Paper ID #31648

CanSat Pico-satellite building workshop as an effective tool for STEAM

education, a case study
Dr. Jorge H Kurita, Universidad Nacional de Asuncion
Dr. Jorge Kurita attended Universidad Nacional de Asuncion in Paraguay, where he got his BS in Elec-
tromechanical Engineering. After graduation, he spent some time in academia working as faculty. During
this tenure he taught courses on heat transfer, fluid mechanics and physics. In 2004 Dr. Kurita was granted
the Fulbright scholarship to attend a graduate program on Mechanical Engineering at Michigan Techno-
logical University. He has finished his MS and then continued with a doctorate program. His doctorate
research was funded by NASA and the NSF. Dr. Kurita’s contribution to his field was well published in
several papers from high impact journals. From 2011 Dr. Kurita worked as a development engineer II,
in the competitive automotive industry, Filtran LLC, located in Des Plaines Illinois. His experience as an
experimental researcher helped Filtran to develop special testing techniques never implemented before on
filtration systems. In addition, Dr. Kurita worked in the CAE group, contributing to develop simulation
techniques to help develop state of the art filtration systems. From 2016 Dr. Kurita is back to his alma
mater as an assistant professor in Universidad Nacional de Asuncion. Later the same year, he is appointed
to lead the research department of the School of Engineering. From 2017 he is appointed to be the head of
the Mechanical Engineering Department at Universidad Nacional de Asuncion. He is currently working
as the director of the Planning Directorate of the Paraguayan Space Agency. For his contributions to the
Paraguayan society in the field of science and engineering, he was acknowledged as the ”Exceptional
Protagonist of 2017” by the Ultimahora news, a major newspaper in Paraguay. Another distinction, the
”Outstanding Citizen Award,” was granted by the city council of the city of Asuncion in 2017.
Dr. Derlis Ortiz Coronel
Lucas Domingo Moreira Bogado, Facultad de Ingenierı́a - Universidad Nacional de Asunción
Is a student of the Faculty of Engineering at the National University of Asuncion (FIUNA), currently
doing his Final Degree Work to obtain the title of Mechatronic Engineer. He is also a Teaching Assistant
at FIUNA for more than four years. From a young age he was interested in education, teaching and
technology.

American
c Society for Engineering Education, 2020
 CanSat Pico-satellite building workshop as an effective tool for
STEAM education, a case study
Ortiz1↑, J. Moreira2↑↑, L. Moreira3↑↑, D. Stalder4↑↑, B. Vega5↑↑↑, J. Kurita6↑↑↑↑
↑Jekupyty Moheñoiha, Caaguazú, Paraguay
↑↑Facultad de Ingeniería – Universidad Nacional de Asunción, Paraguay
↑↑↑UFS, CoNAE-Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Argentina
↑↑↑↑AEP, Agencia Espacial del Paraguay, Paraguay
1
derlis_ortiz79@hotmail.com, 2lmoreira@ing.una.py, 3jmoreira@ing.una.py,
4
dstalder@ing.una.py, 5bvega@conae.gov.ar, 6jkurita@aep.gov.py

Abstract
In a developed country, for every 2,000 inhabitants there is at least one graduate engineer per year.
However, in Paraguay for every 30,000 inhabitants, just one engineer graduates. For a country so
lagging behind in the development of infrastructure this relationship is catastrophic. Additionally,
the interest on STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) careers has decreased
because of the lack of knowledge and the poor performance in subjects related on these areas.
According to a PISA (Program for International Student Assessment) test report [1], only 10 % of
the Paraguayan student participants have passed the tests on reading, mathematics and science.
Space-related educational programs have become a very inspiring way to implement STEM
education. One CanSat (Can-Satellite) training program for teachers, that later will perform similar
projects with their students, is a very effective tool to motivate students into STEM. During the
program, teachers build a “very small and simple satellite” (a pico-satellite) that has similar
functions as larger ones. They learn how to plan, design and solve problems as if they were on a
real space mission. The objective of our study is to measure the performance of teachers as they
learn how to build CanSats for future projects in order to encourage undergraduate and high school
students to get interested in space science. The teacher participants begin by comparing CanSat
designs to mission requirements; redesigning the CanSat taking into account the technical
knowledge limitations; implementing the new design; launching the CanSats and collect the data,
and finally, organizing a training course for students. Impact on learning effectiveness will be
measured with indicators like: Experimentation and iteration, Trial and debugging, Reusing and
remixing, Abstraction and modularization [2] and will be scored as low, medium or high. In
addition, problem-solving competencies based on Polya method [3] [4] will be considered. The
process is categorized into four steps: problem comprehension, plan set up, plan execution and
obtained solution analysis. All evaluation processes are based on competencies for engineering
design.

