ASEE 

Mid Atlantic Section

FALL 2001 REGIONAL CONFERENCE

PROGRAM AND PROCEEDINGS

Images from the 2001 Regional Conference

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR ENGINEERING EDUCATION

MID-ATLANTIC SECTION

FALL 2001 REGIONAL CONFERENCE

NOVEMBER 2-3, 2001

COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND, CUNY

STATEN ISLAND, NEW YORK 10314

CONFERENCE THEME: "The 21^st Century Engineer"

SPONSORSHIP

TELCORDIA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

DISCOVERY CENTER OF THE COLLEGE OF STATEN ISLAND

High School Design Competitions and ASEE Regional Conferences:

Preliminary Data from the Competition held at the spring 2000 Mid Atlantic Conference

Joseph A. Betz, Associate Professor

Department of Architecture and Construction Management

State University of New York at Farmingdale

Abstract

The Creative Crane Competition was held at SUNY Farmingdale on Friday, April 14, 2000 as part of the ASEE Spring 2000 Mid Atlantic Conference to promote interest in engineering and technology among high school students. This paper will act as a blueprint for successfully developing and marketing future student competitions as part of ASEE Regional Conferences. Some of the topics briefly covered will include development of rules, laboratory experiments and assignments, costs and funding, marketing and delivery, external steering committees, and day of the competition items and activities. Outcome survey data from on-line teacher and student participants will also be presented. The paper will also informally note the growth and success of this competition in its second year as a stand-alone event and recruiting tool but will not present outcome data from this period.

Introduction

The Creative Crane Competition was held at SUNY Farmingdale on Friday, April 14, 2000 as part of the ASEE Spring 2000 Mid Atlantic Conference. The competition was established to promote interest in engineering and technology among high school students. It was one of the first-of-its-kind to deliver a comprehensive competition entirely over the Internet. A two-part activity, it consisted first of a series of learning modules that introduced various engineering concepts similar to a science laboratory course and second, the application of those concepts in a design problem. Designed with strong pedagogical underpinnings as a classroom learning activity, this competition fully integrated components of Mathematics, Science and Technology along with the new State learning standards. Student learning was conducted in a cooperative environment that emphasized teamwork. Assessment of learning was based on the comprehensive review of all team portfolios showing successful completion of assignments and laboratory experiments, in-depth team interviews by judges and the actual testing of design solutions in a competition environment.

Background

Competitions by their very nature promote excitement, interest and reward excellence. This may be why we have so many student competitions. The challenge in starting a competition was how to reach the target audience, high school students, from afar in academia. Since it was not feasible for academia to make a direct connection to the target audience a surrogate was needed. The surrogate used were high school technology teachers, who share a kinship to college professors. They would promote the competition on behalf of academia to the students. The argument used in approaching the surrogate was that we needed to work together in a mutually beneficial way to promote interest in engineering and technology among perspective high school students. If we did so, this partnership would potentially increase enrollments in both elective high school technology courses and collegiate engineering or engineering technology programs.

The second issue was to develop a quality competition that was different than any of the current technology competitions. The field is filled with many technology competitions that test problem solving skills and teamwork but lack the rigorous application and integration of academic tools. This problem is rooted in Industrial Arts Education’s vocational or occupational nature, which has resulted in a disconnection with traditional academic subjects. Having evolved from this tradition, there is a certain amount of contention as to just how much of this underlying philosophy Technology Education still uses in practice. The history in this educational area has been one of problem solving by trial and error and "gadget-eering," and not the application and integration of rigorous scientific models of analysis and mathematical tools and this method is more often than not exclusively used in the design process.

Thus the competition became an opportunity for secondary and post secondary educators to collaborate on common goals and to work on a new learning model for a competition. College faculty advocated a rigorous academic approach and methodology to the competition and high school teachers grounded these lofty ideals in both an attainable classroom environment and one their students would enjoy. The ASEE Regional Conference thus became an incentive and set a deadline for the entire process.

Development

The competition was to be based on a simple concept of lifting an object. We selected this because there were no existing competitions and the idea itself provided a rich conceptual platform. The starting point from here was the design of a series of laboratory experiments around a series of visually simple demonstrations that showed basic engineering concepts such as compression, tension, bending and rotation. The demonstrations needed to target a wide range of student abilities (9-12) and technology courses offered, including World of Technology, Design and Drafting for Production (DDP), Architectural Drafting, Principles of Engineering (POE), Independent Study, Club Activity, etc. These experiments for showing these concepts also needed to be inexpensive to build and conduct. Several prototypical laboratory testing apparatus were finally developed to show these concepts. Assembly drawings were produced for mass production and marketing. Directions for each laboratory experiment including short explanations, charts, graphs and questions were included. Rules, standards, allowable competition parts, approved manufactures, amounts and limitations, etc., were all set. Emphasis was also placed on cooperative learning and a team approach to problem solving similar to a real world work environment that included a wide range of investigative learning activities and management skills. Finally, a comprehensive way of assessing both the team’s scope and depth of work.

