FirstSearch: Marked Categories Page 6 of 37 65741766" PENDING - Lender Genenat RECORD INFORMATION Request | Identifier: 05741768 Status: PENDING 20100514 Source: ILLiad men: 082 5 Renewal Request: New Due Date: hd, c Title: Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent / ISBN: 9781412949712 (cloth Imprint: Thousand Oaks, Cali, : Sage Publications, ©2009. Verified: OCLC BoRnowine INFORMATION Patron: Gordon, Jessica (1-AUS VIA TAE)- ILS/UT Libraries! University of Texas at Austin/P.O. Box P /Austin, TX /8713-8916. (For UPS/Fed-Ex use-- ILS-Perry Castaneda Library/101 E. 21st ST, First FL Dock/Austin, TX 78705. ARIEL 128.83.205.172 Bill To: S276! BLOSG USER ACCOUNT 51-0061 JISBE ACCOUNT #2686 FEIN 746000203 RIELIODYSSEY/FAX/COURIER/MAIL, Ship To: Ship Vie Electronic Deliver Maximum Cost: IFM- $45 Copyright Compliance Fax: Odyssey - 146.6.140.20/IKA None 512-495-4283 Email ilsreq@lib.utexas.edu Affi ‘SHRSIGWLA/TEXSHARE/Other Reciprocals as Arranged Borrowing Notes: if unable to loan, please copy or scan chapter on Rocketry by Petrosino - thank you LENDING INFORMATION Lending Charges: Shipp Ship Insurance: Lending Notes: io http://www. firstsearch.ocle.org/WebZ/SageRetrieveMarkedCategories?sessionid=fsapp8-4... 5/19/2010jncrease the number of students who are chat ved toward fields in science, technology, engi- mening, and mathematics (STEM). With the owth of programs and competitions since the jae 1980s and the increased availability of robot- ies kits, robotics programming software, and cur- falar resources, K-12 educators now have a Iacge body of resources from which to draw. Tools The basic tools of robotics education include a robotics building kit, software with which to pro- gram the robot, and a problem-based instructional design. A variety of robotics kits are available for school- and home use. Some of the most popular kits—the LEGO Mindstorms kits—have incorpo- rated the familiar, easy-to-use LEGO building materials with simple, intuitive software to create robotics packages that are readily available for the mass market. Vex Robotics Design Systems offers 4 more advanced platform, providing a more com- viex opproach to robot design, Robotics Competitions Arguably one of the most widely’ kriown com- petitions is the FIRST (For. Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology) Robotics ‘Competition, created by Dean Kamen in 1989 to attract young people to science and engineering. Kamen, whose company created such modern technologies as the Segway personal transporter and the IBOT—a wheelchair that can climb st and traverse rough terrain—had a vision for cre- ating a program to attract young people to sci- ence and engineering. The FIRST Robotics League Competitions aim to give students opportunities 'o participate in fun, healthy competitions where they can put their engineering skills, creative inge- nuity, and teamwork skills to the test. With pro- grams now expanded to include students as young as 6, the FIRST progam has more than 150,000 student robotics competitors in 33 nations each year. Other popular competitions and educational programs include Botball and the BEST (Boosting Engineering, Science, and Technology) competition. Kristina Ayers Paul Rocketry 743, See also Competitions; Creativity in Engineering: ‘Creativity in Science; Extracuricular Activites, Inquiry; Technology Further Readings National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2008). Robotics curriculum clearinghouse. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from http//robotics.nasa.govlrec National Aeronautics and Space Administration. (2008). ‘The robotics alliance project. Retrieved May 14, 2008, from httpsfroboties.nasa.govfindex.php Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon University betpufeww.r.cmueda US FIRST Robotics: hrp:/mww.esfrstorg ROCKETRY The opportunity to build and launch rockets has been a continuing success story in the area of hands-on scienge educstinn, especially for gifted and talented children. Yet what do. students actu- ally learn from these experiences? This entry examines effective structuring of model rocket activity specifically, but also looks at the bigger picture of the structure of hands-on activities for gifted students, ‘A widespread interpretation of Piagetian theory favors an oversensitivity to the things a child can- not do cognitively rather than a more optimistic and challenging emphasis on what children could do easily with the proper instructional sequence, structure, and social support. This optimistic and empowering emphasis on the child’s early compe- tence and strength is both a more empowering basis for science instruction for the gifted child and is in accord with current learning theory. Moreover, much of this work looks upon the child in isola~ tion rather than as a part of a community of learn- cers like that in which rocket scientists engage in on. a daily basis. For instance, the scientist engages intellectually with colleagues at conferences, graduate students in labs, students in classes, and receives feedback ‘on manuscripts from reviewers. What a rich com> munity the rocket scientist belongs to. How can classrooms be structured to take advantage of these social practices of the rocket scientist?744 Rocketry Hierarchy of Classroom Goals or Experimentation Unit Launch Report | Launch Report Launch Report Rounded vs Painted vs 3Fing vs. 4 Fins Pointed Unpainted Nose Cone Fuselage [ classroom Databas Design Features Launch Path Diagram Air Temperature Metorciogica Data Height of Tra ‘Build and Lauineh Build and Launch 3 Fins vs. 4 Fins Founded ve. Pinted Nose Cone ‘Classroom Database Design Foatures Air Temperature Metaroigical Data { Classroom Database Design Features Launch Path Diagram ‘Ar Temperature Materlogial Data Height of Tia Build and Launch Painted vs. Unpainted Fuselage Request for Design Letter Figure | Activity Structure for Proposed Model Rocket Activity Effective learning experiences are often orga~ nized around a driving question. Frequently, how- ever, the question that drives a project is not crafted to make connections between activities and the underlying conceptual knowledge that one might hope to foster. Although the opportunity for deep learning is there, it often does not occur because of the tendency in these hands-on approaches to get caught up in the action without appropriate opportunities for reflection and revi- sion, In such cases, the “doing” of an activity takes precedence over “doing with understanding.” An} : t i example of the need for a well-crafted, driving ‘question comes from projects in model rocketry. ‘Thousands of classrooms throughout the country engage in similar types of activities. The opportu- nities to build and launch rockets have been extremely popular for students, teachers, and par- ents. Launchings frequently attract press attention, with footage shown on local news programs. A great deal of recent research has explored whether it is possible to deepen students” under- standing by creating the social structures of the scientists (this is sometimes called “participatory practices”) without dampening students’ enthusi- asm. For instance, can students learn about experi- ‘mentation and measurement if they have an appropriate driving question behind a model rocket project? To examine this issue, it is necessary to add 2 learning-appropriate goal to the standard model rocket project that motivates the use of scientific and statistical methods. Indeed, there are many rea~ sons to proclaim such projects a success. But what do students actually learn from their experiences? Researelihas fount! that many students who com=~ pleted the traditional rock@t project learned rélas tively little from the hands-on activity of simply making and launching their rockets. They did not,” for example, understand what madé’a “better: dt worse rocket, and they did not understand howto. evaluate the effectiveness of their rockets in any systematic way. One reason for this may be that the students did not have a driving question that could foster focused inquiry. For example, when students were asked what they thought about the purpose of the activity, a typical response was, “You know, to build them and see how high they will go.” ‘More often than not, when rocketry is used in the classroom, teachers build the rockets, launch them, and then watch as the students run to catch the rockets as they fall to the ground. Students should be engaged in every phase of rocketry. In setting up this activity itis possible to use a design letter as an anchoring activity. An anchor is an activity that allows for continued and deepening exploration and that is designed to pose and solve complex, realistic problems. This letter not only calls for the building and launching of a model rocker{s) but also the measuring of the height it reaches, comparing effectiveness of various design plans, and a final weitcen report. Moreover, the way this problem is set up, students do not compete, but ‘Further Readings Roeper Review 745 rather cooperate as they attempt to figure out the best design attributes for reaching maximum height. ‘The attributes that are compared are(a) nose-cone shape, (b) surface smoothness, and (c) number of fins (see Figure 1). In this way, students learn about experimentation as well as model rocketry. Students are more likely to leam te design goals, and to learn important skills like controlled experimentation and methods of measurement that would help achieve these goals. Not only do students understand what they are trying to learn, but this knowledge appears to help them direct their learning. In addition, students may have an increased ability to generate their own questions t0 guide their scientific inquiry. Anthony J. Petrosino See also Elementary School, Science Curriculum; Middle School, Science Curriculum; Science, Curriculum; Scientists; Barron, B. J. Schwartz, D. L., Wye, N. J., Moore, A.. © Petrosino, A. J, Zech, Leta. (1998). Doing with understanding: Lessons from research and project- based learning. Jourhal of the Learning Sciences, 7(3], 271-3117. Lehres,R, Schauble,L., & Peteosino, A. (2001) Reconsidering the role of experiment in science education. fo K. Crowley, C.D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwwab, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Petrosino, A. J., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Structuring error and experimental variation as distribution inthe fourth grade. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, (2 8 3), 131-156 Sneider, C., Kurlich, K., Pulos, $., & Friedman, ‘A. (1984). Learning to contol variables with model rockers: A neo-Piagetian study of learning in field settings. Science Education, 68(4), 465-486, Roeper Review ‘The Roeper Review is one of the leading scholarly journals serving gifted education and related