BACKGROUNDResearch in engineering education tends to focus on students' factual knowledge about engineering, their interests and attitudes, and on students' conceptions of the engineer and the relation to curriculum development. Thus, it is essential to expand our understanding of students' conceptions about the engineer phenomenon as the foundation for informing STEM education standards and curriculum. PURPOSE (HYPOTHESIS)The purpose of this study was to investigate students' conceptions about engineers specifically: (1) What are elementary school students' conceptions of an engineer? (2) How might students' conceptions vary by grade level, gender, and community setting? (3) What are implications of students' conceptions for engineering education? DESIGN/METHODThis study was descriptive in nature and reflected a cross-age design involving the collection of qualitative data from about 400 Grade 1 through 5 students from urban and suburban schools located in the Midwest, United States. Data were analyzed using content analysis and statistical testing. RESULTSStudents conceptualized an engineer as a mechanic, laborer, and technician. Students' conceptions entailed the engineer fixing, building, or making and using vehicles, engines, and tools. Students' conceptions were relatively consistent across urban and suburban school communities with the exceptions that laborer was more common among urban students and technician was more common among suburban students. More than half of the students who drew a person drew male engineers. CONCLUSIONSA framework for organizing and interpreting students' conceptions is presented. Curricular recommendations and implications are made that build on students' conceptions and reinforce connections between national standards and the engineer concept.

No abstract

No abstract

In 2019 to 2021, effects of different weed control strategies in sugar beet on pests and beneficial insects were examined at seven locations in Lower Saxony. The different strategies included conventional spraying, band spraying in the row together with mechanical hoeing between the rows and mechanical hoeing between the rows along with hand hoeing in the row. The various beneficial and pest insects were caught using different trapping methods. For the majority of arthropod populations, either no differences or hardly any significant differences were reported between the three different weed control strategies. Significant effects could only be found on single dates, but these were also not directed in the same direction. According to the results from the photoeclector catches and visual assessments, hoeing three times and chemical weed control had comparable effects to the on the arthropod populations evaluated in this study.