More Like this

1. Designing a Curriculum to Broaden Middle School Students' Ideas and Interest in Engineering

   Stevens, Shawn Y. ; Littenberg-Tobias, Joshua ; McKneally, Ranida ; Cayko, Ethan ( June 2023 , 2023 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition)

   Designing a Curriculum to Broaden Middle School Students’ Ideas and Interest in Engineering As the 21st century progresses, engineers will play critical roles in addressing complex societal problems such as climate change and nutrient pollution. Research has shown that more diverse teams lead to more creative and effective solutions (Smith-Doerr et al., 2017). However, while some progress has been made in increasing the number of women and people of color, 83% of employed engineers are male and 68% of engineers are white (NSF & NCSES, 2019). Traditional K–12 approaches to engineering often emphasize construction using a trial-and-error approach (ASEE, 2020). Although this approach may appeal to some students, it may alienate other students who then view engineering simply as “building things.” Designing engineering experiences that broaden students’ ideas about engineering, may help diversify the students entering the engineering pipeline. To this end, we developed Solving Community Problems with Engineering (SCoPE), an engineering curriculum that engages seventh-grade students in a three-week capstone project focusing on nutrient pollution in their local watershed. SCoPE engages students with the problem through local news articles about nutrient pollution and images of algae covered lakes, which then drives the investigation into the detrimental processes caused by excess nutrients entering bodies of water from sources such as fertilizer and wastewater. Students research the sources of nutrient pollution and potential solutions, and use simulations to investigate key variables and optimize the types of strategies for effectively decreasing and managing nutrient pollution to help develop their plans. Throughout the development process, we worked with a middle school STEM teacher to ensure the unit builds upon the science curriculum and the activities would be engaging and meaningful to students. The problem and location were chosen to illustrate that engineers can solve problems relevant to rural communities. Since people in rural locations tend to remain very connected to their communities throughout their lives, it is important to illustrate that engineering could be a relevant and viable career near home. The SCoPE curriculum was piloted with two teachers and 147 seventh grade students in a rural public school. Surveys and student drawings of engineers before and after implementation of the curriculum were used to characterize changes in students’ interest and beliefs about engineering. After completing the SCoPE curriculum, students’ ideas about engineers’ activities and the types of problems they solve were broadened. Students were 53% more likely to believe that engineers can protect the environment and 23% more likely to believe that they can identify problems in the community to solve (p < 0.001). When asked to draw an engineer, students were 1.3 times more likely to include nature/environment/agriculture (p < 0.01) and 3 times more likely to show engineers helping people in the community (p< 0.05) Additionally, while boys’ interest in science and engineering did not significantly change, girls’ interest in engineering and confidence in becoming an engineer significantly increased (Cohen’s D = 0.28, p<0.05). The SCoPE curriculum is available on PBS LearningMedia: https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/collection/solving-community-problems-with-engineering/ This project was funded by NSF through the Division of Engineering Education and Centers, Research in the Formation of Engineers program #202076. References American Society for Engineering Education. (2020). Framework for P-12 Engineering Learning. Washington, DC. DOI: 10.18260/1-100-1153 National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2019). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering: 2019. Special Report NSF 17-310. Arlington, VA. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf21321/. Smith-Doerr, L., Alegria, S., & Sacco, T. (2017). How Diversity Matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Integration in Teams, Fields, and Organizational Contexts, Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 3, 139-153. 

   more » « less
2. Activating social change together: A qualitative synthesis of collaborative change research, evaluation and design literature

   https://doi.org/http:dx.doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v12i1.6693  

   Busch, Melida D ; Jean-Baptiste, Elizabeth ; Person, Pamela F ; Vaughn, Lisa M. ( December 2019 , Gateways)

