Monday, August 14, 2006

Engineering and Technology Curriculum Development

Using Entertainment Technology To Teach Physics

There is an insufficient amount of qualitative and/or quantitative research available as to the effectiveness of using educational entertainment as a motivator for studying engineering and technology-related subjects. The integration of entertainment technologies with core academic subjects establishes a foundation for learning that can stimulate curiosity, inspire as well as inform, motivate change, encourage people to take action, plus help shape the way we perceive the world. An examination and exploration of how entertainment can be combined with education may help us to produce more effective and empowering learning experiences (http://www.users.nac.net/, 2001). Entertainment technologies such as video games, computers, music CD’s, DVD videos, digital film, cartoon and 3-D animation are being used to achieve specific educational objectives. Hence, the utilization of entertainment in technology education may tender prospective solutions to fostering engineering-like thinking especially as it relates to physics (science) education.

Because a number of students lack a genuine interest in physics, instructional principles and strategies are needed to reach a wider audience and make physics more interesting, relevant and meaningful to students. An examination of physics concepts [by means of an engineering and technology-related approach] via entertainment technologies has the potential to provide a more enriching educational experience for those students who might ordinarily be reluctant or even averse to study physics. For this reason, the application of entertainment in technology education may proffer some solutions to enhancing the quality of instruction as it relates to physics education.

Since the infusion of engineering design concepts and principles is now at the forefront of issues concerning content standards for technology education, a re- examination of physics instructional principles and strategies that exploit entertainment technologies is exigent to meeting the needs of a new generation of learners living in technologically-driven society. Processes in technology education are often based on how engineers think and what engineers do. Furthermore, physics is fundamental to many areas of engineering plus provides the basis for countless technological developments. Since physics permeates the engineering field, an ample perception of physics can facilitate students’ cognitive ability to understand basic engineering and technological skills more swiftly. Moreover, the study of physics primes students for greater proficiency when studying subject matter that requires a higher level of thinking. Unaware of the significant impact that physics has on modern society, many students lack the desire or interest to learn physics. These issues are forcing educators to develop new and innovative ways of teaching physics.

In light of the aforementioned issues, the proposed project will investigate the use of educational entertainment as a method of fostering interest in the study of physics concepts and principles among 9th grade students. The objective of this project is to design and test a prototype learning module that employs entertainment technologies, namely cartoon animation, as a delivery system for conveying physics concepts and principles by using engineering and technology education as a content organizer. To further build on the concepts conveyed in the cartoon animated series, students will explore the subject physics concepts via hands-on/minds-on learning and will document their activities in an engineering journal or notebook. These activities will help reinforce concepts presented in the cartoon component.

Significance of Study
Being that many students are adverse to or have difficulty understanding and/or applying scientific principles, learning units that use cartoon animation as a delivery mechanism have the potential to foster greater student interest in physics, and, in turn, may lead to the development of higher order cognitive abilities.

As a culmination to the project, students will exercise their metacognitive abilities to demonstrate their knowledge and understanding of the content matter by documenting their learning experiences. Using an engineering notebook or journal students will write about the paths that their minds followed as they engaged and explored the learning material. Some students may choose to write a fictional story that demonstrates their understanding of the material. These stories will be used to evaluate structural or behavioral characteristics peculiar to 9th grade students participating in science, technology, engineering and mathematically-related studies. Moreover, these metacognitive accounts will be used as an assessment or evaluation tool to guage the effectiveness of the subject project-based learning module and to provide statistical data that validates the effectiveness of engineering and technology education as a content organizer for core academic subjects.

Target Population
The proposed curriculum model will be developed for interdisciplinary educational environments, such as those found in Small Learning Communities (SLC’s) to report and predict engineering design and /or technology concepts and principles. The intent is to learn how 9-12 grade students employ their metacognitive abilities to develop conceptual metaphors, analogies, narratives, and/or stories to convey their understanding of engineering concepts and principles. The following paragraphs give a brief overview and outline of the proposed curriculum model. I will be publishing each activity on-line in the near future. The outline below is worded in a manner that orientates the reader as to the style of delivery that will be used.

