Hello.  Welcome to our video project that highlights our Robert Noyce scholarship program's partnership with Central Carolina Technical College to engage our scholars in STEM learning through projects.  This partnership serves as a professional development opportunity for our scholars as they are preparing to be future science or mathematics secondary teachers in high-need school districts.  Our project emphasizes project-based learning as an instructional strategy that can help to engage students in real-world science and mathematics.  We measure impact through teacher science/math teaching efficacy surveys as well as observations of our scholars during their student teaching internship and during their first few years of teaching using the EQUIP instrument (Marshall, Smart & Horton, 2010). This instrument measures the quality of a teacher's inquiry-based instruction. 

Questions that we would love to discuss with the larger community:

1. How have other groups enacted similar partnerships with pre-service or in-service teachers?  What were the most valuable take-aways for students and project staff?

2. How can we encourage more interdisciplinary projects in traditional high schools where teachers are often isolated from other content area teachers?

3. What are some innovative ways that other projects or groups help teachers continue to learn about new (and always changing) STEM tools to enhance their students' learning? 

The University of Cincinnati through an NSF grant, provided an opportunity for local teachers to learn about Challenge Based Learning and how they could apply it in their classrooms.  The program referred to as the CEEMS program was very effective in providing training to secondary school teachers.  You can find more information on this program at the following link: https://ceas.uc.edu/special_programs/ceems/CEEMS_Home.html

An extension of this program is called STEMucation Academy where we offer courses to teachers to teach them about developing engineering based units of instruction for their classrooms.  It may be of interest to you to look over some of the units of instruction that were developed at http://stemucationacademy.com/units/.  Some of these units are interdisciplinary in that a math and science teacher collaborated to develop a unit.  This is a tough challenge as the pacing of both programs is critical to the overall success of the instruction.

You can find a bit more info about or program at https://videohall.com/p/1817.

Great work.  Enjoyed the video.

Awesome idea of exposing future teachers to engineering design projects. How will success be evaluated?

We would like our scholars to enact interdisciplinary engineering and project-based learning units in their future mathematics and science classrooms. Our teacher preparation and Noyce programs emphasize inquiry-based instructional strategies--so success would also be for our scholars to score in the Proficient level (level 3) on the EQUIP instrument as they move from student teaching into their first years of teaching (Marshall, Smart & Horton, 2010). This instrument measures the quality of a teacher's inquiry-based instruction. We will also be reaching out to our scholars in their induction years to survey them about their use of project-based learning units. 

You have developed some nice activities based on the design process.  To what extent is the redesign based on the science and mathematics underlying the project?  How can you measure this?   

       Thank you for your comments Mr. Salinger.  The underlying precept to engineering design in any project may lead to many variations, and redesign enables new versions of the original design to be made.  It is an iterative process that usually starts out with a good guess or statement of need. Once the design team develop a concept it is analyzed using science and math to verify product performance all along the design process.

    If the design is promising, than it is produced through rapid prototyping and further tested.  Using Von Mises stress, and stress/strain analysis, the design is mapped for potential failure areas. An Engineering Factor of Safety is determined mathematically, and if it meets safety standards and design criteria than further testing is performed, to include mechanical, chemical, thermal, endurance, wind tunnel,  etc.

    If at anywhere in the process the design falls below standards, or does not meet design standards it goes back for redesign.  Most current designs are done simultaneously by many teams integrated together.  With rapid prototyping the entire process is no longer time consuming and sequential, much of it is performed simultaneously.

   During the scholars design process we showed them the underlying math and science involved during each project which to some was mind numbing. Math and science, through technology, was used in each of the projects.  Even down to the simplest documentation and drawings the math and science was explained to include vector addition, vector calculus, and aerodynamics.  To create designs of real parts, math and science are the basic tools required at every step of the process.

   I hope this answered your question satisfactorily.

I love this!  Looks like a lot of fun and really educational.  Do you know if any of the participants have been able to go on use skills from this workshop in their own classrooms?  and if so, how did they incorporate it?

Nice program and I love how you posed questions to this forum to seek engagement and collaborations. I am not directly involved in the kind of work you are doing, yet our nonprofit works with 114 districts in the League of Innovative Schools, and they put together this resource on Real World Learning. If you find it useful, I'd be happy to connect you with our team -- or to share any feedback you have with them.

And do you have any (even tentative) answers to your own questions? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

jeremy

At our university, we teach a three course project-based learning (PBL) endorsement for teachers.  In these courses, teachers are required to create and teach interdisciplinary PBL units with other content area teachers.  Teachers generally start slow (e.g., adding writing standards into their content area requirements) --but some unique projects have been developed that integrate engineering. We have had several teachers engage students in "Shark Tank" type projects in which students invent products to fill a community or local need. We have provided our Noyce scholars with some basic PBL instruction (through a Fall seminar and monthly meetings) and we have visited some local high schools that are PBL magnets so that our scholars can see projects being enacted with real students. 

This is fantastic. I'm an advocate of PBL and inquiry-based teaching and learning. Can you tell me more about your use of the EQUIP instrument to measure the quality of a teacher's inquiry-based instruction?

Hello.  You can find more out about it at this website: https://www.clemson.edu/education/research/centers-institutes/inquiry-in-motion/research-evaluation/equip.html

The EQUIP is an observation rubric used to evaluate the quality of a teacher's inquiry-based instruction  based on 4 factors: Instruction, Discourse, Assessment, and Curriculum.  An observer uses a rubric to evaluate the level of inquiry from Pre-Inquiry (level 1) to Exemplary (level 4). 

Discipline work, technology integration (including cad-type softward and 3D printing).  In our work on geometry learning, we administer a spatial skills program.  Seems like spatial skills training undergirds some of this work.  How long does the curriculum span? Perhaps adding in some content knowledge assessments and perhaps a spatial skill battery might give additional insights on what and how students are learning!? 
Check out SILC on Northwestern's site here.

Hello. I watched your video--very interesting to combine math and movement through your game.  Our partnership each Spring is about 9 hours at CCTC and then a few more hours outside of this time in which the scholars work in teams on the project goals.  We are trying to give our scholars technology and engineering skills and experiences that they can take back to their own classrooms.  At this time we are not evaluating our scholars content knowledge, but that might be incorporated into a future grant. 

Thanks for highlighting this exciting partnership and for sharing how you are observing teachers and evaluating success! Cheers.