Breaking the Silos of Discipline for Integrated Student Learning: A Global STEM Course’s Curriculum Development

Katherine Shirey

doi:10.1016/j.eng.2018.03.006

PDF(638 KB)

Engineering ›› 2018, Vol. 4 ›› Issue (2) : 170-174. DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2018.03.006

Views & Comments

Breaking the Silos of Discipline for Integrated Student Learning: A Global STEM Course’s Curriculum Development

Katherine Shirey

Author information +

History +

Graphical abstract

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download citation ▾

Katherine Shirey. Breaking the Silos of Discipline for Integrated Student Learning: A Global STEM Course’s Curriculum Development. Engineering, 2018, 4(2): 170‒174 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eng.2018.03.006

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within

[1]	King K. Alexandria students use STEM to solve some real-world problems [Internet]. Washington, DC: WTOP; c 2017 [updated 2017 Jul 21; cited 2017 Nov 5]. Available from:

[2]	NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering Committee. NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering. National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC (2008)

[3]	D.L. Evans, B.W. McNeil, G.C. Beakley. Design in engineering education: past views of future directions. Eng Educ, 79 (4) (1990), pp. 517-522. DOI: 10.2307/2540314

[4]	L. Katehi, G. Perason, M.A. Feder (Eds.), Engineering in K-12 education: understanding the status and improving the prospects, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2009)

[5]	H. Petroski. To engineer is human:the role of failure in successful design. Vintage Boooks, New York (1992)

[6]	K. Khalaf, S. Balawi, G.W. Hitt, A. Radaideh. Engineering design education: when, what, and how. Adv Eng Educ, 3 (3) (2013), pp. 1-31. DOI: 10.1016/s0924-9338(13)75813-9

[7]	L.E. Grinter. Summary of the report on evaluation of engineering education. J Eng Educ, 46 (1955), pp. 25-60

[8]	Engineering Accreditation Commission. Criteria for accrediting engineering programs: effective for reviews during the 2015-2016 accreditation cycle. ABET, Baltimore (2014)

[9]	J.E. Froyd, M.W. Ohland. Integrated engineering curricula. J Eng Educ, 94 (1) (2005), pp. 147-164. DOI: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00835.x

[10]	NGSS Lead States. Next generation science standards: for states, by states. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2013)

[11]	National Research Council. A framework for K-12 science education: practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC (2012)

[12]	E.A. Dare, J.A. Ellis, G.H. Roehrig. Driven by beliefs: understanding challenges physical science teachers face when integrating engineering and physics. J Pre-Coll Eng Educ, 4 (2) (2014), pp. 47-61.

[13]	G.H. Roehrig, T.J. Moore, H.H. Wang, M.S. Park. Is adding the E enough? Investigating the impact of K-12 engineering standards on the implementation of STEM integration. Sch Sci Math, 112 (1) (2012), pp. 31-44. DOI: 10.1111/j.1949-8594.2011.00112.x

[14]	K.L. Shirey. How do we make this happen? Teacher challenges and productive resources for integrating engineering design into high-school physics. dissertation. University of Maryland, College Park (2017)

[15]	High School Program Innovation Planning Grant [Internet].Richmond: Virginia Department of Education; 2015 [cited 2018 Mar 10]. Available from:

[16]	K. Johnson, S. Murphy, C. O’Hara, K. Shirey. Four phases of the engineering design process in math and science classrooms. Kaleidosc Educ Voices Perspect, 1 (2) (2015), pp. 19-24. DOI: 10.4324/9781315633657-4