Overview of Project-Based Learning Segments

Science and Engineers
Engineers apply scientific principles to solve problems and design useful products. Without science many of the technologies that we enjoy in our daily lives would not exist. Physics is a branch of science that involves the study of the interaction between matter and energy. Moreover, physics involves the study of the natural or material world and phenomena. The study of physics is grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics. All of these areas involve aspects of engineering. The investigation of science concepts is an important part of engineering and will be the focus of this project-based learning activity. In this particular curriculum model, we will exploit the use of the Five E' s of science education.

The Five E's Approach to Science Education

Engage
The first phase involves providing students with an exciting or exhilarating intervention, such as demonstrating circular motion concepts using spinning tops or gyroscopes in order to capture the attention of students. This first phase involves introducing the students to the topic of circular motion by providing some sort of interactive experience and/or demonstration of the concepts to be explored.

Explore
In the second phase, students are introduced to materials that they can use to experiment with in order to gain first-hand experience with the phenomenon. This phase provides the students with an opportunity to embody each circular motion concept via hands-on activities which are outlined in each circular motion module (See Modules: Forces and vectors, plane polar coordinates, etc). Students will record/document their experiences and observations through journal writing, audio-visual recordings, and/or drawing. Students will keep an account of each activity and will need to have the facilitator sign off on their activity sheets before moving on to the next one. At some point in the exploration phase, the class will be introduced to concept mapping and will begin to make associations to prior knowledge and what they have just learned.

Explain
Phase three involves transforming the abstract experiences of students into a form that can be situated, contextualized, understood and communicated by the learner. The facilitator will help elucidate meaning of abstract (i.e. circular motion concepts) experiences by giving the students an opportunity to communicate their experiences through language and communicable labels (i.e. engineering notebook/journal and concept mapping).

Elaborate
Phase four involves expanding on the knowledge that was gained by the students in the first three phases. The ultimate objective is for students to make real-world connections which transcend what they have learned in the classroom. Students will conduct further research into circular motion concepts (e.g. history and uses of gyroscopes). They will research real-world applications for regarding circular motion (i.e. gyroscopes, motorcycles, CMG’s, inertial guidance, Helicopter blades, etc.). For example, a student who is interested in sports may want to explore the rotational kinetic energy exhibited by a spiraling football or even a baseball, Frisbee, or boomerang after they have been thrown. Moreover, transferability of concepts learned in the classroom is desired and students should begin to identify and extrapolate meaning and make connections with other related phenomenon in their environments.

Evaluate
Evaluation of student understanding is a continuous process that identifies if the student has reached a concrete level of understanding. Evaluation goes on throughout each stage and serves as a teacher’s guide for planning future lessons. With the lessons learned teachers can modify, make improvements or further refine the instructional model as necessary to accommodate the variety of different learning styles or preferences of students. By viewing the evaluation process as an open-ended, continuous cycle exemplifies the constructivist approach to learning as it treats the learning process as a dynamic (versus static) continuum that allows room for change.

The subject curriculum model is based on research that I have been conducting for the National Center of Engineering and Technology Education (See NCETE link below) at Utah State University concerning cognitive science in engineering and technology education.

This site provides background literature and information pertaining to pedagogical approaches that deliver science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) ideas. Being that many students are adverse or have difficulty understanding and/or applying math and science in the real world, the employment of engineering and technology education will be used as an organizing mechanism to provide relevant reference frames for math and science education. Hence, BlackSpace Digital and its affiliates are dedicated to exploring alternative methods of renewing and/or gaining student interest in professional careers that apply math and science concepts and principles, i.e. the world of engineering and technology.