Introduction
Educational programs based on aerospace principles have become a very inspiring way of
implementing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) education in schools. CanSat
(Can-Satellite) projects are clear examples of this approach. During CanSat project trainings,
teachers of different levels must overcome several challenges to build a "very small and simple
satellite" (a pico-satellite) that has similar characteristics to larger satellites. The teachers learn to
plan, design, and solve problems related to the building process of a real space mission, which is
one of the main objectives of this work theme. These are essential teaching skills for the generation
of truly innovative experiences in classrooms. The experience is based on the most popular CanSat
subsystem models available today so that teachers can adapt the process to meet Paraguayan
educational needs and design high-quality future curricular programs.

1
One of the most significant problems observed today is that only 10% of Paraguayan students have
passed international reading, math, and science tests according to the PISA report of 2018 [1]. In
this context, it is extremely important to propose new strategies to improve the quality of
Paraguayan education, including encouraging teachers at different levels to incorporate new
technologies that can inspire students.

CanSats are a new technology that can meet this need. In this sense, it is novel to use CanSats for
the continuous training of STEM teachers. This program poses a paradigm shift away from the
current methods of training teachers, especially in Latin American countries and, in particular, in
Paraguay, where it is imperative to generate student experiences in aerospace engineering and
technology to try to generate more engineers.

There is slim research in the same line of research in the region. In Argentina, there are some
examples of CanSats being used by engineering students [5], specifically in secondary schools.
These studies found the experiences awakened and encouraged scientific and technological
vocations among middle-level students. With this in mind, we designed and implemented a
workshop aimed at teachers of different educational levels (initial, primary, secondary, and
university education), predominantly from rural areas, from many regions of Paraguay, measuring
parameters that can be reviewed to improve the next iteration of courses.

Figure 1: Left: Teachers learning Arduino programming language.

Right: Next, a water rocket was used to launch the CanSats.

Methods
The methodology used was based mainly on the design and application of experiential workshops,
in which the inductive method was implemented, in addition to the assimilation of organized
knowledge. For the development of procedural knowledge (practical), demonstration and exercise
were applied through the phases of instrumental simulation and subsequent launch, composing the
test and trial phase. The study was based on a combination between qualitative and quantitative
data.

The workshop experience was mainly based on the following phases:

1) Analysis of the designs according to the requirements of the mission;
2) Redesign of the model, taking into account the limitations of teachers’ technical knowledge;
3) Construction of the new design;
4) Organization and execution of a training course;
5) Launch of CanSat, which collects data from different sensors;
6) Analysis of the measured parameters, such as temperature, pressure or acceleration;
7) Evaluation of the experience.

2
We expected to see four criteria of the capability for engineering design in the teacher workshops:
experimentation and iteration; trial and debugging; reusing and remixing; and abstraction and
modularization. These criteria were taken from computational thinking [2] in creative thinking; a
learning method applied to program language for kids but useful enough to test the impact of the
activities on the teachers. We adjusted the second one slightly to “Testing and debugging” for
clarity.

