energy to the Ferris wheel which then transfers it to the pin wheel. The Roller coaster transfers it’s energy to the dominoes.

In step 2 the ball is rolling through a leveled pvc pipe so the energy stays constant and does not lose it or transfer it. In step 5 the ball rolls to hit a couple of dominos so they energy stays constant because the dominos are on a straight platform.

Conservation of energy is exhibited in both section six and section eight of our machine. If our machine was in an environment where no other forces were present, then the initial energy would be equal to the final energy. This is not true because other forces are present in our world such as air resistance and friction. Due to the fact that these forces are present, the final amount of energy is lower than the initial amount of energy because some energy is transformed into heat. This is shown by the work below that refers to section eight. This is a good example of the Conservation of Energy.

F. Using single machine stages, demonstrate through calculation an accurate understanding of potential energy and kinetic energy Emerging (Low) Proficient (High)

Height of fall= 22.25 cm Weight=200 g (0.002 kg) Potential Energy Equation: PE = mgh Kinetic Energy Equation: KE = ½ mv2

PE=mhg KE=½ mv2 = ½ m(0)2 =0

PE=mhg=mg(0)=0 KE=½ mv2

Ei = Ef E EP i +K i = PEf +KEf gh /2mvm + 0 = 0 + 1 2

The weight at the top has potential energy because of the force of gravity that is acting on it. When the weight is released it falls and loses potential energy and at the end it becomes kinetic energy. Using the potential energy formula the potential energy of the weight is 0.005 J. When the weight is released, just before it hits the bottom the 0.005 J will become kinetic energy because of , which isEi = Ef proved above. E ghP = m E 0.002)(9.8m/s )(0.223m)P = ( 2

JE .0044P = 0

G. Measure at one stage a comparison of collected data and predicted data; describes differences between actual conditions and prediction that contribute to errors in data Emerging (Low) Proficient (High) Based on our prediction we figured our whole class machine was going to run well because everyone did data and had majority of them be a success. The prediction of measurements on the forces of certain stages triggering the next were off from the actual measurements. While building we thought we would have a lot of force pushing the ball down the ramp from the blow dryer but their was a lot of times we had to trigger it ourselves because it wouldn’t move.

115.6 g= kart weight (convert to kg) 1.15kg Ramp distance=26 cm triangle= 5.5 cm h x 18 cm l Predicted Data: J=kg⋅m2⋅s2

PE=mgh PE= (1.15 kg)(9.8 )(0.055 m)/sm 2 PE=0.62 J KE=½ mv2 0.62 J=½ (1.15 kg)v2 0.62 J=0.575kgv2 1.07 m/s2= v2 Using the Potential energy and Kinetic energy we were able to get the predicted velocity value. Collected Data: As we can see in this graph the velocity of the cart steadily increases as the cart picks up speed going down the ramp until it hits the wood lever which stops it from gaining velocity and the graph straightens out. The cart gets up to about .3 meters per second during its run before being

stopped. As we can see in the predicted data we got 1.07 m/s2 and in the collected data we got 0.3 m/s2. In the collected data the cart moves a lot slower than the predicted data because two important factors aren’t being considered in the equations for

the predicted data. These two factors are air resistance (there is a lot of this because of the sail) and friction. As the cart is falling/rolling down the ramp the sail catches air on the way down and its descent is slowed. Also, the wheels on the cardboard produces friction which also slows down the cart. Both of those factors are not represented in the formula to predict the velocity (using only its potential energy and kinetic energy). These two factors that weren’t considered can contribute to the errors in the predicted data.

Figure 7. Student Response to Machine Analysis Requirements B, C, E, F, and G

Following observations and data collection on the reliability of machine components acquired during the STEM carnival students were asked to reflect on the their design and identify the component most likely to fail, to apply their knowledge of physics of forces, motion and energy and describe the primary reason for the component failure and to propose an engineering design solution to improve reliability. An example of student reflections are presented below and reference Figure 8.

Student 1: From the data we took we found that the least reliable machine in our class was team 2. Their machine reliability percentage was 43% whereas all of the other teams were above 50%. The stage that I found was least reliable was step two because often times when we ran the machine the string that was supposed to pull out the lego usually pulled off the entire mechanism because the bumps on the lego would get caught on the other lego. These bumps didn’t slide very smoothly on the other lego piece. One thing that added to this problem was that when the lever pulled the string it was pulling at a downward angle when the way that the lego should be pulled out was horizontal. This increased the possibility of the step failing because the downward force would cause the entire mechanism to be pulled down. I also think that the mechanism for step 2 wasn’t secured very tightly to the tube so this might be one of the reasons it kept falling off. A good use of a simple machine to increase the reliability is to use a pulley to redirect the downward force so that it would pull out horizontally. Something that they could have done to increase the reliability is to use something other than legos to release the ball down the tube. Some solutions to these problems could be to use a different material or method to pull out the block. One material that would be good is a metal or some other material that had a smooth surface to reduce the friction. Another way to increase the reliability would be to somehow drill the mechanism to the tube or tape it more securely. This would make it more stable so that when the weight drops on the lever and pulls the string the string wouldn’t pull the mechanism off the tube. All of these ideas could be very beneficial because as I watched this stage it was very hard to operate and reset. Student 2: The least reliable machine component in the class machine was team 2 because they only had 43% chance of success. In team 2’s machine the least reliable step was step 7 (according to the team members). In section 7 of their machine the components were a tennis ball positioned to

fall down a tube, but is stopped by a trapped door mechanism. This step is activated by a golf ball rolling into a cup (This part works perfectly). The part of section 7 in their machine that fails is when the trapdoor mechanism is released. In all of their trials the tennis ball gets stuck at the top and needs to be pushed to fall. This error is mostly due to positioning. Where the tennis ball is currently positioned it doesn’t have enough potential energy from gravity to push through the edge of the trapdoor that is holding it back. So when the trapdoor activates the tennis ball is still stuck because the edge of the trapdoor has enough force to hold it back or displace the tennis ball. This problem can be fixed in one of two ways. The first is to move the tennis ball into a spot where the amount of potential energy the tennis ball has can overcome the force of the trapdoor edge. Or they could smoothen (with tape) and angle the trapdoor edge so that there is less friction to stop the ball from falling. Either of theses solutions could work to solve the problem of it getting stuck right before it falls.

