THE VIRGINIA DEMONSTRATION PROJECT: WHAT CHARACTERISTICS=
OF
A PROBLEM-BASED ENGINEERING PROJECT LED TO SCHOOL SYSTEM/TEACHER BUY-IN AND
SUSTAINABILITY, EVEN IN A HIGH STAKES TESTING ENVIRONMENT, ESPECIALLY
WHEN THE FUNDING RAN OUT?
Trina L.
Spencer, College of William & Mary
G. Marie
Bartram, College of William & Mary
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>The Virg=
inia
Demonstration Project is an ambitious project funded by a congressional
initiative, with the goal of increasing the number of persons pursuing STEM
careers. Since the United States Navy was the financial conduit for the
plus-up, one requirements was that Navy scientists and engineers be an inte=
gral
part of the project. Other stipulations included which school system and wh=
at
university would be partners for the project. In a subsequent development, =
the
plus-up funds were not included in the third year of the project, and all t=
hree
school systems involved by that year chose to continue the project without
extra external funds. Given the lack of pre-project planning for curriculum,
professional development and evaluation, and the startling development that=
the
funding was cut off, the fact that the project yielded positive outcomes bo=
th
for students and teachers and that the project continues indicates that the=
re
were compelling qualities to the project that require delineation and
examination. In a national climate requiring sustainability for teacher
professional development and systemic change projects, the qualities that l=
ed
to the continuance of the Virginia Demonstration Project can inform others
about how to design projects that teachers and school systems make their ow=
n.
“F=
ew
would disagree that the challenge of recruiting more students into science =
and
engineering careers begins in the K–12 education system. Efforts by
schools to bolster math and science education will be more effective if they
are supplemented by public–private efforts to give students exposure =
to
scientists and engineers. Students should have opportunities to participate=
in
programs that help them see the wide range of career options open to them if
they have a strong foundation in science and math.” Summit
Statement, The National Summit on Competitiveness--Investing in U.S.
Innovation, December 6, 2005.
The Nati=
onal
Opinion Research Center published a Survey
of Earned Doctorates (2005) which shows a 24 percent decline in the num=
ber
of US citizens earning PhDs in the physical sciences and a 22 percent drop =
in
PhDs in engineering over the past decade. In 2005 a group of government and
industry leaders met at the National Summit on Competitiveness and called f=
or
partnerships that gave students exposure to scientists and engineers. Many
other publications have emerged that highlight the disturbing decline, eval=
uate
the results of efforts to remedy the situation and make recommendations for
future efforts (National Academy of Engineering, 2005, General Accounting
Office, 2005, & Wall Street Journal, 2005).
McRobbie, et al. (2001), found
that involving teachers in engaging professional development activities that
provided opportunities for reflection lessened teachers’ concerns abo=
ut
the value of engineering activities. McRobbie, et al. (2000) had previously
observed when using similar activities that preservice teachers gained
confidence in their ability to engage their own students in meaningful desi=
gn
projects. Cejka (2005) recommended that more research using engineering des=
ign
projects be done with inservice teachers in order to develop an understandi=
ng
of the challenges and potentially positive outcomes for teachers and studen=
ts
from these approaches.
Tufts University’s Cent=
er
for Engineering Education Outreach found in its program integrating enginee=
ring
with K-12 education (Rogers & Portsmore, 2004) that most teachers needed
support in order to incorporate engineering into their classrooms; nonethel=
ess,
the teacher must be the driving force in the classroom, providing questions=
and
guidance as students work through their tasks. The Tufts staff observed that
students at the bottom of the traditional classroom ladder often became
“experts” and gained respect while working with the engineering
tasks. Teachers with students with attention-deficit disorder (ADD) reported
that their students with ADD became interested in schoolwork and would pay
better attention in class in order to gain time to work on their engineering
projects.
The Bayer
Corporation, in its publication The=
Bayer
Facts of Science Education XI: Parents Speak Out About Their Children and
Science, examined the issue of engaging under-represented populations in
science and engineering fields. Parents interviewed by the Bayer Corporation
researchers reported that the major challenge of overcoming deficits in sci=
ence
and engineering fields was that science classes are boring or uninteresting.
Parents believed that education was the key, and that science should be han=
ds-on
and inquiry-based (Bayer Corporation, 2003).
The overwhelming majority of
scientists and engineers are white males and yet white males comprise only =
15%
of the new entries into the labor force, and, in the ten years between 1998=
and
2008, jobs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) are
projected to increase four times faster than the overall job rate, yielding
about one million job openings (Business-Higher Education Forum, 2006).
According to the National Council of Educational Statistics, by 2028 the
majority of students in schools in the U. S. will be “minority”.