   Researchers, evaluators and designers from an array of academic disciplines and industry sectors are turning to participatory approaches as they seek to understand and address complex social problems. We refer to participatory approaches that collaboratively engage/ partner with stakeholders in knowledge creation/problem solving for action/social change outcomes as collaborative change research, evaluation and design (CCRED). We further frame CCRED practitioners by their desire to move beyond knowledge creation for its own sake to implementation of new knowledge as a tool for social change. In March and May of 2018, we conducted a literature search of multiple discipline-specific databases seeking collaborative, change-oriented scholarly publications. The search was limited to include peerreviewed journal articles, with English language abstracts available, published in the last five years. The search resulted in 526 citations, 236 of which met inclusion criteria. Though the search was limited to English abstracts, all major geographic regions (North America, Europe, Latin America/Caribbean, APAC, Africa and the Middle East) were represented within the results, although many articles did not state a specific region. Of those identified, most studies were located in North America, with the Middle East having only one identified study. We followed a qualitative thematic synthesis process to examine the abstracts of peer-reviewed articles to identify practices that transcend individual disciplines, sectors and contexts to achieve collaborative change. We surveyed the terminology used to describe CCRED, setting, content/topic of study, type of collaboration, and related benefits/outcomes in order to discern the words used to designate collaboration, the frameworks, tools and methods employed, and the presence of action, evaluation or outcomes. Forty-three percent of the reviewed articles fell broadly within the social sciences, followed by 26 percent in education and 25 percent in health/medicine. In terms of participants and/ or collaborators in the articles reviewed, the vast majority of the 236 articles (86%) described participants, that is, those who the research was about or from whom data was collected. In contrast to participants, partners/collaborators (n=32; 14%) were individuals or groups who participated in the design or implementation of the collaborative change effort described. In terms of the goal for collaboration and/or for doing the work, the most frequently used terminology related to some aspect of engagement and empowerment. Common descriptors for the work itself were ‘social change’ (n=74; 31%), ‘action’ (n=33; 14%), ‘collaborative or participatory research/practice’ (n=13; 6%), ‘transformation’ (n=13; 6%) and ‘community engagement’ (n=10; 4%). Of the 236 articles that mentioned a specific framework or approach, the three most common were some variation of Participatory Action Research (n=30; 50%), Action Research (n=40; 16.9%) or Community-Based Participatory Research (n=17; 7.2%). Approximately a third of the 236 articles did not mention a specific method or tool in the abstract. The most commonly cited method/tool (n=30; 12.7%) was some variation of an arts-based method followed by interviews (n=18; 7.6%), case study (n=16; 6.7%), or an ethnographic-related method (n=14; 5.9%). While some articles implied action or change, only 14 of the 236 articles (6%) stated a specific action or outcome. Most often, the changes described were: the creation or modification of a model, method, process, framework or protocol (n=9; 4%), quality improvement, policy change and social change (n=8; 3%), or modifications to education/training methods and materials (n=5; 2%). The infrequent use of collaboration as a descriptor of partner engagement, coupled with few reported findings of measurable change, raises questions about the nature of CCRED. It appears that conducting CCRED is as complex an undertaking as the problems that the work is attempting to address. 

   more » « less
3. Developing a measure to capture middle school students’ interpretive understanding of engineering design

   Piña, Jeremiah ; Ellis, Glenn W ; Rudnitsky, Al ; Mazur, Rebecca ; McGinnis-Cavanaugh, Beth ; Huff, Isabel ( July 2021 , 2021 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   This research paper describes the development of an assessment instrument for use with middle school students that provides insight into students’ interpretive understanding by looking at early indicators of developing expertise in students’ responses to solution generation, reflection, and concept demonstration tasks. We begin by detailing a synthetic assessment model that served as the theoretical basis for assessing specific thinking skills. We then describe our process of developing test items by working with a Teacher Design Team (TDT) of instructors in our partner school system to set guidelines that would better orient the assessment in that context and working within the framework of standards and disciplinary core ideas enumerated in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We next specify our process of refining the assessment from 17 items across three separate item pools to a final total of three open-response items. We then provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the assessment instrument from the standards of (1) content, (2) meaningfulness, (3) generalizability, and (4) instructional sensitivity. As part of the discussion from the standards of generalizability and instructional sensitivity, we detail a study carried out in our partner school system in the fall of 2019. The instrument was administered to students in treatment (n= 201) and non-treatment (n = 246) groups, wherein the former participated in a two-to-three-week, NGSS-aligned experimental instructional unit introducing the principles of engineering design that focused on engaging students using the Imaginative Education teaching approach. The latter group were taught using the district’s existing engineering design curriculum. Results from statistical analysis of student responses showed that the interrater reliability of the scoring procedures were good-to-excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients ranging between .72 and .95. To gauge the instructional sensitivity of the assessment instrument, a series of non-parametric comparative analyses (independent two-group Mann-Whitney tests) were carried out. These found statistically significant differences between treatment and non-treatment student responses related to the outcomes of fluency and elaboration, but not reflection. 

   more » « less
4. Developing a measure to capture middle school students’ interpretive understanding of engineering design

   Piña, Jeremiah ; Ellis, Glenn W ; Rudnitsky, Al ; Mazur, Rebecca ; McGinnis-Cavanaugh, Beth ; Huff, Isabel ( July 2021 , 2021 American Society for Engineering Education Annual Conference)

   null (Ed.)