Shapes of Things to Come
The following posts provide information about the research that I have been conducting in regards to learning theories that address effective teaching methods and how they relate to engineering and technology education. The following posts presents the background literature for the engineering and technology curriculum model that is currently being developed and sets the foundation for modular units that will be an integral part of the curriculum model.

Systems Thinking: Unified Field Curriculum Theory

Running Head: Unified Field Curriculum Theory

Keywords: Engineering and Technological Literacy, Cognition, Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development, Systems thinking.

Zanj K. Avery
Utah State University

Abstract
The intent of this study is to speculate about the future of education and to present alternative approaches to the management of educational programs as it pertains to school wide instructional improvement. Moreover, this paper examines a growing educational issue that concerns enhancing the ability of students to compete in a global economy. To address this need, students need to become more technologically literate, while concurrently, developing the cognitive abilities and skills that aid in systems thinking (learning). The interdisciplinary nature of systems thinking is discussed as it relates to the interaction of core academic concepts and principles. Hence, educational leaders have begun to seek innovative methods for school wide instructional improvement while managing educational programs that unify seemingly unrelated branches of learning, such as, math, science, reading, writing, etc. In addition this paper explores how engineering and technology education can proffer solutions to increasing student interest in their core academic subjects while improving teacher efficacy and establishing a learning environment that provides greater thoroughness (rigor) and relevance for students.

Interdisciplinary Curriculum Development, Systems Thinking and the Quest for a Unified Field Theory of Education

Introduction
Academic subjects are fragmented into content areas that are interdependent in the real world. (Forrester, 1992) Core academic subjects, such as reading, writing, math, social studies, physics, etc., are divided into seemingly unrelated subjects as if there was no overlap between these content areas. Moreover, “students are expected to create a unity from the fragments of educational experiences, even though their teachers have seldom achieved that unity.” (Forrester, 1996). For this reason, momentum is growing amongst educators that seek a unified field theory of education that invariably connects all branches of learning (CED, 2003).

More and more Americans are beginning to realize that schools are failing to prepare students with the necessary skills to make a successful transition into the world of work, in addition to, meeting the requirements of staying globally competitive in an ever increasing world of rapid technological change (Friedman, 2005). The movement to connect all branches of learning may offer some solutions to this growing concern. This effort, in turn, requires students to become more technologically literate.

In 1998, President Clinton, addressed the issue of technological literacy by identifying the need for connecting “every classroom and library to the internet by the year 2000 and help students become more technologically literate.” (Clinton, 1998). Many educational leaders and teachers alike concur with Clinton’s focus on the level of technological literacy and seek to provide curriculum that meet the needs of this endeavor. As Raizen, Sellwood, Todd, and Vickers (1995) suggested, the study of technology needs to include a broad array of interactive learning opportunities for students to familiarize themselves with tools and resources that aid in the development of higher order cognitive skills and abilities. Developing these cognitive skills and abilities will greatly benefit students as they make the transition from school to career or as competitors in the global marketplace.

Pursuant to meeting the ever-increasing needs of a technologically-driven society, the main purpose of this study is to explore the concepts and principles of interdisciplinary learning strategies [i.e., systems thinking (learning)] that can aid educational leaders with transforming schools into centers of learning that can satisfy the growing demands of a technologically-driven society. The overall objective is to explore alternative approaches to the management of school systems, and to proffer ideas as it concerns a) instructional strategies and principles that will help encourage students to be more technologically literate, in addition to, b) cultivating a learning environment that provides greater relevance (real world connections) to students. Implications for engineering and technology educational leadership is also discussed as it concerns potential instructional vehicles that can facilitate interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning).