Considering these factors together, there is a critical need for interestin=
g a
broad range of students in public education in the United States in STEM
coursework and careers.
Motivating students in the
multicultural classroom involves a shift from the typical science and
mathematics class approaches observed in the TIMSS studies (2000, 2005). The
United States mathematics classroom seen in the TIMSS video was teacher-dir=
ected
and textbook and computation-based. The science classrooms in the TIMSS vid=
eos
are activity-based, yet poorly connected to science concepts, to the real
world, and to previous and succeeding science lessons. Jones, Howe, and Rua
(2000) found that girls begin to show a drop in interest in science and
mathematics in the middle school years, and that girls were more likely to
pursue higher level science classes and to major in science if they recogni=
zed
potential real-world benefits of achievement in these science areas. Accord=
ing
to Sanfelix and Statzer (2003), students from other cultures are motivated =
to
work and learn if science classrooms are (1) problem-based, (2) using real
world problems, (3) collaborative, and (4) hands-on/active. Likewise, in 20=
04
the American Society for Engineering Education issued guidelines for suppor=
ting
STEM education, citing six critical aspects: (1) Hands-on learning, (2)
Interdisciplinary approaches, (3) Standards, (4) Use/Improve the status of =
K-12
teachers, (5) Make engineers “Cool”, and (6) Work in partnership
with other entities.
The standards movement and the
accompanying assessments in the United States were addressed by prominent
educators in a Podcast hosted by The Center for Comprehensive School Reform=
and
Improvement on October 10, 2005. Sandra Feldman, at that time the President=
of
the American Federation of Teachers, commented that “testing has a lo=
t of
catching up to do with the kind of education teachers want to see in the
classroom.” James Pelli=
grino.
Professor of Education at the University of Illinois, observed that alignme=
nt
of assessments with state standards is critical, nonetheless lack of alignm=
ent
is a “real dilemma”. Nonetheless, the majority of public school
teachers in the United States are required to teach according to standards
specific to various content areas. Their students are required to take tests
that supposedly reflect these standards and in turn parallel the curriculum=
in
schools. Teachers, students and schools are evaluated based upon student
outcomes on these tests.
Virginia=
’s
end-of-school-year program of testing, based on the Standards of Learning
(SOL), is a high-stakes system. Schools whose students do not succeed at the
established criterion (70% pass rate in all core subjects) are at risk of
takeover by the state. The Virginia Demonstration project in-school activit=
ies
were scheduled in collaboration with teachers and principals, to avoid the
segments of the school year where teachers would either be reviewing for or
administering the tests. The decision to target 7th grade was ba=
sed
in part on the fact that there were fewer SOL core subject tests administer=
ed
in 7th grade. The Stafford administrators developed an applicati=
on
for teachers interested in participating, and 14 teachers were recruited for
the pilot implementation of the project.
The scenarios and the content=
of
the lessons in the Virginia Demonstration Project were selected to align wi=
th
the standards of learning in Virginia. These standards were ranked second a=
mong
all state science standards by the Fordham Foundation (2005).
In support of a problem-based
learning (PBL) approach to classroom science lessons, a 2001 Request for
Proposals from the NSF recommended that projects for attracting students to
engineering involve “the joys of creation through design, discovery
through research, and invention through hands-on experimentation”.
Problem-based learning in the school setting is characterized by having the
learning directed by the solution of problems; it is student centered and t=
here
is no one right answer (Gallagher, et al, 1995, & Greenwald, 2000). An
aspect of the PBL scenario adopted for the Virginia Demonstration Project is
the examination of real-world benefits of using science, mathematics and
engineering to solve problems. The VDP project’s PBL scenario provide=
d a
context and a reason for learning, connecting the lessons to students’
lives. The use of real-world contexts was cited by Baker (1996) as an effec=
tive
approach for appealing to females and minorities.
In fall of 2004 potential
partners for the Virginia Demonstration Project began planning for the proj=
ect.
The partners were (1) the Office of Naval Research, specifically the Naval
Surface Warfare Center – Dahlgren Division, (2) Stafford County public
schools, and (3) the College of William & Mary. Funding had already been
allocated through a federal plus-up, and would flow from the Office of Naval
Research (ONR) budget through the N-STAR (Navy-Science and Technology for
America’s Readiness) project.
The primary ONR criteria for =
the
project were that it become a clearly successful project in preparing young
people for mathematics, science, and engineering careers, and that it serve=
as
a model for replication. Other factors, including which K-12 students to
target, what curricular ideas to incorporate, how to embed the ideas into t=
he
school experience (whether after school, in school, or in the summer), what
other ancillary groups to include in the project (i. e. teachers, parents,
counselors, principals) and how to incorporate scientists and engineers into
the plan – all were yet to be defined.
