Advertisement

Research in Science Education

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 389–412 | Cite as

After-School Spaces: Looking for Learning in All the Right Places

  • Christine G. SchnittkaEmail author
  • Michael A. Evans
  • Samantha G. L. Won
  • Tiffany A. Drape
Article

Abstract

After-school settings provide youth with homework support, social outlets and fun activities, and help build self-confidence. They are safe places for forming relationships with caring adults. More after-school settings are starting to integrate Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) topics. What science skills and concepts might youth learn in engineering design-based after-school settings? Traditional assessments often fail to capture the ways youth learn in informal settings, and deep science understandings are notoriously difficult to measure. In this study, we examined three after-school settings where 65 youth were learning science through engineering design challenges. In this informal setting, we examined storyboards, social networking forum (SNF) chat logs, videos of whole-class interactions, interviews with groups and single participants, and traditional multiple-choice pre- and posttest results. As we looked for evidence of learning, we found that the social networking forum was rich with data. Interviews were even more informative, much more so than traditional pencil and paper multiple-choice tests. We found that different kinds of elicitation strategies adopted by site leaders and facilitators played an important role in the ways youth constructed knowledge. These elicitation strategies also helped us find evidence of learning. Based on findings, future iterations of the curricula will involve tighter integration of social networking forums, continued use of videotaped interviews for data collection, an increased focus on training site leaders and facilitators in elicitation strategies, and more open-ended pencil and paper assessments in order to facilitate the process of looking for learning.

Keywords

Engineering Science After-school Social network forums Design-based curriculum 

References

  1. Ahn, J., Gubbels, M., Yip, J., Bonsignore, E., & Clegg, T. (2013). Using social media and learning analytics to understand how children engage in scientific inquiry. INQuiry (SINQ), 1, 9.Google Scholar
  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Evans, M. A., Lopez, M., Maddox, D., Drape, T., & Duke, R. (2014). Interest-driven learning among middle school youth in an out-of-school STEM studio. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 624–640.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, E. L. (1999). Prevention and intervention programming: lessons from an after-school program. Urban Review, 31(1), 107–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cantrell, P., Peckan, G., Itani, A., & Velasquez-Bryant, N. (2006). The effects of engineering modules on student learning in middle school science classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 95, 301–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clegg, T., Yip, J. C., Ahn, J., Bonsignore, E., Gubbels, M., Lewittes, B. & Rhodes, E. (2013). What face-to-face fails: opportunities for social media to foster collaborative learning. In Tenth International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. Google Scholar
  8. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Fereday, J., & Muir-Cochrane, E. (2006). Demonstrating rigor through thematic analysis: a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 80–92.Google Scholar
  11. Fonteyn, M. E., Vettese, M., Lancaster, D. R., & Bauer-Wu, S. (2008). Developing a codebook to guide content analysis of expressive writing transcripts. Applied Nursing Research, 21, 165–168. Google Scholar
  12. Fortus, D., Dershimer, R. C., Krajcik, J., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok-Naaman, R. (2004). Design-based science and student learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 41, 1081–1110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M. L., & Marek, E. A. (2001). Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedures and scientific reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 535–549.Google Scholar
  14. Gross, L. (2005). As the Antarctic ice pack recedes, a fragile ecosystem hangs in the balance. PLoS Biology, 3(4), 557–561.Google Scholar
  15. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (2013). Design, make, play: growing the next generation of STEM innovators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hung, D., Lee, S. S., & Lim, K. Y. T. (2012). Authenticity in learning for the twenty-first century: bridging the formal and informal. Educational Technology Research & Development, 60, 1071–1091. doi: 10.1007/s11423-012-9272-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., et al. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  18. Jenouvrier, S., Caswell, H., Barbraud, C., Holland, M., Stroeve, J., & Weimerskirch, H. (2009). Demographic models and IPCC climate projections predict the decline of an emperor penguin population. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(6), 1844–1847. Google Scholar
  19. Jonassen, D. H., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. M. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: a constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: a case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., Puntambekar, S., & Ryan, M. (2003). Problem-based learning meets case-based reasoning in the middle-school science classroom: putting learning by design into practice. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(4), 495–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lai, K. W., Khaddage, F., & Knezek, G. (2013). Blending student technology experiences in formal and informal learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 414–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis, T. (2006). Design and inquiry: bases for an accommodation between science and technology education in the curriculum? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 43, 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maxwell, J. (2006). Re-situating constructionism. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, J. Hunsinger, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), The international iandbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 279–298). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. National Research Council [NRC]. (2009). Learning science in informal settings: people, places, and pursuits. Washington: National Academies.Google Scholar
  26. Palinscar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Papert, S. (Ed.). (1991). Situating constructionism. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  28. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism, 36, 1–11.Google Scholar
  29. Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., & Pachan, M. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: findings from three scientific reviews. Chicago: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.Google Scholar
  30. Rossman, G., & Rallis, S. (2003). Learning in the field: an introduction to qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Roth, W. M. (2007). The nature of scientific conceptions: a discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3, 25–30.Google Scholar
  32. Schnittka, C.G. (2009). Save the penguins engineering teaching kit: an introduction to thermodynamics and heat transfer. Downloaded from http://www.auburn.edu/~cgs0013/ETK/SaveThePenguinsETK.pdf.
  33. Schnittka, C.G., Bell, R.L., & Richards, L.G. (2010). Save the penguins: teaching the science of heat transfer through engineering design. Science Scope, 34(3), 82–91.Google Scholar
  34. Schnittka, C.G., Brandt, C., Jones, B., & Evans, M.A. (2012). Informal engineering education after school: a studio model for middle school girls and boys. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2). Downloaded from http://advances.asee.org/vol03/issue02/papers/aee-vol03-issue02-p04.pdf.
  35. Schnittka, C.G., & Bell, R.L. (2011). Engineering design and conceptual change in the middle school science classroom.  International Journal of Science Education, 33, 1861–1887.Google Scholar
  36. Evans, M.A., & Jones, B.D. (2012). Using digital game design in an informal learning environment to motivate students in biology. Interactive roundtable at the American Educational Research Association Conference, Vancouver, April 13–17.Google Scholar
  37. Evans, M.A., & Biedler, J. (2012). Playing, designing, and developing video games for informal science learning: mission: evolution as a working example. International Journal of Learning and Media, 3(4). doi: 10.1162/IJLM_a_00083.
  38. Evans, M. A., Lopez, M., Maddox, D., Drape, T., & Duke, R. (2014). Interest-driven learning among middle school youth in an out-of-school STEM studio. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(5), 624–640.Google Scholar
  39. Sadler, P. M., Coyle, H. P., & Schwartz, M. (2000). Engineering competitions in the middle school classroom: key elements in developing effective design challenges. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(3), 299–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stager, G.S. (2013). Papert’s prison fab lab: implications for the maker movement and education design. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, New York.Google Scholar
  41. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Tamir, P. (1990). Factors associated with the relationship between formal, informal, and nonformal science learning. Journal of Environmental Education, 22, 34–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tobin, K., & Tippins, D. (1993). Constructivism as a referent for teaching and learning. In K. Tobin (Ed.), The practice of constructivism in science education (pp. 3–21). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  44. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine G. Schnittka
    • 1
    Email author
  • Michael A. Evans
    • 2
  • Samantha G. L. Won
    • 3
  • Tiffany A. Drape
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Curriculum & TeachingAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  2. 2.Department of Teacher Education and Learning SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Department of Instructional Design and TechnologyVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.Department of Agricultural, Leadership, and Community EducationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations