Search for: All records

Systems thinking is a skill that enables students to grapple with complex problems, often to which there is no clear problem definition or solution, there are many stakeholders, and there are many systems involved (e.g. sociotechnical or socioecological systems). Fostering the development of systems thinking skills is crucial as the problems students encounter in their lives, and in formal and informal educational settings, are increasingly complex. Ongoing research points to the need for more domain-general tools to assess systems thinking in a variety of K-12 settings. Many existing tools or methods used to assess systems thinking in K-12 are often domain specific (e.g. the water cycle in environmental science) and do not always transfer well to more complex problems across content areas. Furthermore, grounding the development of systems thinking skills in the locally relevant contexts that inform and affect students' day-to-day lives also offers the opportunity for students to engage in problems they find interesting and in which they may connect more deeply. This work-in-progress paper presents the development of a general tool informed by existing research in systems thinking and pedagogical practices in K-12 settings. The initial tool development is based on an existing published tool that has been used in undergraduate settings that challenges students to consider an ill-structured problem based on a real world scenario, in which a rubric was defined and applied to measure different systems thinking competencies. The existing tool measures students' ability to identify various contextual and technical aspects of a problem, to identify various stakeholders and stakeholder needs, and to identify short-term goals, long-term goals, and unintended consequences of potential solutions. Knowledge and experience from the development of this tool will be used to pilot an assessment with K-12 students to measure their systems thinking skills in problems that are relevant to them and their experiences. 

Broadening participation in the skilled technical workforce is a national priority given strong evidence of growing critical vacancies in engineering coupled with the urgent need for this workforce to better reflect the rich diversity of the nation. Scholars and activists often call for increased focus on education access, quality, and workforce development among rural Appalachian communities, noting that students from these communities are under-represented in higher education generally, and engineering careers specifically. Investing in preK-12 education, engaging youth as valued members of their communities, and cultivating workforce opportunities such as in advanced manufacturing have all been highlighted by the Appalachian Regional Commission as vital to strengthening economic resilience. However, scaffolding engineering and technical career pathways for Appalachian youth at scale in the context of broader systemic issues is challenging. Past research on the career choices of Appalachian youth show that sparked interest alone was not sufficient to consider engineering careers. Research on the sustained development of interest in engineering highlights rich networks of formal and informal experiences as catalysts or supportive infrastructure. Yet, access to such opportunities varies greatly. School systems often lack the necessary personnel, money, or space to offer these experiences, and, even if opportunities are available, often only a small subset of students may be able to participate. Further, common views of what engineering work is and who can do it are narrow, biased, and exclusive. This CAREER project has focused on three areas of research. The first area, focused on school-industry partnerships through COVID-19 in the region, highlighted the importance of rich partnerships, resilient stakeholders, and innovative contexts to persist throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. This is particularly pertinent to partnerships and collaboration, sustainability of these collaborations, and programming in the context of STEM skilled technical workforce development programs in rural places. The second area of research, focused on developing a conceptual framework for engineering education research and engagement in rural places, highlighted the importance of place, individual student and community assets, and leveraging these things to provide context and meaning in a decontextualized K-12 curriculum. Finally, the third research area, focused on systematically reviewing literature related to the assessment of systems thinking in K-12 education, highlighted the lack of comprehensive assessment tools that can apply across many educational disciplines but particularly in areas as it relates to socio-technical problems. Together, these three research areas ultimately seek to inform broader aspects of K-12 education, such as career and technical education, issues related to rural education, and ultimately focusing on students’ ability to handle complex problems in their communities or other contexts with systems thinking. 

Self-report assessments are used frequently in higher education to assess a variety of constructs, including attitudes, opinions, knowledge, and competence. Systems thinking is an example of one competence often measured using self-report assessments where individuals answer several questions about their perceptions of their own skills, habits, or daily decisions. In this study, we define systems thinking as the ability to see the world as a complex interconnected system where different parts can influence each other, and the interrelationships determine system outcomes. An alternative, less-common, assessment approach is to measure skills directly by providing a scenario about an unstructured problem and evaluating respondents’ judgment or analysis of the scenario (scenario-based assessment). This study explored the relationships between engineering students’ performance on self-report assessments and scenario-based assessments of systems thinking, finding that there were no significant relationships between the two assessment techniques. These results suggest that there may be limitations to using self-report assessments as a method to assess systems thinking and other competencies in educational research and evaluation, which could be addressed by incorporating alternative formats for assessing competence. Future work should explore these findings further and support the development of alternative assessment approaches.

