Skip to main content

Urban High School Student Engagement Through CincySTEM iTEST Projects

An Erratum to this article was published on 09 November 2016

Abstract

This paper focuses on the notable heightening of underrepresented students’ engagement in STEM education through project-based learning CincySTEM iTEST projects. The projects, funded by an iTEST NSF grant, were designed and facilitated by teachers at a new STEM urban public high school serving low-income African-American students. Student engagement conceptualized as a psychological process involving affective and behavioral participation in classroom activities was evaluated through a mixed-methods approach. Findings indicate that affective and behavioral participation was significantly enhanced when project activities utilized digital devices in hands-on investigations of real-world project activities. Explanations for the success of CincySTEM iTEST projects are presented in the conclusion along with challenges for sustainability.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    An energy kaizen is a focused event where all users of energy within a site identify energy reductions. For the event to be successful, site stakeholders who are directly and indirectly involved in energy use must be committed to energy reduction.

References

  1. Asan A, Haliloglu Z (2005) Implementing project-based learning. Turk Online J Educ Technol 4(3):68–81

    Google Scholar 

  2. Balci S, Cakiroglu J, Tekkaya C (2006) Engagement, exploration, explanation, extension, and evaluation (5E) learning cycle and conceptual change text as learning tools. Biochem Mol Biol Educ 34(3):199–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barak M, Asad K (2012) Teaching image-processing concepts in junior high school: boys’ and girls’ achievements and attitudes towards technology. Res Sci Technol Educ 30(1):81–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beckett GH (1999) Project-based instruction in a Canadian secondary school’s ESL classes: goals and evaluations. Ph.D. dissertation. University of British Columbia, Canada

  5. Beckett GH (2006) Project-based second and foreign language instruction: theory, research, and practice. In: Beckett GH, Miller P (eds) Project-based second and foreign language education: past, present, and future. Information Age Publishing Inc, Greenwich, CT, pp 3–18

    Google Scholar 

  6. Beckett GH, Slater T (2005) The project framework: a tool for language, content, and skills integration. ELT J 59(2):108–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Beckett G, Slater T (in press) Project-based learning and technology. TESOL encyclopedia of english language teaching. Wiley, New York

  8. Beckett GH, Hemmings A, Maltbie C, Wright K, Sherman M, Sersion B, Jorgenson S (2015) An evaluation study of the CincySTEM iTEST projects: experience, peer support, professional development, and sustainability. J STEM Teach Educ 50(1):3–17

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bell S (2010) Project-based learning for the 21st century: skills for the future. Clearing House 83(2):39–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bernstein RJ (1998) Community in the pragmatic tradition. In: Dickstein M (ed) The revival of pragmatism: new essays on social thought, law, and culture. Duke University Press, Durham, NC, pp 141–156

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  11. Blumenfeld PC, Soloway E, Marx RW, Krajcik JS, Guzdial M, Palinscar A (1991) Motivating project-based learning: sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educ Psychol 26(2–3):369–398. doi:10.1080/00461520.1991.9653139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blumenfeld P, Fishman BJ, Krajcik J, Marx RW, Soloway E (2000) Creating usable innovations in systemic reform: scaling up technology-embedded project-based science in urban schools. Educ Psychol 35(3):149–164. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3503_2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Boddy N, Watson K, Aubusson P (2003) Trial of the five Es: a referent model for constructivist learning. Res Sci Educ 33(1):27–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Boss S, Krauss J (2007) Reinventing project-based learning: your field guide to real-world projects in the digital age. International Society for Technology in Education, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  15. Bottge B, Rueda E, Skivington M (2006) Situating math instruction in rich problem-solving contexts: effects on adolescents with challenging behaviors. Behav Disord 31(4):394–407

    Google Scholar 

  16. Brickman P, Gormally C, Francom G, Jardeleza SE, Schutte VW, Jordan C, Kanizay L (2012) Media-savvy scientific literacy: developing critical evaluation skills by investigating scientific claims. Am Biol Teach 74(6):374–379

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Callow J, Zammit K (2012) ‘Where lies your text?’ (Twelfth Night Act I, Scene V): engaging high school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds in reading multimodal texts. Engl Aust 47(2):69–77

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cook K, Weiland I (2010) A suggested project-based environmental unit for middle school: teaching content through inquiry. Sci Scope 33(8):46–50

    Google Scholar 

  19. Corbin J, Strauss A (2007) Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA

    Google Scholar 

  20. Cuban L (2013) Inside the black box of classroom practice: change without reform in American education. Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Darling-Hammond L, Zielezinski MB, Goldman S (2014) Using technology to support at-risk students’ learning. Scope. Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education

  22. Dewey J (1916/1966) Democracy and education: an introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: Free Press

  23. Diaz RMI (2014) Developing learner autonomy through project work in an ESP class. How 21(2):54–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dooly M, Masats D (2011) Closing the loop between theory and praxis: new models in EFL teaching. ELT J 65(1):42–51. doi:10.1093/elt/ccq017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Doppelt Y (2005) Assessment of project-based learning in a MECHATRONICS context. J Technol Educ 16(2):7–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Duncan R, Tseng K (2011) Designing project-based instruction to foster generative and mechanistic understandings in genetics. Sci Educ 95(1):21–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Duran M, Şendağ S (2012) A preliminary investigation into critical thinking skills of urban high school students: role of an IT/STEM Program. Creat Educ 3(2):241–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Engeström Y (2001) Expansive learning at work: toward an activity theory reconceptualization. J Educ Work 14(1):133–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Finn JD, Zimmer KS (1993) Student engagement: what is it and why does it matter? In: Christenson SL, Reschly AL, Wylie C (eds) Handbook of Research on Student Engagement. Springer, New York, pp 97–132