Figure 8: Rube Goldberg machine design ­ Team 2 Conclusions

The incorporation of notebooks in a physics high school classroom served to support the integration of engineering in the physics curriculum. The notebooks provided evidence of the key indicators essential for successful implementation of engineering in a science classroom as identified by Kersten17 – design process, STEM content, engineering thinking and engineering communication. They served as an effective tool for guiding the engineering design process and for stimulating the self­directed learning and authentic assessments that are the goals of PBL curricula. In contrast with the project results of the previous year during which engineering design notebooks were not incorporated, the instructor reported that students were significantly more metacognitive about the design and construction of their Rube Goldberg machines when guided by the notebooks. At any given time, students were able to identify the stage of the engineering design process in which they were operating. Such reflection on the process also better enabled them to articulate their reasoning behind design choices, including related physics concepts, both

in written and verbal assessments. In addition, the notebooks provided much needed structure during a highly creative and sometimes chaotic learning environment. The researchers plan to further analyze student work to identify if correlations exist between student team notebook grades and peer evaluations of participation similar to the work of Ekwaro­Osire and Orono14, as well as evaluate if there relationships are exhibited between project roles and team participation. Gender representation in identified roles will also be examined along with student agency, particularly in the build portion of the process. Future applications will incorporate additional direct student assessment. Using the engineering design notebook students will complete a written assessment in the form of short answer, True/False, or multiple choice questions and will require the student to retrieve information stored in the notebook and answer questions around engineering process steps and STEM content. The authors are grateful for the financial support provided through the grant “Transforming Teacher Preparation through Project­Based Learning Curriculum” awarded to California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo from the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation via the CSU Chancellor's Office.

References:

1. National Research Council (NRC). 2011. A framework for K­12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

2. National Research Council (NRC). 2013. Next Generation Science Standards: For States, By States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

3. Kelley, Todd R. "Engineer's Notebook­­A Design Assessment Tool." Technology and Engineering Teacher, 70.7 (2011): 30­35.

4. Moore, Tamara J, Morgan M Hynes, Senay Purzer, Aran W Glancy, Emilie A Siverling, Kristina M Tank, Corey A Matins, and S. Selcen Guzey. "STEM Integration: Evidence of Student Learning in Design­based Curricula." 2014 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) Proceedings, (2014): 1­7

5. Ruiz­Primo, MA, M Li, SP Tsai, and J Schneider. "Testing One Premise of Scientific Inquiry in Science Classrooms: Examining Students' Scientific Explanations and Student Learning." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47.5 (2010): 583­608.

6. Fentiman, A.W., Demel, J.T., “Teaching Students to Document a Design Project and Present the Results,”Journal of Engineering Education, October 1995 pp 329­333.

7. Svarovsky, G.N, and D.W Shaffer. "Design Meetings and Design Notebooks as Tools for Reflection in the Engineering Design Course." Proceedings. Frontiers in Education. 36th Annual Conference, (2006): 7­12. 8. Ekwaro­Osire, S, and P.O Orono. "Design Notebooks as Indicators of Student Participation in Team Activities." 2007 37th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference ­ Global Engineering: Knowledge Without Borders, Opportunities Without Passports, (2007): S2D­18­S2D­23.

9. http://ccnth.org

10. Buck Institute for Education. 2015. Gold Standard PBL: Essential Project Design Elements. (http://bie.org/object/document/gold_standard_pbl_essential_project_design_elements accessed Jan 24, 2015).

.

11. Duderstadt, J. 2008. Engineering for a changing world: A Roadmap to the future of engineering practice, research, and education. Ann Arbor, MI: The Millennium Project, The University of Michigan.

12. Dym, C.L., Agogino, A.M., Eris, O., Frey, D., and Leifer, L.J. (2005). Engineering Design Thinking, Teaching and Learning, Journal of Engineering Education, 94 (1): 103­120.

13. Engineering is Elementary. The Engineering Design Process. (http://www.eie.org/eie­curriculum/engineering­design­process accessed Dec. 11, 2015).

14. Roehrig, Gillian H, Joshua A Ellis, and Emily A Dare. "Driven by Beliefs: Understanding Challenges Physical Science Teachers Face when Integrating Engineering and Physics." Journal of Pre­College Engineering Education Research (J­PEER), 4.2 (2014): 47­61.

15. Harms, Michael, “Rube Goldberg Machines: An inquiry­based STEM approach.” Featured on TheScienceGuru.com, June 1, 2011 (accessed at http://www.thescienceguru.com accessed Dec. 11, 2015)

16. Kowalski, Dawn. Project Notebooks. Writing @ CSU. Colorado State University. Accessed on Dec. 11, 2015 at http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/guide.cfm?guidid=80.

17. Kersten, J.A., “Integration of engineering education by high school teachers to meet standards in the physics classroom,” University of Minnesota, 2013.