Åse Håtveit, Simone Mora, Titus Venverloo, Fábio Duarte, Monica Divitini
pp. 54 – 68, download
(https://doi.org/10.55612/s-5002-062-004)
Abstract
Sustainability has become an important topic in higher edu- cation, with low-cost and open-source sensing platforms for urban monitoring emerging as tools to engage students in formal and informal learning experiences. In this context, we present our experience with the design and implementation of a five-day summer school aimed at teaching urban sensing techniques. The summer school engaged graduate students from diverse disciplines, including engineering, architecture, environmental science, and social science. Participants gained hands-on experience with designing and executing urban sensing experiments to investigate research questions developed by the participants, using an open-source urban sensing platform provided to the students. They also developed scientific literacy skills such as problem elaboration, data visualization, and communication with non-experts. The impact of the summer school was evaluated via interviews, digital surveys, and author observations, unveiling three key themes: effective teaching practices for urban mapping tools, factors inhibiting learning, and factors promoting scientific literacy. We discuss how our findings can be applied to the development of similar learning initiatives.
Keywords: Urban sensing, Internet of Things, Environmental science, Learning, Collaboration, Workshop.
CRediT Authors Statement. Åse Håtveit: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Writing – Original Draft. Simone Mora: Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – Reviewing and Editing. Titus Venverloo: Supervision, resources, Methodology. Fabio Duarte: Funding acquisition, Supervision, writing – review & editing. Monica Divitini: Funding acquisition, Supervision, writing – reviewing & editing
References
1. Pucher R., Lehner M.: Project based learning in computer science–a review of more than 500 projects. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 29, pp. 1561- 1566 (2011)
2. Garc ́ıa S., Luengo J., Herrera F.: Data preprocessing in data mining. Springer International Publishing (2015)
3. Cronje R., et al.: Does Participation in Citizen Science Improve Scientific Literacy? A Study to Compare Assessment Methods. Applied Environmental Education & Communication 10.3 (2011): 135-145.
4. Masters K., et al. ”Science Learning via Participation in Online Citizen Science.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.05973 (2016)
5. Ageorges P., et al.: Some Lessons from a 3-Year Experiment of Problem-Based Learning in Physics in a French School of Engineering. American Journal of Educational Research 2.8 (2014): 564-567.
6. Roopa S., Rani, M. S. ”Questionnaire Designing for a Survey.” Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 46.4 suppl1 pp. 273-277 (2012)
7. Morse J. M.: The Implications of Interview Type and Structure in Mixed-Method Designs. The SAGE Handbook of Interview Research: The Complexity of the Craft. SAGE, pp. 193-204 (2012)
8. Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., Turner, B.: The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology. Penguin, p. 34 (1984)
9. Smart Citizen. (visited: 23.11.23, 09:26 CET). https://smartcitizen.me/
10. PurpleAir. (visited: 23.11.23, 09:46 CET). https://www2.purpleair.com/
11. Braun V., Clarke, V.: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology 3(2), pp. 77–101 (2006)
12. Anslow C. et al.: Datathons: an experience report of data hackathons for data
science education. In: Proceedings of the 47th ACM Technical Symposium on Computing Science Education, pp. 615–620 (2016)
13. Burd B. et al.: Courses, content, and tools for internet of things in computer
science education. In: Proceedings of the 2017 ITiCSE Conference on Working Group
Reports, pp. 125–139 (2018)
14. Abrandt Dahlgren M., O ̈berg G.: Questioning to learn and learning to question:
Structure and function of problem-based learning scenarios in environmental science
education. Higher Education 41, pp. 263–282 (2001)
15. Hardin C. D.: Gender differences in hackathons as a non-traditional educational experience. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE) 21(2), pp. 1–30
(2021)
16. Kos B. A.: An Autoethnography of T9Hacks: Designing a Welcoming Hackathon
for Women and Non-Binary Students to Learn and Explore Computing. PhD thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder (2019)
17. Peters A.-K. et al.: Sustainability in computing education: A systematic literature
review. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (2023)
18. Mahajan, S et al.: A citizen science approach for enhancing public understanding
of air pollution. Sustainable Cities and Society 52, 101800 (2020)
19. Rebeiro-Hargrave A. et al.: City wide participatory sensing of air quality. Frontiers in Environmental Science 9, p. 587 (2021)
20. Dunlap J.C.: Problem-based learning and self-efficacy: How a capstone course prepares students for a profession. Educational Technology Research and Development, pp. 65–85 (2005)
21. Heradio R. et al.: Gamification and Learning Analytics Methodologies to Enhance Motivation in Programming Learning. In: 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON), pp. 1113–1120 (2018)
22. Byrne J. et al.: Worked examples in programming education: A review and study protocol. Research in Learning Technology 30 (2022)
23. Kawulich B.B.: Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research 6(2) (2005)
24. Yamada M. et al.: An experience report on the use of learning analytics in an introductory programming course. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Innovation & Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 211–216 (2014)
25. Resnick M. et al.: Scratch: Programming for All. Communications of the ACM 52(11), pp. 60–67 (2009)
26. Buechley L., Eisenberg M.: The LilyPad Arduino: Using Computational Textiles to Investigate Engagement, Aesthetics, and Diversity in Computer Science Educa- tion. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 423–432 (2008)
27. Rowe E., Asbell-Clarke J.: Investigating the Relationship between Prior Computing Experience and Pair Programming in Middle School. In: Proceedings of the 16th Annual Joint Conference on Innovation and Technology in Computer Science Education, pp. 116–120 (2011)
28. Schneider D.K., Krajcik J.: Supporting science teacher learning: The role of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Science Teacher Education 12(3), pp. 265–290 (2001)
29. Norton S.: Why computational thinking is for everyone, not just computer scientists. Communications of the ACM 62(2), pp. 25–27 (2019)
30. Beyer S.: Gender differences in computer science learning: Exploring the effect of motivational scaffolding. Computer Science Education 21(4) pp. 313–331 (2011)
31. Fisher D., Frey N., Hattie J.: Visible learning for mathematics, grades K-12: What works best to optimize student learning. Corwin Press (2016)
32. Lozano R., Lukman R., Lozano F. J.: A review of commitment and implementation of sustainable development in higher education: results from a worldwide survey. Journal of cleaner production 108, pp. 1–18 (2015)
33. Byrne D.: A worked example of Braun and Clarke’s approach to reflexive thematic analysis. Quality & quantity 56.3, pp. 1391-1412 (2022)
34. Hardin C. D.: Gender differences in hackathons as a non-traditional educational experience. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 21(2), pp. 1-30 (2021)
35. D’Ignazio C. et al.: Hacking the hackathon with breast pumps and babies. J. Peer Prod (2016)
36. Murphy M. C., Steele C. M., Gross J. J.: Signaling threat: How situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18(10), pp. 879-885 (2007)
37. MSc Metropolitan Analysis, Design and Engineering. AMS Institute. Available at: https://www.ams- institute.org/education/ msc-metropolitan-analysis-design-and-engineering/msc-made-program/ [Visited: 02.12.23, 11:07 CET].