Initiall=
y the
Office of Naval Research (ONR) representatives saw the project as focusing =
on
gifted students, in an after school or summer program. College faculty and
administrators from school system convinced ONR representatives that the
greatest potential for change among students was in the group of students w=
ho
may not yet have an interest in science, engineering, and mathematics. Also,
more enduring change would occur if the VDP developed curricular approaches
that were successful as part of the school day, and if teachers were traine=
d to
use these approaches. The educators cautioned that the lessons used must ha=
ve
relevance to real-world situations, and should have an application of social
benefit.
The first
steps in implementation involved teacher and scientist/engineer professional
development in robotics, the landmine scenario and lesson planning/scheduli=
ng
for the project, and also issues in co-teaching, cooperative learning, and
school climate. Substitutes were provided using VDP funds when school-day
professional development sessions were held. Two Saturday sessions were hel=
d,
and stipends were paid to teachers for their work on those days. The teache=
rs
used time during the professional development sessions to discuss the possi=
ble
ways to schedule implementation, with teaching teams from different schools
trading ideas for how to schedule. The schedules were all two-week plans,
ranging from use of the mathematics and science periods only, to an all-day
concentration on the project. About 360 students participated in the first
implementation. The six middle school teacher/engineer teams scheduled
in-school implementation and use of school facilities based on the unique
situations of each school.
University faculty worked with
the ONR and school system personnel to develop a problem-based learning
scenario. The scenario had to meet several requirements: It had to connect =
(1)
to tasks the Navy performed, (2) to the use of the robots, and (3) to the s=
tate
standards for mathematics and science. In addition, the scenario should be
relevant to students, and provide an opportunity to learn how science,
mathematics, and engineering could bring benefit to society. The first scen=
ario
was “Land Mine!” In the land mine scenario the robots were built
and programmed to perform various tasks simulating finding and gathering
landmines in preparation for safe detonation. The catastrophic tsunami that
struck Asian Pacific countries during the school system’s winter brea=
k in
2004-2005 provided a context where actual landmines and sea-based mines were
dislodged by the tremendous energy of the tsunami to locations that made th=
ese
mines even more dangerous. The teachers used this event to show students the
relevance of their robotics tasks.
The corresponding research
project used Internet and other information sources to focus upon locations=
where
noncombatants, particularly children, were at risk from un-detonated landmi=
nes.
Explicit connections to Virginia Standards of Learning (VA SOL) were made,
using the landmine scenario. The seventh grade Science Investigation standa=
rd
(LS.1) was the focus for science instruction, and seventh grade mathematics
concepts such as ratio, and proportion were incorporated into the landmine
lessons.
An additional problem-based
scenario, Oil Spill at a Coral Reef, was implemented for seventh graders in=
the
second semester of the project, when the landmine theme was moved to eighth
grade.
Principals and assistant
principals from each of the six middle schools were invited to attend all
professional development sessions and the Expo. School counselors from each
middle school participated in an awareness-raising session, where they were
informed about the Virginia Demonstration Project and its goals. Also, the
counselors worked together discussing their own attitudes toward science and
mathematics, and reflecting on how their personal attitudes might affect th=
eir
recommendations to middle school students.
In the s=
econd
year of the VDP, two additional school systems became partners in the proje=
ct.
Professional development activities and classroom lessons in robotics and t=
he
problem-based themes followed the strategies and guidelines developed in the
first year. As school systems gained experience with the project, content
specialists in language arts and social studies became part of the VDP
teacher-teams. The state of Virginia had mandated a technology resource tea=
cher
for each school in Virginia, and those new positions became active members =
of
the VDP teams. Also, special education specialists were co-teachers in many=
VDP
classrooms. Thus, teacher-teams went from two teachers (in most cases) to s=
ix
teachers, and the professional development needs shifted to a broader focus=
in
order to encompass the language arts and social studies aspects of the
problem-based learning scenario.
At the e=
nd of
the development phase, spring of 2005, 356 7th grade students, 26
scientists/engineers, and 14 teachers in Stafford County had participated in
VDP activities. These activities included the robotics/landmine lessons, the
Expo, and the field trip to Dahlgren. Teachers and students were generally
enthusiastic and positive about the impact of implementing the Virginia
Demonstration Project. Table 1 shows the results of evaluation efforts in t=
he
pilot year.
<=
span
style=3D'font-family:Times;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"'>A high
percentage of the teachers (83%) felt that the professional development
activities were helpful in meeting program objectives. In responses to a su=
rvey
using a Likert-type scale of 1=3D Not at all, to 5=3D To a Great Extent, th=
e mean
for the appropriateness of pre-implementation instruction was 4.32, SD 0.75,
and the mean for the Robotics Challenges meeting program objectives was 4.3=
6,
SD 0.49. Teachers also reported that students demonstrated enthusiasm about
science and engineering (4.28, SD 0.68).