Background Literature
Glickman, Gordon and Gordon (2004) affirmed that school wide instructional improvement, according to effective schools research, is a fundamental component in the development of effective schools requiring the collaboration and participation of many disciplines; it should be a collective effort of faculty, school administrators, parents and students. “…when teachers accept common goals for students and therefore complement each other’s teaching, and when supervisors work with teachers in a manner consistent with the way teachers are expected to work with students, then-and only then-does the school reach its goals.” (Glickman, Gordon, & Gordon, 2004 pp. 9). This form of interdisciplinary education, which will be referred to as the Unified Field Theory of Education, would allow K-12 curriculums to be organized in a spiral fashion so that students repeatedly build upon what they have already learned. These implications are especially important to Engineering and Technology Education (ETE) because they can help increase awareness among general educators while strengthening ETE’s potential to serve as a unifier of seemingly non-interacting subject matter.

The Relationship Between Unified Field Theory and Systems Thinking (learning).
Unified field theory, also referred to as Theory of Everything (TOE, for short), is the long-sought after/age-old pursuit of connecting or linking all known phenomena in the universe. Such a theory seeks to explain the structure and behavior of all energy/matter in existence and would permit us to tap into the secrets of the natural universe. The discovery of a unified field theory would unite seemingly unrelated fields (an area influenced by some force, such as gravity or electricity) to produce a single all-inclusive set of equations (whatis.techtarget.com, 2000). The applications for a unified field theory in education would facilitate interdisciplinary learning and teaching, and, in effect, promote systems thinking.

Just as the scientific definition of the Unified Field Theory (UFT) attempts to connect seemingly unrelated fields of energy/matter, the Unified Field Theory of Education (UFTE) would potentially unite seemingly unrelated branches of knowledge, teaching and learning. Systems thinking (learning) represents the string or thread that fastens or binds educational disciplines together. Systems thinking, as it concerns interdisciplinary learning, is an approach to education that organizes instructional content so that students better understand how parts of a system interact with one another to make a whole. According to the Wikipedia definition, “Systems thinking is a worldview based on the perspective of the systems sciences, which seeks to understand interconnectedness, complexity and wholeness of components of systems in specific relationship to each other.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking).

System thinkers oscillate between constructivist and reductionist views of cognition. The reductionist aspect of thinking enables one to understand the individual components of a system, and the constructivist aspect attempts to understand how these components interact with one another (Bertalanffy, 1968). The reasoning behind systems thinking (learning) is: what students learn in the classroom should prime them for real world encounters. In general, system thinkers address the basic structures of all systems in their environments (Forrester, 1997).
System dynamics, which is the basis of systems thinking (learning), is a discipline that studies how things change over time and has been under development at MIT since the 1950’s. It was once limited to the study of how the policies of corporations affect success and failures but has now transcended the confines of the corporate world and branched out into the educational domain (Forester, 1997).

In order to better understand the benefits of interdisciplinary education (or the unified field theory approach to education) it is informative to explore the cognitive underpinnings that contribute to successful learning. Hence the next section will discuss the implications that cognitive research has in relationship to education, more specifically, engineering and technology education, and how these areas can be used to promote or foster or cultivate an acceptable model for this numinous unified field theory (or interdisciplinary curriculum design).

Cognitive science in relation to engineering and technology education
The mental process by which knowledge is obtained is called cognitive learning. Cognitive learning involves intellectual activities such as thinking, reasoning, remembering, imagining, or learning words. Cognitive science or the study of thinking and learning extend over across a wide variety of disciplines from developmental psychology to medicine. Engineering and technology education is no exception. Cognitive science, in relation to engineering and technology education, provides a foundation for understanding the nature of how the human mind interprets, analyzes and solves technical problems. Cognitive researchers attempt to discover if everything that humans know, such as, history, scientific knowledge, religious and political beliefs are shaped by humans through their language and vocabulary or, are there some aspects of thought that are universal (Notess, 2001). For example, 1+1=2 is a statement that is undistorted by emotion or personal bias and has the same connotation for everyone. Literature reveals that researchers in very diverse fields have embraced cognitive theories for developing instructional principles and strategies for teaching. These theories can be quite informative to engineering and technology educators as they strive to augment the cognitive reasoning skills of their students, especially as it relates to the communication of core academic subjects.

“True teaching is not an accumulation of knowledge; it is an awaking of consciousness which goes through successive stages.” (Diop, 1974)
Per the constructivist view of learning, education is student-centered; students have to construct knowledge themselves; learning is an extensive progression of accumulating new information and adding it to what is already known. Moreover, the understanding of applied math and science concepts, in conjunction with engineering and technology related concepts, involves a multitude of mental processes, including aspects such as awareness, perception, reasoning, judgment and/or intuition. The development of these mental processes requires a system of learning/teaching that a) reminds students about what they already know, b) makes use of analogies and metaphors, c) makes distinctions between new and old information, d) establishes a purpose for what is to be learned, e) encourages students to generate thought provoking questions, and f) encourages teachers to design activities based on real world situations. These associations allow the learner to understand and appreciate the workings of nature and the universe.

Engineering and technology education integrates a multitude of subject areas such as history, science, math, language, writing, and creative design. Because many of the concepts and principles inherent within engineering and technology education, a plethora of seemingly unrelated subjects can be organized and delivered via engineering and technology education. Hence, engineering and technology education has the potential to provide an instructional vehicle that facilitates interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning).

Constructivism and Cognition
Those who promote constructivism concur that cognitive structures that influence adaptive behavior is the result of an individual’s perception of stimuli from his/her environment, rather than the actual stimuli (Huitt, 2003). Bruner's constructivist theory is a general framework for instruction based upon the study of cognition. Child development research laid much of the groundwork for the theory (especially Piaget, 1972). The ideas outlined by Bruner (1960) originated from a conference focused on science and math learning. Bruner’s theory is exemplified in the context of mathematics and social science programs for young children (Bruner, 1973). Bruner’s (1966) position is that instructional strategies concentrate on the following four major components: a) Tendency or predisposition towards learning, b) The ways in which a body of knowledge can be structured so that it can be most readily grasped by the learner, c) The most effective sequences in which to present material, and d) The nature and pacing of rewards and punishments. Good methods for structuring knowledge should result in simplifying, generating new propositions, and increasing the manipulation of information. (Bruner, 1966).

More recently, Bruner (1986, 1990) has extended his theoretical framework to include the social and cultural viewpoints of education per the following: a) Instruction must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing and able to learn (readiness), b) Instruction must be structured so that it can be easily grasped by the student (spiral organization), c) Instruction should be designed to facilitate extrapolation and or fill in the gaps (going beyond the information given), d) Knowledge about one's own cognitive system, in other words, thinking about one's own thinking, is an essential skill for learning to learn, and e) Includes thoughts about (1) what we know or don't know and (2) regulating how we go about learning. (Bruner 1986, 1990)

A major premise in the theoretical framework of Bruner is that learning is an active process in which learners construct new ideas or concepts based upon their current/past knowledge. The learner chooses and transforms information, forms hypotheses, and makes judgments, relying on a cognitive structure to do so. Mental models are pertinent for engineering and technology educators because they help to form mental images or representations of physical systems and objects (Johnson and Thomas, 1994). Cognitive structure, more specifically schemata, and mental models, imparts significance and organization to experiences and allows the individual to expand beyond the information given.

As research advances in this field, evidence is surmounting that indicates the mental models that influence decisions and behavior can vary depending on the situation, environment, and/or the context of learning. This, in turn, increases the difficulty of making generalizations regarding outcomes that transverse the differences between task and knowledge domains (Doyle, 1997). Doyle (1997) recommends that the evaluation of systems thinking interventions should assess both behavioral and cognitive changes until we know more about the structure, substance, and the role of mental representations of systems as they relate to a specific research setting.