Research Questions
For each criterion, we developed various research questions:
1) What are teachers’ experimentation and iteration capabilities after the workshop? Indicators for
this criterion included:
a) Do the teachers have knowledge on the design of a CanSat project?
b) Do the teacher perform analysis of other possibilities for the fulfillment of the mission?
c) Do the teachers understand the concept of systems engineering applied in this project?
2) What are teachers’ testing and debugging capabilities after the workshop? Indicators of this
criterion included:
a) Were the different project stages understood?
b) Do teachers imagine other tests that can be performed by the CanSat after its construction?
c) What are the teachers’ understandings of the importance of analyzing the data collected by
the CanSat?
d) How do the teachers evaluate possible failures?
3) What are the teachers’ capabilities for reusing and remixing elements of this project after the
workshop? Indicators of this criterion included:
a) How do the teachers’ describe the ways that this investigation could relate what they
learned with other projects?
b) How do the teachers evaluate improvements for the project?
c) Do teacher make an association with another project?
4) How capable are teachers regarding abstraction and modularization after the workshop?
Indicators of this criterion included:
a) How well do the teachers could detect the materials or tools necessary for the project?
b) How do the teachers identify applicable learning scenarios for the project?
c) Did the teacher acquire new knowledge and inspiration?

During the workshop, a direct observation rubric, i.e. in real life, by our research team was
conducted. Evidence in the observation data for each indicator was cataloged by the researchers as
demonstrating limited, moderate, or good understanding, and subsequently, they were
quantitatively assessed. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program was used
for the processing of quantitative data. The main results are presented through statistical tables.

3
All the twenty-three teachers were recruited from an open call of interest, and, they all were placed
in one class, none refuse to this study. They were recruited from the STEAM Teaching Technician
course at the Teacher Training Institute of the city of Coronel Oviedo, in the city of Yabebyry, of
the Department of Misiones - Paraguay. Regarding the sociodemographic characteristics of
teachers, it can be indicated that 75% belong to the female sex and 25% to the male. The academic
training was distributed as follows: 44.4% have a Bachelor’s degree in Educational Sciences (4
years), 38.9%, with an undergraduate course - faculty in Basic School Education (3 years); 11%
mentioned having postgraduate courses towards a masters in education; and 5.7% reported taking
courses for math teachers.

Figure 2: Participants teaching experience

The teachers’ work experienced ranged from 0 to over 21 years of prior teaching. 30.6% of the
teachers had taught 0 to 5 years, 25% 6 to 10 years, 19.4% 11 to 15 years, 13.9% 16 to 20 years,
and 11.1% had taught for 21 years or more.

Results
The following is an evaluation of the impact of the CanSat workshop on our teacher sample which
included teachers from various levels of the Paraguayan educational system, from the initial level
to the university level, teaching in public schools in the interior of the country, predominantly in
rural areas.

The first criterion, experimentation and iteration, was assessed according to how the teachers
described the different components of the CanSat mission and how it was developed. For the first
indicator under this criterion, Understand the construction of a CanSat project step by step, 65.2 %
showed high knowledge and 34.8 % showed average knowledge. For the second indicator, Analysis
of other possibilities for the fulfillment of the mission, 65.2% described concrete examples of
different things for the project and were assessed to be ‘high-level”; while 34.8 % gave an average
response offering only a general explanation of trying something in a project. Regarding the last
indicator, Understands the concept of systems engineering applied, 56.5% demonstrated high
knowledge by giving specific descriptions of the project execution; 34.8% demonstrated average
knowledge by only indicating half of the systems applied; and 8.7% did not indicate a logical
specification on the systems used and were therefore categorized as limited understanding.

4
Criterion 1: Experimentation and Iteration
“Moderate
“Good understanding” Understanding”
Percentage and example Percentage and “Limited
Indicator response example response Understanding”
Understand the 65.2% 34% 0%
construction of a CanSat
project step by step
Analysis of other 65.2% 34.8% 0%
possibilities for the concrete examples general explanation
fulfillment of the mission
Understands the concept 56.5% 34.8% 8.7%
of systems engineering specific descriptions of indicated half of the did not indicate a
applied the project execution systems applied logical specification
on the systems used

Figure 3: Teachers answers about the criteria of experimentation and iteration of the CanSat project