Table 1
Degree to Which Key N-STAR/VDP Ou=
tput
Objectives Were Met in Spring 2005, Teacher and
S & E Responses
|
Goal |
Objective |
Na |
Meanb |
Standard Deviationb |
Percent |
|
Goal 1 Professional development training |
Professional development sessions were helpful in meeting project
objectives. |
25 |
3.32 |
1.14 |
83% of teachers 75% of scientists and engineers |
|
|
My team was provided the appropriate training to successfully work
with the students. |
19 |
4.32 |
0.75 |
|
|
Goal 2 Problem-based school year modules developed and delivered |
The student research project was effective in meeting project
objectives. |
25 |
3.36 |
0.99 |
75% of teachers |
|
|
The student robotics challenges were effective in meeting project
objectives. |
25 |
4.36 |
0.49 |
100% of teachers |
|
|
The iMovies made by the students were useful in achieving the proj=
ect
goals. |
25 |
3.48 |
1.29 |
67% of teachers |
|
c Goals 3 and 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goal 5 Increased knowledge, skills, and abilities in teachers. |
Project contributed to my knowledge of math, science, and technolo=
gy. |
25 |
3.60 |
1.38 |
|
Table 1 (continued).
Degree to =
Which
Key N-STAR/VDP Output Objectives Were Met in Spring 2005, Teacher and
S & E Responses
|
Goal |
Objective |
Na |
Meanb |
Standard Deviationb |
Percent |
|
Goal 6 Increased interest and
enthusiasm among 7th and 8th graders regarding scie=
nce,
mathematics, engineering, and Navy careers. |
Students demonstrated enthusia=
sm
about the world of science and engineering. |
25 |
4.28 |
0.68 |
|
|
|
Students demonstrated enthusiasm about the world of science and
engineering. |
19 |
4.32 |
0.58 |
|
|
Goal 7 Increased knowledge, skills, and abilities in students |
The project taught me more about math. |
156 |
2.67 |
1.29 |
|
a Spring 2005 evaluation: Responses from 12 Stafford teac=
hers
and 13 Dahlgren scientists and engineers. b Responses on a
five-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent).
c Goals related to summer camp, and not discussed in this paper.=
Students responded to a simil=
ar
survey, reporting that they learned about technology (4.46, SD 0.89), probl=
em
solving (3.79, SD 1.11), math (3.82, SD 1.05), and science (3.61, SD 1.25)
through the robotics/landmine project. Seventy-four percent of the students
responding to the survey reported an increase in interest in pursuing scien=
ce
or engineering careers. Table 2 shows student responses to questions about =
the
project.
Table 2<= o:p>
Degree to =
Which
Key N-STAR/VDP Intermediate Outcome Objectives Were Met, Student Responses
|
Goal |
Objective |
Na |
Meanb |
Standard Deviationb |
|
Goal 7 Increased knowledge, skills, and abilities in students |
The project taught me more about science and technology. |
156 |
3.53 |
1.22 |
|
|
The project taught me more about problem-solving. |
156 |
3.62 |
1.15 |
|
|
The project taught me about math. |
57 |
3.82 |
1.05 |
|
|
The project taught me more about science. |
57 |
3.61 |
1.25 |
|
|
The project taught me more about technology. |
57 |
4.46 |
0.89 |
|
|
The project taught me about problem-solving. |
57 |
3.79 |
1.11 |
a Spring 2005 evaluation: Responses from 156 Stafford students. b Responses on a five-point scale ranging fro= m 1 (not at all) to 5 (to a great extent).
Student teams were working in
four locations in the school, as well as performing test robot runs in the
hallway. The science teacher and both engineers were assisting robotics wor=
k in
the science lab, and student teams circulated from the science lab to the
computer lab which was several rooms and a corner away. One engineer spent =
most
of her time in the computer lab advising teams on programming. Another comp=
uter
lab on a different floor of the building was the location of several team
members who were doing research on landmines. In the mathematics classroom,
student teams were working on their research displays. Team banners with the
names selected for themselves by the different teams (e.g., “Mine
D-Mine”, “Cuddly Claymores”) and a class chart showing wh=
ich
teams had accomplished robotics tasks were displayed in the science lab and=
the
mathematics classroom. Student groups appeared self-directed, requiring
attention from the adults only when they had a question about something.