The limitations in student understanding of math, science, reading, and writing impede the development of higher order reasoning skills. If educators are to devise curriculums that are effective in the development of proficient thinkers, then cognitive research as it pertains to interdisciplinary education, more specifically, systems thinking (learning) is both exigent and momentous.
Discussion

Implications for ETE
Let us reconsider Bruner’s general framework for instruction based upon cognitive research. Bruner’s framework sheds light on a person’s predisposition towards learning, wherein the initial interest of the learner plays a major role in the education process. In other words, the learner has to be somewhat interested in what is being taught in order to develop his/her higher-order cognitive abilities. Otherwise, the learner loses interest quickly. From this, educators must be concerned with the experiences and contexts that make the student willing to learn, as well as, structuring information so that it can be easily grasped by the student. Hence, students have to build knowledge themselves while accumulating new information and adding this new information to what is already known. ETE, as it relates to interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning), provides real world connections plus a relevant reference frame for a multitude of content areas, especially as it concerns core academic subjects, such as, math and science education. This type of pedagogy also facilitates “deep thinking”, and, in turn, encourages students to generate questions, explanations, and summaries regarding a multitude of academic concepts and principles.

Although cognitive science, in relation to engineering and technology education, provides a foundation for understanding the nature of how the human mind interprets, analyzes and solves technical problems, forming connections between thinking and behavior can be misleading. Apparently, this presents a major dilemma when taking into account an individual’s personal knowledge, intellectual skills, attitudes, etc (Doyle, 1997). Hence, variables, such as learning contexts, situational variables, emotions, and learning outcomes, are important factors in producing explicit, adaptive behavior. According to Doyle (1997), these variables (i.e., attitudes, mental models, scripts, and schemas) are obviously linked to behavior, but the association is often multifaceted and contrary to what common sense would have us believe.

Final Note
Engineering has added a great deal to the quality of life that we take pleasure in today, and the prospects for the future are likely to be even better (National Academy of Engineering, The Engineer of 2020, 2004). A major issue for engineering and technology educators is making certain that students are provided with rigorous instruction that facilitates continued success as they progress along their academic path. We live in a world that is technologically driven and requires people to possess skills beyond just basic reading, writing, and math. These issues are forcing educators to rethink the way in which they instruct their students (Technology for All Americans Project, 1996).

Since engineering and technology influences almost every facet of our daily lives, it is important that citizens become somewhat technologically literate and have an elementary understanding of how the world functions around them, plus how to exist therein. Moreover, a good comprehension of systems thinking has great potential in facilitating teaching and student understanding of abstract academic concepts and principles, in effect, helping students to assimilate engineering and technology concepts more quickly plus would better prepare them for more advanced topics. If our schools systems, as it concerns interdisciplinary curriculums that employ systems thinking (learning), are to address the demands of the global marketplace, plus serve as a vehicle for fostering engineering/technological literacy, then it is critical that instructional leaders, educators and engineering/technology educators develop effective delivery systems so that students gain exposure to the world of applied learning. Moreover, classes devoted to systems thinking principles and practices, especially as it concerns engineering and technology education, should focus on helping students apply academics to real world situations.

Addendum: Future Objectives
Future objectives will involve using the knowledge obtained from this study to identify ways in which the professional development of teachers can be enhance by employing the engineering design process to deliver content from areas such as science, technology, art, writing, reading and math concepts and principles. The methodology of this approach is as follows: Teachers from a variety of disciplines including math, science, and technology education will participate in a professional development workshop involving the following three phases:

The first phase will involve laying the groundwork to prepare teachers to infuse engineering design into their respective programs using math, science (especially physics), and engineering design principles.

