Hi, Jeanne.

The evaluation in our project is built in many layers. We have an advisory board of experts in their fields. Our research team is composed of several smaller teams such as informal learning, curriculum, assessment and professional development teams. These teams meet together on a weekly basis throughout the school year and monthly in the summer months to discuss our progress and to get feedback on our work. In the first year of the study we integrated computational thinking into the PictureSTEM curriculum (a research-based integrated STEM curriculum that makes extensive, authentic connections across STEM subjects while also connecting language arts) and developed a science center exhibit for learning engineering thinking and CT in an informal setting – our local science center. We collected data (work, video, audio, photographs, and debriefs) to ensure that we were creating training, curriculum, and an exhibit that were enjoyable and worthwhile experiences for educators, students and parents.

The project’s three overarching research questions are:

1. What does student learning look like in an integrated STEM+C school-based environment?
2. What does student learning look like in an integrated STEM+C informal learning environment?
3. In what ways (if at all) do students make connections across school and science center (and potentially other) settings?

We have analyzed a subset of data to answer the research questions above. For example, we used video analysis to explore children’s engagement in computational thinking when interacting with the exhibit. Using discourse analysis and interaction analysis, we examined parental support in engaging children in computational thinking activities. Using artifact analysis, we analyzed children’s in-school worksheets to capture the evidence of computational thinking. We also conducted case study research to investigate computational thinking exhibited by children who participated in the curriculum activities and the science center activities. We do have a number of papers out that share some of our initial findings however we will spend the next year fully analyzing data from the last year of the study and writing papers to share additional findings.

I hope this answers your question, however if it doesn’t, please do not hesitate to ask followup questions. Thank you!

This is such a great project that builds on the curriculum that already exists. Thank you for this important work and for sharing it here. Can you speak a little more about the data pieces (e.g., the content of the in-school worksheets and whether tightly coupled to the lessons or whether had any degree of transfer)? One challenge with working with younger students in math (as with computer science and STEM) is showing that they've learned the content....they're aren't great measures out there so projects tend to make their own (but then these tend to be very proximal to the lessons taught).

Hi, Anna.

For this particular research project, we supported educators in incorporating our curriculum and techniques in effective ways by:

• Developing a curriculum that provides clear implementation instructions so that whether or not educators are able to attend our professional development they are still able to implement it in their classroom. There is some suggested scripting in the teacher guide especially around the parts about engineering. We find some teachers, especially in their first year implementing the curriculum, do choose to read the scripted parts while others use it as a guide.
• Providing a three day professional development that:
  • Addressed the key misconceptions and concerns we observed when educators implemented the curriculum in their classrooms or that educators reported to us in their debriefs.
  • Utilized videos of students working through parts of the curriculum as teaching tools to help educators think through points where students were having misconceptions or had become stuck.
  • Allowed educators to experience hands-on what it means to think like an engineer and to approach a problem through a STEM, literacy and computational thinking lens.
  • Valued the experience of educators who had implemented the curriculum well in their own classrooms. We invited educators to co-lead the professional development with our experts. This allowed them to share their own personal experiences with other educators who teach the same grade level. Their insights and experiences were highly valued by all.
• Educators who were part of our research received a kit with all of the materials they needed to implement the unit in their classroom.

I watched your video. I agree that there are parallels between our projects. I am not sure if our video makes this clear but we use fiction and non-fiction children's books as a way to introduce students to the STEM and CT concepts we teach in the units. Download the curriculum at www.PictureSTEM.org.

Thanks, Elizabeth. 

Our training workshops also incorporated a lot of video footage of children engaged with our activities. These helped educators visualize how they might implement the activities, especially for those who were new to working with very young children. They also enabled us to illustrate  some of the concepts we were discussing, such as how to engage children in certain science practices. 

I look forward to taking a closer look at your curriculum. We are excited to do more work with storybooks as a component of our programs and are definitely on the look out for other work in this field.

Hi Pablo,

Thanks for watching our video and thank you for your comments and questions. 

We are also very curious about how the work we do with K-2nd grade aged learners can have an impact over a longer timespan.

We do not yet have specific plans to continue to interact with the K-2^nd grade aged children who have participated in this study, although a longitudinal study of this group would certainly be very fruitful.

We have, however, conducted a series of other studies of other groups of students. Morgan Hynes (Co-PI on this STEM+C project) and I are currently partnering with the National Society of Black Engineers and Virginia Tech to look at 3^rd-5^th graders’ STEM interests and engineering identities (two of the instruments we are using are the Engineering Identity Development Scale developed by Brenda Capobianco & the Fit of Personal Interests and Perceptions of Engineering Survey (F-PIPES) developed by Morgan as part of his CAREER grant). A few years ago I collaborated with WGBH Education Foundation and the Concord Evaluation Group on a three-year longitudinal study looking at how middle school students’ interests in engineering and engagement in informal engineering activities evolved from 6^th grade to 8^th grade (the Informal Pathways to Engineering study). We saw that most of our participants were already on an engineering pathway based on experiences they had prior to 6^th grade, and the out-of-school activities that helped them stay engaged with engineering were activities that were not place or time constrained (activities like afterschool clubs often conflicted with other afterschool activities like sports, music, or faith-based activities).

We also know there is other research that draws on undergraduate students’ or practitioners’ reflections on the experiences that led to their interest in engineering/STEM. The Academic Pathways Study (form the Center for the Advancement of Engineering Education) is one example.

So while it might be another 10+ years before we know what happens with the K-2^nd grade aged children from our study, this collection of other studies gives us some insights into what pathways to and through engineering might look like!  

We are certainly interested in suggestions for how we might further think about this too.