   This research paper describes the development of an assessment instrument for use with middle school students that provides insight into students’ interpretive understanding by looking at early indicators of developing expertise in students’ responses to solution generation, reflection, and concept demonstration tasks. We begin by detailing a synthetic assessment model that served as the theoretical basis for assessing specific thinking skills. We then describe our process of developing test items by working with a Teacher Design Team (TDT) of instructors in our partner school system to set guidelines that would better orient the assessment in that context and working within the framework of standards and disciplinary core ideas enumerated in the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS). We next specify our process of refining the assessment from 17 items across three separate item pools to a final total of three open-response items. We then provide evidence for the validity and reliability of the assessment instrument from the standards of (1) content, (2) meaningfulness, (3) generalizability, and (4) instructional sensitivity. As part of the discussion from the standards of generalizability and instructional sensitivity, we detail a study carried out in our partner school system in the fall of 2019. The instrument was administered to students in treatment (n= 201) and non- treatment (n = 246) groups, wherein the former participated in a two-to-three- week, NGSS-aligned experimental instructional unit introducing the principles of engineering design that focused on engaging students using the Imaginative Education teaching approach. The latter group were taught using the district’s existing engineering design curriculum. Results from statistical analysis of student responses showed that the interrater reliability of the scoring procedures were good-to-excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients ranging between .72 and .95. To gauge the instructional sensitivity of the assessment instrument, a series of non-parametric comparative analyses (independent two-group Mann- Whitney tests) were carried out. These found statistically significant differences between treatment and non-treatment student responses related to the outcomes of fluency and elaboration, but not reflection. 

   more » « less
5. Undergraduate Socialization in Engineering: The Role of Institutional Tactics and Proactive Behaviors

   Henderson, T. S. ( January 2018 , ASEE annual conference & exposition proceedings)

   Higher education literature is replete with evidence that socioeconomic variables and background characteristics inform a myriad of factors related to students’ college life. These include the institutions students choose to attend, their experiences after matriculation, differences in success rates, and even post-graduation outcomes. This is particularly true in engineering, where gaps in academic performance, persistence, and degree attainment still endure despite the litany of federal, institutional, and unit-level resources designed to address socioeconomic disparities. In contrast to much of the literature that takes a deficit-based approach, in this work we presuppose that it is not simply differences in socioeconomic variables and background characteristics that separates highly engaged, successful students in engineering from their less engaged, unsuccessful counterparts. Rather, we suggest that an underlying set of socialization processes by which students become familiar with collegiate engineering education makes students more or less likely to engage in activities that are associated with success. We posit that students’ experiences with these socialization processes – institutional socialization tactics and proactive behaviors – may better explain patterns of participation and outcomes in engineering that go beyond the consideration of access to academic and social resources. Drawing on Weidman’s Undergraduate Socialization framework, we developed a conceptual model for understanding the socialization processes that inform engineering students’ participation in co-curricular activities (specifically professional engineering societies and student design teams). This model is guided by three hypotheses. First, we hypothesize that socioeconomic, academic, and demographic background characteristics combine to uniquely inform students’ experiences with two socialization processes – institutional tactics and proactive behaviors. This, in turn, informs their participation in co-curricular activities, such as professional engineering societies and student design teams. Finally, students who participate in co-curricular engineering activities have different academic and social outcomes than their counterparts who do not participate in co-curricular engineering activities. We also developed a survey instrument based on this model to understand how various socioeconomic variables and background characteristics inform students’ socialization processes and, as a result, their outcomes in engineering. Our goal is to understand the factors that shape students’ socialization into engineering, as well as their development into engineers. Ultimately, our goal is to narrow gaps in participation and success in engineering by addressing negative socialization experiences. 

   more » « less