The second phase involves the use of an engineering design project model called “Elements of Design” that illustrates methods that can be used to develop interdisciplinary curriculum programs. The existing activity can be used as is or teachers can develop their own design activities based upon the underlying model of “Elements of Design”

The third phase will involve a follow up study to assess the efficacy of the extant or underlying model of design. This will inform future studies as it pertains to the design of professional development workshops plus identify areas that need improvement. Data will be collected from participants regarding the quality and outcomes of the professional development. The participants also will develop a portfolio of resource materials collected in a project binder.
Significance of the workshop for instructional leaders is to better understand models for professional development that foster self-efficacy and collegiality among faculty, in addition to, providing teachers with an underlying model that enhances teaching and facilitates student learning as it concerns interdisciplinary and/or systems thinking (learning) programs.

Desired outcomes of this professional development workshop include:

Establishment of a common culture and unification of goals amongst pedagogical disciplines.

Reduce seclusion or isolation of teachers.

Encourage discussion and sharing amongst teachers as it pertains to interdisciplinary learning and the reality of what is occurring in individual classrooms.

Design effective professional development workshops that improve teaching and learning for teachers and students.

Foster constructive staff relationships.

Upon returning to the classroom, teachers' feel that they are able to better engage the interests of students by organizing educational topics, such as math, science, reading and writing, in a manner that: a) provides relevant reference frames and b) connects to real world situations.


References

Bertalanffy, Ludwig von (1968). General System Theory: Foundations,
Development, Applications New York: George Braziller

Brown, A. L. (1978). Knowing when, where, and how to remember: A problem of
metacognition. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1966). Toward a Theory of Instruction. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Bruner, J. (1973). Going Beyond the Information Given. New York: Norton.

Bruner, J. (1983). Child's Talk: Learning to Use Language. New York: Norton.

Bruner, J. (1986). Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.

Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Committee on Economic Development. (2003). Learning for the Future: Changing the
Culture of Math And Science Education to Ensure A Competitive Workforce. Retrieved on October 29, 2005, from http://www.ced.org/docs/report/report_scientists.pdf.

Diop, A.C. (1974). The African origins of civilization; myth or reality (Cook, M, Trans.)

New York: Westport (Original work published 1967).

Doyle, J. K. (1997). The cognitive psychology of systems thinking. System Dynamics
Review, 13(3): 253-265.

Feil, Adam J. (2002). Talking Physics: How the Ability to Communicate
PhysicsConcepts Affects Learning. Retrieved November 21, 2005, from http://www.physics.uiuc.edu/research/PER/Adam/adam_thesis.pdf#search='limitations%20in%20student%20understanding%20physics'

Forrester, Jay W. (1992). System Dynamics and Learner Centered Learning in
Kindergarten through 12th Grade Education. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4337.pdf

Forrester, Jay W. (1996). System Dynamics and K-12 Teachers. Retrieved November 11,
2005, from http://sysdyn.clexchange.org/sdep/papers/D-4665-4.pdf

Hacker, Douglas J (1998) Metacognition: Definitions and Empirical Foundations
Retrieved December 1, 2005, from http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/trg/meta.htm

Huitt, W. (2003). Metacognition. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA:
Valdosta State University. Retrieved November 11, 2005, from
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/metacogn.html.

Johnson, Scott D., Thomas, Ruth, G. (1994). Implication of Cognitive Science for
Instructional Design in Technology Education. The Journal of Technology Studies, pg. 34.

McGee, Bruce G. (1997). Multimedia - Effectiveness in the Learning Environment:
A Review of Literature. Retrieved October 30, 2005, from,
National Academy of Engineering, (2004). The Engineer of 2020, Washington, D.C.: The
National Academy of Science.

Nash, Patrick L. (2005). A Message From The Chair. Retrieved November 15, 2005,
from, http://physics.utsa.edu/about%20us.htm.
Notess, Charles (2001). Glossary. Retrieved October 28, 2005, from
www.greeleynet.com/~cnotess/gloss.htm.

Piaget, J. (1972). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Definition for “Unified Field Theory” retrieved from (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci554508,00.html on April 2, 2006

Technology for All Americans Project. (2003). Promoting Technological Literacy for All Students. Retrieved August 18, 2003, from www.iteawww.org/TAA/TAA.html