 

Helping middle school students explore potential career opportunities based on local culture and values was the foundation of a study of rural Appalachian middle school students conducted at a major university in the United States. Specifically we focused on positively impacting locally and culturally-relevant conceptions of engineering through participation in multiple classroom activities developed through a partnership of teachers, researchers, and local industry partners. To date, the study has revealed a positive change in the understanding and conception of the field of engineering by students who participated in the culturally relevant classroom activities. As a basis for this work, ample literature was found to describe middle school students’ conceptions of engineering but there was limited available research on the value of relating the field of engineering to a student’s local culture. We are offering a resource exchange session to introduce the approach of designing and using classroom engineering exploration activities directly connected to the students’ local environment, featuring the types of engineering work performed in the area and local problems related to engineering. Effective practices for working with industry partners to help design and deliver the classroom activities will also be shared. An example of a classroom intervention will be featured where students explored potential and kinetic energy by designing and building mountain roads out of simple hardware store materials. This activity allowed students to make connections between the roads they built in the classroom and the geography of their local mountainous, rural area. Industry partners participated in this intervention by offering insights from their technical backgrounds and company practices and assisted with the hands-on lessons in the classroom. This was one of six culturally relevant engineering activities provided to 757 sixth-grade students at seven Appalachian middle schools. 

K-12 teachers serve a critical role in their students’ development of interest in engineering, especially as engineering content is emphasized in curriculum standards. However, teachers may not be comfortable teaching engineering in their classrooms as it can require a different set of skills from which they are trained. Professional development activities focused on engineering content can help teachers feel more comfortable teaching the subject in their classrooms and can increase their knowledge of engineering and thus their engineering teaching self-efficacy. There are many different types of professional development activities teachers might experience, each one with a set of established best practices. VT PEERS (Virginia Tech Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Communities) is a program designed to provide recurrent hands-on engineering activities to middle school students in or near rural Appalachia. The project partners middle school teachers, university affiliates, and local industry partners throughout the state region to develop and implement engineering activities that align with state defined standards of learning (SOLs). Throughout this partnership, teachers co-facilitate engineering activities in their classrooms throughout the year with the other partners, and teachers have the opportunity to participate in a two-day collaborative workshop every year. VT PEERS held a workshop during the summer of 2019, after the second year of the partnership, to discuss the successes and challenges experienced throughout the program. Three focus groups, one for each grade level involved (grades 6-8), were held during the summit for teachers and industry partners to discuss their experiences. None of the teachers involved in the partnership have formal training in engineering. The transcripts of these focus groups were the focus of the exploratory qualitative data analyses to answer the following research question: How do middle-school teachers develop teaching engineering self-efficacy through professional development activities? Deductive coding of the focus group transcripts was completed using the four sources of self-efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion and physiological states. The analysis revealed that vicarious experiences can be particularly valuable to increasing teachers’ teaching engineering self-efficacy. For example, teachers valued the ability to play the role of a student in an engineering lesson and being able to share ideas about teaching engineering lessons with other teachers. This information can be useful to develop engineering-focused professional development activities for teachers. Additionally, as teachers gather information from their teaching engineering vicarious experiences, they can inform their own teaching practices and practice reflective teaching as they teach lessons. 

Calls to improve learning in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and particularly engineering, present significant challenges for school systems. Partnerships among engineering industry, universities, and school systems to support learning appear promising, but current work is limited in its conclusions because it lacks a strong connection to theoretical work in interorganizational collaboration.

This study aims to reflect more critically on the process of how organizations build relationships to address the following research question: In a public–private partnership to integrate engineering into middle school science curriculum, how do stakeholder characterizations of the collaborative process align with existing frameworks of interorganizational collaboration?

This qualitative, embedded multiple case study considered in‐depth pre‐ and post‐year interviews with teachers, administrators, industry, and university personnel during the first year of the Partnering with Educators and Engineers in Rural Schools (PEERS) program. Transcripts were analyzed using a framework of interorganizational collaboration operationalized for our context.

Results provide insights into stakeholder perceptions of collaborative processes in the first year of the PEERS program across dimensions of collaboration. These dimensions mapped to three central discussion points with relevance for school–university–industry partnerships: school collaboration as an emergent and negotiated process, tension in collaborating across organizations, and fair share in collaborating toward a social goal.

Taking a macro‐level look at the collaborative processes involved enabled us to develop implications for collaborative stakeholders to be intentional about designing for future success. By systematically applying a framework of collaboration and capitalizing on the rich situational findings possible through a qualitative approach, we shift our understanding of collaborative processes in school–university–industry partnerships for engineering education and contribute to the development of collaboration theory.

 

This Work-In-Progress research paper presents preliminary results and next steps of a study that aims to identify institutional data and resources that instructors find helpful in facilitating learning in large foundational engineering courses. The work is motivated by resource-driven compromises made in response to increasing engineering student populations. One such compromise is teaching some courses (usually foundational courses taken by students across multiple disciplines) in large sections, despite research suggesting that large class environments may correspond with unfavorable student learning experiences. Examples of courses often taught in large class environments are mathematics, physics, and mechanics. We are currently working with a cohort of instructors of foundational engineering courses as part of an NSF Institutional Transformation project. We have collected qualitative data through semi-structured interviews to explore the following research question: What data and/or resources do STEM faculty teaching large foundational classes for undergraduate engineering identify as being useful to enhance students' experiences and outcomes a) within the classes that they teach, and b) across the multiple large foundational engineering classes taken by students? Our inquiry and analysis are guided by Lattuca and Stark's Academic Plan Model. Preliminary analysis indicated that instructors would like more opportunities to interact and collaborate with instructors from other departments. These results will inform activities for our Large Foundational Courses Summit scheduled for Summer 2018 as part of the project.