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hannafin R, Foshay WR (2008) Computer-based instruction’s (CBI) rediscovered role in K-12: an evaluation case study of one high school’s use of CBI to improve pass rates on high-stakes tests. Educ Tech Res Dev 56(2):147–160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Hemmings A (2012) Urban high schools: foundations and possibilities. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, London

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hung CM, Hwang GJ, Huang I (2012) A project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students’ learning motivation, problem-solving competence, and learning achievement. J Educ Techno Soc 15(4):368–379

    Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson CS, Delawsky S (2013) Project-based learning and student engagement. Acad Res Int 4(4):560–570

    Google Scholar 

  34. Karplus R, Thier HD (1967) A new look at elementary school science: science curriculum improvement study. Rand McNally, Chicago, IL

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kilpatrick WH (1918) The project method. Teach Coll Rec 19:319–334

    Google Scholar 

  36. Kolb DA (1984) Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  37. Kowasupat C, Jittam P, Sriwattanarothai N, Ruenwongsa P, Panijpan B (2012) Development of an inquiry-based learning unit for enhancing high-school students’ understanding of animal social behavior. Int J Learn 18(10):167–190

    Google Scholar 

  38. Krajcik JS, Blumenfeld P (2006) Project based learning. In: Sawyer RK (ed) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 317–333

  39. Liu M, Hsieh P, Cho Y, Schallert DL (2006) Middle school students’ self-efficacy, attitudes, and achievement in a computer-enhanced problem-based learning environment. J Interact Learn Res 17(3):225–242

    Google Scholar 

  40. Marks H (2000) Student engagement in instructional activity: patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years. Am Educ Res J 37(1):153–184

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Newmann FM, Wehlage GC, Lamborn S (1992) The significance and sources of student engagement. In: Newmann F (ed) Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools. Teachers College Press, New York, NT, pp 11–39

    Google Scholar 

  42. Petersen C, Nassaji H (2016) Project-based learning through the eyes of teachers and students in adult ESL classrooms. Can Mod Lang Rev 72(1):13–39. doi:10.3138/cmlr.2096

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Poomsripanon J, Chitramvong Y (2006) A new instructional model using the integrated Es inquiry cycle and geographic information system (GIS) to enhance students’ understanding of the nature of science. World Trans Eng Technol Educ 5(1):101–106

    Google Scholar 

  44. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2010) Prepare and inspire: K-12 education in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) for America’s future. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  45. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2012) Engage to excel: producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  46. Rhodes V, Stevens D, Hemmings A (2011) Creating positive culture in a new urban high school. High School J 94(3):82–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Rye J, Landenberger R, Warner TA (2013) Incorporating concept mapping in project-based learning: lessons from watershed investigations. J Sci Educ Technol 22:379–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Salpeter J (2005) Telling tales with technology. Technol Learn 25(7):18–24

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sidman-Taveau RL (2005) Computer-assisted project based learning in second language: case studies in adult ESL. The University of Texas at Austin, Austin

    Google Scholar 

  50. Steinberg L (1996) Beyond the classroom: why school reform has failed and what parents need to do. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  51. Su CY, Chiu CH, Wang TI (2010) The development of SCORM-conformant learning content based on the learning cycle using participatory design. J Comput Assist Learn 26(5):392–406. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00355.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Towndrow P, Silver RE, Albright J (2010) Setting expectations for education innovations. J Educ Change 11:425–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Trowler VS (2010) Student engagement literature review. The Higher Education Academy. Lancaster University, UK

    Google Scholar 

  54. Vygotsky LS (1978) Interaction between learning and development (M. Lopez-Morillas, Trans.). In: Cole M, John-Steiner V, Scribner S, Souberman E (eds) Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pp 79–91

    Google Scholar 

  55. Wagner T (2008) The global achievement gap: why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need and what we can do about it. Basic Books, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  56. Wu HK, Huang YL (2007) Ninth-Grade student engagement in teacher-centered and student-centered technology-enhanced learning environments. Sci Educ 91(5):727–749. doi:10.1002/sce.20216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Xie Y, Reider R (2014) Integration of innovative technologies for enhancing students’ motivation for science learning and career. J Sci Educ Technol 23:370–380. doi:10.1007/s10956-013-9469-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Zhao J, Beckett GH (2014) Project-based Chinese as a foreign language instruction: a teacher research approach. J Chin Lang Teach Assoc 49(2):4573

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by the National Science Foundation (DRL-0929557). This manuscript is approved by the Cincinnati Public School District Research and Evaluation Office. The corresponding author has been authorized by all co-authors to act as an agent on their behalf in all matters pertaining to publication of the manuscript, and the order of author names is agreed by all authors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gulbahar H. Beckett.

Additional information

An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9668-7.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beckett, G.H., Hemmings, A., Maltbie, C. et al. Urban High School Student Engagement Through CincySTEM iTEST Projects. J Sci Educ Technol 25, 995–1007 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9640-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • iTEST
  • Project-based learning
  • STEM education
  • Student engagement
  • National Science Foundation