The next step in the process was to effectively market, and distribute information about, the competition. The competition would be a success, and the effort deemed worthwhile, if between 6 and 10 districts took part in the activity. Based on a five-percent marketing response, all 160 districts on Long Island would be targeted for promotion. In addition, the competition packet consisted upward of twenty pages of rules, laboratory experiments and other information, a costly printing and mailing operation. A decision was made to place the entire competition package on the Internet as the most cost-effective way of distribution. Flyers were mailed to all Technology Education Departments on Long Island. The local Technology Education Associations also agreed to let the college promote the competition at their conferences, workshops and in their newsletters.

Enough emphasized can not be placed on the important role the outside technology teacher based steering committee played in the development and marketing process. The two critical roles this committee brought to this process were one, a full understanding of the behavioral and learning styles of the 9-12 grade students, and two, the introduction, acceptance and importantly the legitimacy of this competition as a worthwhile activity among the technology education teachers.

Costs & Funding

The total cost of the competition is best understood in its component parts of time and money. The final analysis of costs would reveal the competition was extremely time-consuming to develop and run but surprisingly inexpensive from a financial aspect to host. The final costs were about $500.00 in direct costs and 400 man-hours of time. Initial projected estimates either underestimated the time involved and overestimated the financial commitment. Table A and Table B in the Appendix show a breakdown of all time and money spent.

The competition was funded by the ASEE Spring 2000 Mid Atlantic Conference fees and indirectly through corporate sponsorship from Symbol Technologies. Through the Dean’s office, the college underwrote the indirect costs and justified the expense as part of student recruitment and marketing. Because the actual financial costs of the competition were essentially insignificant, corporate sponsorship’s real value is in the reputational capital it provided to prospective participants in the competition.

Competition Day

Eight districts from across Long Island entered between one and three teams in the competition, each team having a maximum of three students. Districts that participated included Shoreham-Wading River SD, Lindenhurst SD, Islip SD, Eastern Suffolk BOCES, Garden City SD, Mount Sinai SD, and West Hempstead SD. Teachers from a half dozen additional high schools attended the event to prepare their students for next years competition.

The cranes were judged on their overall lifting capacity, a team portfolio documenting the required learning modules and process and an interview. The interviews gave students an opportunity to explain their designs in detail and tell how they applied the various engineering concepts they learned. While the scores were being tallied students and teachers enjoyed a lunch of pizza, soda and dessert. During the lunch, an industry speaker gave a talk of the importance of teamwork and the application of Mathematics, Science and Technology in corporate product research and development. After lunch, the winners were announced. The following day, during the ASEE Regional Conference, first, second and third place team plaques were given out.

Outcome Surveys

An on-line teacher and student outcome assessment survey was conducted approximately two weeks after the competition event at SUNY Farmingdale. For a number of reasons, only about 60% of the total number of students and 70% of the teachers participated in the survey. The student survey is presented in Appendix Item C and the teacher survey is in Appendix Item D. The data presented gives us more of an indication rather than a statistically conclusive answer as to the success or failure of the project. The best overall inference from the outcome assessment is that the competition met its pedagogical goals. This is based on student questions 1-3 that asked about the value of the laboratory experiments, the use of Mathematics and Science, and team learning. The students also enjoyed the competition day but that did not translate into promoting more interest in this activity or career as indicated in questions 6 and 7. The teacher survey was designed to give an indication of potential problems with the learning activities and the logistics in participating in the competition. Their input helped identify and rank modifications to the competition in the future. What was not measured from the outcome assessments is the invaluable partnership and dialogue created between secondary and post secondary educators and the subtle marketing effect on students visiting and interacting with faculty from the college.

Conclusion

So what did we learn from the competition and was it worth it? First, this competition created a mutually beneficial dialogue between secondary and post secondary education. Second, it was by most accounts an excellent learning activity for students. Third, the competition did bring a sense of personal satisfaction in knowing that the effort did make a real difference to some of the students and teachers. That said, the competition did raise more important questions. Will the new level of communication between educators translate into more students for either secondary courses or post secondary programs? Are the hundreds of hours spent working on a project worth the investment or should they be used for other activities? Both questions are very difficult to answer and justify to colleagues and administrators. In the final analysis, the answer is yes because without taking up the challenge to help inspire and promote student excellence, our educational system risks becoming mundane.

The success of the first year of the competition by the participating teachers resulted in holding the competition the second year as a stand-alone event. Proper outcome surveying along with steering committee input yielded a number of changes in the competition the second year. Corporate sponsorship by one of the regions premier high technology companies along with highly structured teacher workshops, standardized competition kits, and the momentum of the first year yielded a three-fold increase in the number of school districts participating in the second year. As we approach the third year, the circle of refinement and improvement should translate into a two or three-fold increase from last year’s participation.

Table A

Table B

* Indirect cost incurred and underwritten by the college.

Creative Crane Competition - Student Survey

Creative Crane Competition - Teacher Survey

For problems or questions regarding this web contact the web site designer.
Web site under construction and last updated: November 09, 2001.