In the criterion of evaluation of the impact of the experiential workshop on testing and debugging
procedures, four fundamental indicators were proposed for its measurement. The first indicator
sought to determine whether the teachers comprehended the project stages. 65.2% of the teachers
scored high by offering concrete examples of the project stages and what would have happened in
other stages; 30.4% scored moderate by only vaguely explaining some required stages; and only
4.3% scored low because they could not describe any of the stages of execution. For the second
indicator, Develop ideas for future activities by the CanSat after its construction, 65.2% scored high
by providing concrete examples of how changes can be made and giving strategies on how to test;

5
21.7% showed a medium level by providing a general example of how the changes could be made
and what would happen; and 13.0% scored low because their responses did not provide possible
problems or the solution. The third required indicator was understanding the importance of
analyzing the data collected by the CanSat. 60.9% score high as they noted all the data extracted
since the launch and its potential use in the didactic process; on the other hand, 39.1% scored
moderate since their responses only indicated general aspects of the measurements and data
collected by the CanSat. 0% scored low. The last indicator of the testing and debugging criteria was
how teachers evaluated possible failures. 69.6% scored high because they explained how to solve a
problem through concrete examples, while 30.4% scored moderate by describing a general example
to solve the failures. 0% scored low.

Criterion 2: Testing and Debugging

Indicator Scored highly with “Moderate “Limited
“Good Understanding” Understanding”
understanding” Percentage and
Percentage and example response
example response
Was the different project stages 65.2% 30.4% 4.3%
understood? offering concrete vaguely could not
examples of the explained some describe any of
project stages and required stages the stages of
what would have execution
happened in other
stages
Do teachers imagine other tests that 65.2% 21.7% 13.0%
can be performed by the CanSat providing concrete provided a responses did not
after its construction? examples of how general example provide possible
changes can be of how the problems or the
made and giving changes could be solution
strategies on how made and what
to test would happen
What are the teachers’ 60.9 39.1% 0%
understandings of the importance of noted all the data responses only
analyzing the data collected by the extracted since the indicated general
CanSat? launch and its aspects of the
potential use in the measurements
didactic process and data collected
by the CanSat.
How do teachers evaluate possible 69.6% 30.4% 0%
failures? explained how to described a
solve a problem general example
through concrete to solve the
examples failures

6
 Figure 4: Teachers response on the testing and debugging criteria of the CanSat project

In the third criterion, reuse and reinvention, three indicators for measuring impact and learning
have been established. For the first, Can find similar concepts among other projects, 52.2% were
rated high, as their response denoted specific examples of programs, ideas, or resources that they
adopted from other projects and how they did it; 47.8% offered a medium response because they
only made a general description of possible decisions to choose aspects of other projects. For the
second indicator, Come up with ideas for a future model, 60.9 % gave a response within the high
range because their logical approach mentioned concrete examples of possible improvements to the
project and how it would do it; while 34.8 % yielded mid-range responses since it only made a
generic description of the improvements; and 4.3% were scored low. The third criterion indicator
sought to measure whether teachers Relates contents with another project to improve
understanding. 34.8% were scored high margin by offering logical explanation of an association
with another project with a concrete; 56.5% gave a response in the middle range with only a
general description of the project that they were inspired to connect with this one. Finally, 8.7%
showed little logical association with another project.

7
 Figure 5: Teacher’s response to the reuse and reinvention criteria of the CanSat project

Criterion 3: Reuse and Reinvention

Moderate or
High or “Good “Moderate
understanding” Understanding”
Percentage and example Percentage and Low or “Limited
Indicator response example response Understanding”
The teachers could relate 52.5% 47.8% 0%
what they learned with response denoted made a general
other projects. specific examples of description of
programs, ideas, or possible decisions to
resources that they choose aspects of
adopted from other other projects
projects and how they
did it
The teacher could 60.9% 34.8% 4.3%
evaluate improvements concrete examples of general explanation
for the project. possible improvements
to the project and how it
would do it
Teachers could make 34.8% 56.5% 8.7%
associations with another logical association with general description Little logical
project to improve another project with of the project that association with
understanding. concrete example. they were inspired another project.
to connect with this
one.