One student group of four left
the science lab carrying their robot, walked to the computer lab, worked on=
the
programming, and walked back down the long hallway to the science lab talki=
ng
intently with each other about the question at hand. The science teacher
introduced the observer to an eighth grade girl from Guatemala who he said =
had
exhibited dramatic improvement in language and socialization since the
implementation of the VDP lessons. She talked about not knowing anyone in t=
he
school prior to the group work embedded in the VDP lessons and she said she
really liked her teammates. She also liked the programming and her teammates
thought she was good at it. The science teacher had observed that she had
shifted from a withdrawn and shy student to a student who had gained enough
fluency with the English language and enough confidence in herself that she=
now
participated in class discussions.
By the e=
nd of
Spring ’06 implementation of VDP lessons in Spotsylvania County, 247 =
8th
graders, 21 teachers, 21 scientists/engineers, and several counselors had
participated in the project.
In a focus group discussion of
six students selected by school principals as representative of the target
groups for the project (males and females, majority and minority, variety of
economic backgrounds) students were asked how the NSTAR/VDP lessons were
different than what they did in school on a typical day. One student replie=
d,
“We weren’t just learning stuff for a test, we were learning to
learn and use the information in life.” When queried about the role of
the scientists and engineers “They were great, they really helped us,
they would explain to us what we did wrong; they would walk us through poss=
ible
solutions and help us understand the process”. In a closing comment, =
one
student wearing her coat backward, crouched in her chair, volunteered,
“Before the N-STAR program I did not like school or want to go to sch=
ool,
but during the program I woke up and went to school every day”.
William & Mary faculty and
staff visited four of the five schools implementing the VDP lessons in Staf=
ford
in Fall 2005, talking with students, teachers, and engineers as student tea=
ms
worked together on various aspects of the coral reef challenge. Several
highlights of the observations underscored the complex impact of the projec=
t on
students. At one of the schools, 12 student teams of six each worked on the=
ir
robotics challenges in an auxiliary gym. Four challenge boards were set up =
in
the center of the gym, with tables ranged around the perimeter holding lapt=
ops
and Lego Mindstorms kits disassembled as various stages of robot constructi=
on
proceeded. One to three students on each team sat in front of the team̵=
7;s
laptop, working on programming. Another two or three students worked on
building or altering the design of their robot. At intervals, the entire te=
am
would move, en masse, to a challenge board to test the performance of their
robot. After the test, the team would drift back to their table, talking ab=
out
what happened, what to fix, how to fix it, or whether it was time to move o=
n to
another challenge.
One team had two laptops work=
ing.
One laptop had a magnified screen, and the student working on that laptop
leaned close to the screen. She was legally blind, and the magnified screen
allowed her to see the software program. She was one of the programmers on =
her
team. She commented to one of her teachers that her experience with the VDP
lessons was the first time her classmates had listened to her in all her ye=
ars
in school. A second team contained several students whose physical affect w=
as
that of bored, disaffected adolescents – slouched in chairs, backs tu=
rned
to each other and the excitement ebbing and flowing back and forth around t=
he
center robotics tests. This team was frustrated, and didn’t know wher=
e to
turn. When asked if they had requested teacher assistance, they replied that
they had, but the teachers would just tell them to figure it out for
themselves. A conversation with the teachers in the room revealed that (1) =
they
were new to the project and (2) the two engineers involved with this team w=
ere
absent that day. The students eventually received assistance from a teacher,
and encouragement from the university observer, moving somewhat forward in
accomplishing the tasks set forth.
A second school used the team
classrooms for the VDP lessons. The science and mathematics teachers provid=
ed
the location for the robotics work, and the language arts and social studies
teachers supported the research work. Student teams of four worked in vario=
us
classrooms, with engineers circulating between the classrooms where robots =
were
being engineered. A group of eighth graders entered the robotics classrooms,
providing assistance to the seventh graders. The eighth graders were vetera=
ns
from Spring 2005, and their teachers had released them to help out. An
interesting interview with one girl revealed that she was unable to help wi=
th
the programming, since she had done no programming herself during the durat=
ion
of the Spring 2005 implementation, nor had she programmed using Robolab dur=
ing
the Summer Camp in 2005.
Students were working in pair=
s,
trios, and foursomes in the language arts classroom, using laptops to look =
up
coral reef organisms, talking quietly with each other about where to go next
and what they were reading on the computer screen. The language arts teacher
commented to the university visitor that this was the way teaching should be
– students working independently with the teacher providing guidance.=
Focus group sessions were
conducted at two schools with 7-9 VDP students selected school administrato=
rs
as representative of the student population of the school system. A structu=
red
group interview was held, with a set of questions asked. These same questio=
ns
were used in the focus group meetings in Spotsylvania County as well. Quest=
ions
included “What did you like best about the VDP lessons?”, and
“What would you change?”. Students were asked to pick one thing
they learned from the project. The responses to the questions revealed the
project from the student perspective. They liked working on teams with other
students, though working in cooperative learning teams was new to them all.