Thanks,

Monica

 

Hi Levi, 

Thanks for your questions and comments!

While we have focused more on characterizing how the children engaged in our project are practicing computational thinking and engineering design than on capturing the impact of the integrated STEM activities on their math, science and literacy learning, we certainly do have evidence in the videos of children being able to practice and develop math, science, and literacy skills too. While our three-minute video gives you a snapshot of a few classrooms, we have collected videos of all 13 of the integrated STEM lessons that make up the units in 44 different classrooms (and with one homeschooling family). In the Kindergarten unit, children have gotten a chance to use pipettes to test what happens when different types of paper gets wet; they also explore other properties of different types of paper. The Kindergartners read “Pattern Fish” and practice patterns through the book, through worksheets developed for the curriculum, and as they are creating paper baskets to meet the design challenge of helping “Max and Lola” by developing a template for a basket that could be used to collect rocks at a local nature center. As the children explore paper materials and patterns they are learning science and math, but also learning how to use evidence to make engineering design decisions. As they explore patterns in the book and as they choose a pattern for the paper baskets they design, we believe they are engaging in an unplugged, Kindergarten version of the CT competency of pattern recognition/pattern generation.

One thing I would like to clarify is that the existing curriculum that we used for this project was developed by some of the Co-PIs/personnel on this project. Tamara Moore led the initial development of the PictureSTEM curriculum as part of her CAREER project, and in her earlier work she integrated science, engineering, math and literacy by giving children a rich design challenge (where an external client needed help from the students), choosing a series of books that would help children practice grade-level-appropriate literacy skills while also learning about science, math, and engineering that is relevant to the design challenge, and then developing STEM activities that help children learn STEM concepts. Our collaborator Kristina Tank who is at Iowa State played a large role in this process too.

I will share one anecdote with you too. Before we began this STEM+C project, my daughter experienced the PictureSTEM curriculum in her Kindergarten classroom. During that week she would come home talking about Max and Lola and the baskets that they were designing. A week or two later, her friend’s class started the unit. I caught snippets of conversation around “oh, you’re making baskets for Max and Lola now! You’re going to have so much fun!” Fast forward two year to second grade – she is working on a weaving project for Girl Scouts. “Mommy, this is just like when I was weaving the paper for the basket for Max and Lola and learning about patterns.”  While that may not completely get at the question of how the curriculum impacted her math & science learning, it is a glimpse into the “stickiness” of the unit. The rich context, that involved helping someone else solve a problem that they had, stuck with her – and my conjecture is that it helped some of the other learning to “stick” too.

Take a look at the curriculum at PictureSTEM.org if you get a chance to see more of the science and math activities. 

Meanwhile, we are continuing to explore additional grade-level-appropriate approaches for capturing how the integrated STEM+C +literacy curriculum promotes math and science learning. We are interested in any suggestions or feedback on this!

Thanks!

Monica

PS I don't yet have any insights on how the experiences or curriculum impacted the teachers' views on the teaching and learning of math and science, but I'll keep thinking about this too.

Hi Alka,

Thanks for taking a look at our video and for helping us think about what we mean by “environments that support CT.”

I think that as we have talked about “environments that support CT” we have mostly thought about the “things” that are in an environment, the directions or instructions that are part of the environment, and the people that are in the environment. For example, we looked at how families might engage in computational thinking while responding to a design challenge that prompted them to design a playground for a puppy. In this environment there were big foam blocks that the families could move around and otherwise interact with, signage that presented the design challenge but also signage that defined and described computational thinking, and multiple family members that could support each other in engaging in CT. Parents might read the signage about CT then ask their children to think about how they could break the problem up into smaller parts (Problem Decomposition). Children might look at the shapes of the foam blocks and engage in Abstraction as they image how the block could be used for a particular piece of playground equipment. The design task explicitly prompted the families to think about patterns. In the classroom, the activities themselves, the manipulatives and the worksheets provided opportunities for the children to engage in CT, while the curriculum documents provided suggestions to the teacher for how to talk about or ask question to guide CT.

However, your question also makes me think that we should spend more time really thinking through this.  For example, you also suggest that emotional attributes might be an important consideration in creating an environment that supports CT. We certainly believe in the power of creating an environment where it is okay to not get it right the first time. One of the books from the Kindergarten unit, “The Most Magnificent Thing,” was chosen to help children prepare for the possibility that the paper basket they have designed might not be the best design – it might rip and tear during testing (with dry and wet rocks) – and that is okay! There will time to redesign the basket, so it is okay if it didn’t turn out right the first time.  

I’ll keep thinking about this – and would be happy to talk more!

Thanks again,

Monica

Jeanne,

Jeanne, thanks much for all of your positive feedback! 

We've really had a great time working on this project.

I want to give a quick shout-out to Connor Hage (one of our co-presenters). Connor is an undergraduate mechanical engineering student who has been working with INSPIRE. Connor is the artist who put our video together, helping us to tell the story of our project. We think he did a fantastic job with helping us to share our passion for this project with you all! 

Hi Amanda,

Thanks for the positive feedback! 

If you are interested in trying the first grade unit, you can find the full/detailed lesson plans on the PictureSTEM.org website. Within the first few pages you will see an overview that helps you get a sense of how much time each individual lesson takes and what materials are needed. Please let us know if you are interested in trying the curriculum and we can support you in any way! You can also learn more about the workshops we do at our website: https://engineering.purdue.edu/INSPIRE/Workshops  

Thanks,

Monica

Thanks Pablo!

Happy to continue the conversation either virtually or in person at some point - I appreciate your comments & your focus on theory and sound research. 

Thanks Sabrina!

Please let us know if you end up trying the Kindergarten unit, and if there is anything we can do to support you!