8
The fourth criterion, abstraction and modularization, had three indicators. The fist was whether
teachers could detect the materials or tools necessary for the project. 69.6% gave a response in the
high range, which means the concrete description of the materials and the tools used and their
functions; while 30.4% gave a response in the middle margin providing only general description of
some materials and tools used. The second indicator was if the teachers could identify applicable
learning scenarios, 73.9% scored high by providing concrete examples of how these experiences
can be used in the context of learning; 17.4% gave an average response since they only gave an
overview of the possible scenarios; and 8.7% scored low. Finally, for the third indicator, if the
teachers acquire new knowledge and inspirations, 69.6% scored high by providing concrete
examples based on the project executed, while 26.1%, an average approach, and 4.3% scored low
by providing little new knowledge or inspiration.

Criterion 4: Abstraction and Modularization

Moderate or
High or “Good “Moderate
understanding” Understanding”
Percentage and example Percentage and Low or “Limited
Indicator response example response Understanding”
The teachers could detect 69.6% 30.4% 0%
the materials or tools Gave concrete general description
necessary for the project. descriptions of the of some materials
materials and the tools and tools used
used and their functions
Identify applicable 73.9% 17.4% 8.7%
learning scenarios. Gave concrete examples only gave an
of how these overview of the
experiences can be used possible scenarios
in the context of learning
Acquired new knowledge 69.6% 26.1% 4.3%
and inspiration. provided concrete Gave average Showed little new
examples based on the approaches knowledge or
project inspiration

Figure 6: Teachers response on the criterion of abstraction and modularization of the CanSat
project

9
In order to measure effectiveness, a final survey was conducted 3 months after completion of this
workshop. As it can be observed in Figure 7, a 9.1% of teachers showed interest in making STEAM
projects three months after the workshop. Some had even prepared a project proposal to implement
this CanSat project at their respective institutions. However, due to the COVID-19 outbreak in
Paraguay, all teaching activities were cancelled until next year.

Figure 7: Teachers responses on workshop effectiveness 3 months after training completion.

Discussion
The study evaluated the experience on the following criteria:
Experimentation and iteration. For all three indicators, a) the understanding of the construction
of the CanSat, b) the generation of other possibilities for the fulfillment of the mission, and c) the
concept of systems engineering applied in the project, most of the responses were rated at a high
level due to the responses provided. In all cases, the majority gave concrete examples and justified
each of the assessments within the framework of the mission. The indicator with low-level
responses could have been due to a lack of understanding of the concept of systems engineering as
applied in the CanSat project, due to the complexity and the number of stages the project addresses,
and because this criterion requires the understanding of the needs and requirements in a set of
systems, products, and processes.

Testing and debugging. The indicators for testing and debugging capabilities were a)
comprehension of the stages of the project, b) imagining other tests that could be carried out by the
CanSat after its construction, c) the importance of the analysis of the data collected, and d) if
teachers could evaluate the possible failures. In most cases, the teachers reached a high degree of
understanding about these aspects. The indicator with the most responses in the low level measured
whether the teacher could imagine tests that could be carried out at the CanSat after its
construction. Perhaps this was lowest because the teachers worked with strict tests in the workshop
to take into account the different movements and operating environments of the CanSat. These
observations and experiences might have limited their capacity to see other options for the CanSat.

Reuse and reinvention: Within this criterion, we were looking for teachers to a) relate what has
been learned with other experiences, b) evaluate improvements, and c) associate this project with
10
another project to optimize understanding. The majority of teachers provided answers that conform
to the predominantly medium rating, probably due to the clarity of the concepts explained. Also,
we took as a main parameter the expressed examples and the foundations of these assertions. This
was the only criterion with this qualification. The indicator with the highest number of low-order
responses was c) associate this project with another project to optimize understanding. Perhaps this
was because this level of association would require documentation and reflection on the
performance of the positive and negative aspects to capitalize on future projects, and we did not
scaffold such reflection.