Some felt rushed by the pressure of keeping up with other teams, but they l=
iked
the “openness” of the assignments. “There are so many dif=
ferent
ways to do something”. One student remarked that in school you hear a=
bout
learning from your mistakes, but usually that happens in a negative way. Wi=
th
the robots there were unexpected things that happened, but you did learn fr=
om
your mistakes, and you had time to fix them. One student said she had chang=
ed,
“You don’t really notice that you have changed, but you do. You
know how to work with other people as a group.” Another commented,
“It teaches you to work through problems. If something doesn’t =
work,
try it again and learn from your mistakes.”
In Fall of 2006 disturbing ne=
ws
reached the school and university partners. There was no funding for the
Virginia Demonstration Project in the current federal budget. ONR partners =
at
both Dahlgren and in Washington, DC were unable to explain the situation and
the school and university partners began to re-assess their options. Whatev=
er
they chose to do in continuing the VDP would have to be accomplished using =
VDP
funds reserved from previous budget cycles, if these reserves existed. The
critical factor for all was the lack of funding from Dahlgren for scientists
and engineers (S & E’s) to work with classroom teachers. ONR part=
ners
regretted the fact that there was no money left from their share of the fun=
ding
to pay for S & E time.
Nonetheless, VDP activities
continued. The College of William & Mary faculty and staff refined seve=
ral
lesson plan sets for distribution to school partners, including a new lesson
plan set for introducing robotics and programming using an inquiry approach.
William & Mary continued to provide professional development as request=
ed
by the school partners.
Stafford County School
administrative personnel decided to build upon their two years of experience
with the Virginia Demonstration Project by eliminating the school year
component of the project and instead concentrating on the summer camp. They
would expand the summer camp model developed over the past two summers to t=
hree
concurrent summer camps for students in the summer between seventh and eigh=
th
grade, each camp drawing from two middle schools. Camp fees would be the
primary funding source for the camps, with Stafford County School monies
provided for scholarships for students who qualified through need. Stafford
planned to actively recruit for the camp from student populations that were
under-represented in science and engineering – females, economically
disadvantaged, and cultural minorities.
The academic year robotics
program using the coral reef problem-based learning scenario was put on hol=
d,
though a few teams of teachers intended to go ahead with their coral
reef/robotics lessons during the spring of 2007. Other teams were uneasy at=
the
loss of the S & E support in the classroom, and decided to forego VDP a=
ctivities
in the spring.
Even though the funding issue=
for
the Virginia Demonstration Project was unresolved, Spotsylvania County teac=
hers
met the week before the opening of school to discuss plans for implementing=
VDP
lessons in the 2006-2007 school year. They decided at that time to continue
regardless of the level of scientist/engineer support. When the loss of fun=
ding
and S & E support was confirmed, in October of 2006, Spotsylvania
administrators polled the teachers who had participated in the Virginia
Demonstration Project the previous year. Again the teacher teams from
Spotsylvania elected to continue with the project. Realizing that there wou=
ld
be few or no engineers to support the teachers in the robotics activities,
Spotsylvania worked with Dahlgren personnel to maximize S & E resources,
and made plans with William & Mary personnel to move forward with
professional development.
In Decem=
ber of
2006, a core group of five VDP-experienced 8th grade math and
science teachers from Spotsylvania met with William & Mary personnel to
preview the newly-developed lesson plan sets and to plan a suggested sequen=
ce
of lessons for their students. A full day of robotics training was held dur=
ing
the school week, with the 21 VDP teachers and five engineers attending, alo=
ng
with W & M staff. A second full day of professional development followed
that involved the core group of teachers modeling the newly-developed lesson
sets for the remaining teachers, William and Mary faculty and staff leading=
sessions
on organizing and utilizing cooperative learning groups. To close out the d=
ay,
three teachers from each of the seven middle schools – one math, one
science, and one instruction technology, met to discuss and determine toget=
her
their plans for implementation in the spring of 2007.
Teachers recommended that
professional development activities could be improved by providing more time
and space for planning. Also, they requested more resources and materials f=
or
the lesson modules.
Student focus groups held in =
four
schools, two each for the two large school systems involved, indicated over=
all
positive perspectives on the VDP. Students commented on the benefits of the
problem-solving approach, saying [It] “shows why you’re learning
stuff,” and “Computers aren’t just for research, you can
build programs that make a difference in the world by finding landmines, an=
d it
can save people.” The activities proved to be engaging for students, =
as
evidenced in these comments from students who participated in the focus gro=
ups:
“You’re having so much fun that sometimes you forget that
you’re learning.” One student characterized a vision for the
potential impact of the Virginia Demonstration Project activities, “It
would be good to have it all over the country . . . and maybe eventually in
different places all over the world. It could change the way people think a=
bout
certain things . . . like pollution problems and ways to stop it and fix
environmental problems.” Students also commented that they enjoyed
working in teams, working toward a goal together.
Seventh and eighth grade stud=
ents
perceived the scientists and engineers as helpful in helping to solve probl=
ems
about the programming and construction of the robots. In the comment sectio=
n of
the end-of-year survey, one student wrote about the engineer who worked with
this student’s teacher: “He was not bossy; he made you work for=
the
answers but not in a bad way.”
The Virginia Demons= tration model has several components that are characteristics of the project. (1) Engineers and teachers are trained together, and work together in the classroom, (2) the lessons are based on a problem-based learning scenario, = (3) the lessons deal with the core curriculum and core standards for the content area and grade level, (4) the project is implemented in regular, heterogeneously grouped classes, (5) students work in cooperative learning teams, and (6) tasks involve engineering challenges and research into aspec= ts of the problem-based learning scenario.
At the conclusion of the Spri=
ng
2006 activities of the Virginia Demonstration Project, 1,678 students, 86
teachers, and 48 scientists and engineers had participated in problem-based
learning activities in seventh and eighth grade classrooms in the three cou=
nty
school systems. Fifty school counselors had participated in the counselor
programs.
Ten different sets of
professional development training activities were provided to teachers,
scientist/engineers, and counselors. The professional development activities
had been refined and reduced to 2.5 days of out-of-classroom time. Activiti=
es
had been eliminated that were not reported to advance the understanding and
skills of the participants, and other activities were elaborated upon in
response to feedback from participants and from observations and experience=
s in
classrooms.
Difficulties with budgetary
procedures remained a major obstacle for the future of the project. Though =
the
partnership with the Office of Naval Research and with the scientists and
engineers at Dahlgren supported a rich exchange of ideas and also the
participation of the S & E’s as mentors in classrooms, the
uncertainties of the flow of funding and, at the end, the loss of funding
– all clouded the success of the VDP activities. These uncertainties
affected many areas of the project. There was no external evaluator hired f=
or
the project until the development phase of the in-school portion of the pro=
ject
was complete. The first evaluator was hired on an interim basis, and the
present external evaluator did not begin working with the project until fal=
l of
2005. Because funding had not yet been released in spring of 2006, one scho=
ol
system implemented robotics/landmine activities while choosing to NOT purch=
ase
enough computers for student teams, instead acquiring sufficient computers =
from
other resources for the interim.
It is notable that the
difficulties leading from budgetary procedures did not prevent professional
development activities, the acquisition of essential materials, and support
services to the teachers. The school system that participated in the
development phase purchased computers and other equipment on the promise of=
funding.
This school system also fully implemented the development activities in
classrooms in their schools, providing substitute time and professional
development support. The faculty and staff at the College of William & =
Mary
devoted significant time to planning and professional development before any
funding flowed to their budget office. Also notable is the response of the
schools to the news that federal funding would not continue into Fall 2006.
Administrators in each school division polled the teachers who were experie=
nced
with VDP, asking about willingness to continue in the event there were no
engineers for co-teaching the robotics activities. All three participating
school divisions chose to continue in some capacity, either in-school or su=
mmer
camp.
Evaluation and data collection
proved challenging from the onset of the project. A critical factor impeding
careful planning of evaluation and data collection was the inability to hir=
e a
permanent external evaluator to guide the process. Budgetary constraints
prevented the issuance of a contract for external personnel until funds were
actually in-hand, and no qualified personnel at either Dahlgren or the Coll=
ege
of William & Mary were available. Thus, evaluation instruments were
developed sometimes on the day they were needed, and did not reflect the ri=
gor
desired. Also, data collection from school systems involves prior planning,
both for inserting into the other constraints of the school day and for
observing research protocols in place in individual school systems. At the =
time
of notification of the loss of funding, the evaluation team was in the proc=
ess
of finalizing the first complete set of instruments to be administered pre =
and
post across school systems.
The evaluation team members f=
rom
William & Mary were also responsible for SET team professional developm=
ent
and curriculum development. Conflicting demands and looming deadlines for
teacher training and implementation often interfered with careful considera=
tion
about the development and administration of suitable instruments. The time
press also interfered with coordination of data collection efforts with sch=
ool
system personnel.
The results of this project a=
nd
the development of a model for partnerships among businesses, schools, and
universities for the purpose of increasing interest in science, mathematics,
and engineering promises important information for others interested in the
same goals. The comprehensive nature of this project and the embedding of
engineers and the engineering projects in the core classroom curriculum pro=
vide
insights into the impact and importance of the various factors.