Abstraction and modularization: The ideas included in this evaluation criterion were: a) to detect
the materials or tools necessary for the project, b) to identify the learning scenarios, and c) to
acquire new knowledge and inspirations. In most cases, high-level responses are observed perhaps
due to the wide-spread knowledge of the technology used in the construction process and the
scaffolded study of the basic parts of the subsystems (sensors, microcontrollers, and actuators). The
indicator with most low-level responses was b) the identification of new learning scenarios through
this experience, an aspect that can be explained because some of the teachers scoring low on this
indicator were teaching only in basic school education systems, limiting their understanding of the
use in these cycles in the national education system.

Conclusion
In summary, low levels of learning may be explained by understanding the context where a teacher
teaches; the complexity of the concepts assessed; the limited workshop time to develop the
contents; and the influence of other recent approaches to inform teachers in the area of engineering.
Further, we acknowledge that the research tactics used may not have been enough to capture the
key aspects of our criterion for increased engineering design capability and thus have influenced
the results of the study.

With regard to the unresolved aspects, the work remains pending based on these experiences of
CanSat construction and its practical usefulness in the classroom because the teachers could not
translate their experiences due to COVID-19 closing the schools. Due to the closeures, we have yet
to see this workshop’s didactic function toward a paradigm shift within the classroom. We also see
an open window for future research on the effectiveness of the application within schools and the
measurement of these experiences in the teaching-learning process. This work shows the theoretical
and practical consequences of a standardized instrument for measuring the impact of this and other
STEM project experiences, and in particular the competencies that students will require to face new
systems and challenges of Society 4.0 (Schwab, 2016). Such a tool could also improve the quality
of learning by supporting the role of the teacher as a mediator and guide.

In conclusion, this work may inspire new enriching experiences in the classrooms of public schools
of all educational levels. We hope to inspire and promote a globalized integration of learning in
order to respond to the new requirements of the modern world and to encourage students to opt for
careers of engineering in all its specialties. We further hope this work is advances a curricular
approach for competencies that emphasize the three main areas of the individual: being, knowing
and doing.

11
References
[1] OCDE, «Programa para la evaluación internacional de estudiantes. PISA,» 12 diciembre 2019.
[En línea]. Available: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisa-for-
development/PISA_D_Resultados_en_Foco.pdf.

[2] M. R. M. M. L. Karen Brennan, «New frameworks for studying and assessing the development
of computational thinking,» de American Educational Research Association meeting., Vancouver,
BC, Canada., 2012.

[3] A. H. Schoenfeld, «Polya, Problem Solving, and Education,» de Mathematics Magazine Vol. 60
No. 5, 1987.

[4] G. Polya, How to Solve It. A New Aspect of Mathematical Method, Princeton University Press,
2004.

[5] A. Torti, L. Anchino, L. Chiappero, M. Miretti, E. Dovis, E. Bernardi, J. Calloni, J. Tomé, M.

A. Berón y R. Podadera, «Repositorio institucional de la Univesidad Nacional de la Plata,» 12
diciembre 2019. [En línea]. Available: http://sedici.unlp.edu.ar/handle/10915/77159.

[6] J. Cerezo, J. Sombrerero, M. Báez y M. Serrano, «REVISTA ELECTRÓNICA ANFEI

DIGITAL1Año 4, No. 8Ene–Jun2018www.anfei.org.mx/revistaCREANDO FUTUROS LÍDERES
DE LA INSDUSTRIA AEROESPACIAL MEXICANA, CONSTRUYENDO PICO-SATÉLITES
EDUCATIVOS CANSAT,» Revista electrónica ANFIE DIGITAL, pp. 1-10, 2018. [7] K. Schwab,
La cuarta revolución industrial, Barcelona: Debate, 2016.
[8] A. Piscitelli, «Nativos e inmigrantes digitales. ¿Brecha generacional, brecha cognitiva, o las dos
juntas y más aún?,» Revista Mexicana de Investigación Educativa, pp. 179-185, 2006.

12
13
14