Despite the many obstacles,
preliminary results indicate the project is successful. Perhaps most
interesting is that the project was sustained beyond the funding from the
congressional initiative, particularly when that loss not expected by the
school system participants. The characteristics of the project may explain =
the
enthusiasm and commitment demonstrated after funding was lost. Teachers were
supported in collaborating with each other; collaboration was necessary for
project implementation. Engineers helped teachers with tasks that would
otherwise have proven impossible to many teachers, that is, managing a clas=
s of
25 students who are programming and building with Legos. Teachers were
successful in providing students a structure that allowed students to devel=
op
relationships with classmates, accomplish goals that illustrated how STEM
careers can benefit humankind, and still meet the achievement standards that
meant the school was accredited and the students passed their classes. In t=
he
end, it was clear that even in the high-stakes testing environment enforced=
by
the state department of education, these teachers saw great benefit in this
risky and rewarding endeavor.
American
Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for Science Literacy. New York: Oxford University Pr=
ess.
Baker,
D. R. (1996). A female friendly science classroom. Research Matters to the Science Teacher, 9602. National Associa=
tion
for Research in Science Teaching Monograph.
Brown, E. F., Kavetsky, R. A., Stiegler, R. L., Squire, =
P.
N., Matkins, J. J., Hardinge, G. B., McLaughlin, J. A. (2006). VDP--A
mentor-focused middle school outreach program. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), Chicago, =
IL,
June, 2006.
Brown, E. F., Kavetsky, R. A., Stiegler, R. L., Matkins,=
J.
J., Hardinge, G. B., Bengier, A. L., Gamache, R., & Kremar, J. (2006).
Learning by doing – Hands-on experiments for a middle school outreach
program. Paper presented at the Southeastern section meeting of the American
Society for Engineering Education (ASEE), March, 2006.
Cejka,
E. (2005). Inservice Teachers’
Approaches to Open-Ended Engineering Design Problems and the Engineering De=
sign
Process. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, Tufts University.
Cert,
V, & Miller, H. N. (2005). America gasps for breath in the R & D
marathon. Wall Street Journal, July=
27,
2005, A.12.
Gross,
P. R., Goodenough, U., Lerner, L. S., Haack, S., Scwartz, M., Schwartz, R.,=
et
al. (2005). The state of state science standards 2005. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved June 29, 2006 from http:=
//www.edexcellence.net/foundation/publication/index.cfm.
Gallagher,
S., Stepien, W. J., Sher, B. T., & Workman, D. (1995). Implementing
problem-based learning in science classrooms. School Science and Mathematics, 95 (3), 136-146.
General
Accounting Office. (2005). Federal, Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics Programs and Related Trends. http://www.gao.gov/new.ite=
ms/d06114.pdf
Greenwald,
N. (2000). Learning from problems. =
The
Science Teacher, 67 (4), 28-32.
Hsu,
T. (2002). Foundations of Physical
Science. Peabody, MA: Cambridge Physics Outlet.
Janus,
E. (10/10/2005). Podcast program #3: Trends in using measurement to improve
learning. Podcast Series: Harnessin=
g the
Scientific Spirit to Improve Learning. The Center for Comprehens=
ive
School Reform and Improvement. Accessed March 16, 2007 at http://www.centerforcsri.org/podcasts/pod3/
Jones,
G. M., Howe, A., & Rua, M. J. (2000). Gender differences in students=
217;
experiences, interests, and attitudes toward science and scientists. Science Education, 84 (2), 180-192=
.
Keener,
H., and Spencer, T. (2005). N-star
professional development training and project planning sessions: spring 2005
evaluation, College of William and Mary School of Education, August 200=
5,
unpublished document.
McRobbie,
C. J., Ginns, I . S., & Stein, S. J. (2000). Preservice primary
teachers’ thinking about technology and technology education. International Journal of Technology and
Design Education, 10, 81-10=
1.
McRobbie,
C. J., Stein, S. J., & Ginns, I. S. (2001). Exploring designerly thinki=
ng
of students as novice designers. Re=
search
in Science Education, 31, 91-116.
National
Academy of Engineering. (2005). Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing
and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. http://books.nap.edu/catal=
og/11463.html.
National
Opinion Research Center. (2005). Survey of Earned Doctorates. http://www.norc.uc=
hicago.edu/issues/docdata.htm
National
Research Council. (1996). National
Science Education Standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Rogers,
C., & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. =
Journal of STEM Education, 5 (3&4)=
,
17-28.
Rutherford,
F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1990). Sc=
ience
for All Americans. New York: Oxford University Press.
The Natio