Cultural Studies of Science Education

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 873–887 | Cite as

An interdisciplinary collaboration between computer engineering and mathematics/bilingual education to develop a curriculum for underrepresented middle school students

  • Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis
  • Carlos Alfonso LópezLeiva
  • Marios S. Pattichis
  • Daniel Llamocca


There is a strong need in the United States to increase the number of students from underrepresented groups who pursue careers in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Drawing from sociocultural theory, we present approaches to establishing collaborations between computer engineering and mathematics/bilingual education faculty to address this need. We describe our work through the Advancing Out-of-School Learning in Mathematics and Engineering project by illustrating how an integrated curriculum that is based on mathematics with applications in image and video processing can be designed and how it can be implemented with middle school students from underrepresented groups.


Interdisciplinary collaboration Mathematics education Image and video processing Underrepresented students STEM 



We would like to give special thanks to all students, parents, and facilitators whom we worked with during the summer program. We learned much together, and we appreciate all the feedback provided on how to improve future directions of our work. Similarly, we acknowledge that the information used in this article was originally collected in a summer school program as part of a research project conducted by Drs. Carlos A. LópezLeiva and Marios S. Pattichis, Principal Investigators, University of New Mexico as part of Out-of-School Learning in Mathematics and Engineering (OLME). The project was also supported through funds for a postdoctoral fellow from the Office of the Provost, of which Drs. Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis and Marios S. Pattichis were Co-Principal Investigators. A-OLME is supported by the University of New Mexico’s Office of the Provost as well as from the College of Education. The views expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not reflect the views of the funders.


  1. Celedón-Pattichis, S. (2010). Implementing reform curriculum: Voicing the experiences of an ESL/mathematics teacher. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5(4), 185–198.Google Scholar
  2. Chval, K., & Khisty, L. L. (2009). Bilingual Latino students, writing and mathematics: A case study of successful teaching and learning. In R. Barwell (Ed.), Multilingualism mathematics classrooms: Global perspectives (pp. 128–144). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  3. Douglas, S., Christensen, M. P., & Orsak, G. C. (2008). Designing pre-college engineering curricula and technology: Lessons from the Infinity Project. Proceedings of the IEEE, 96(6), 1035–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Education Week. (2012).The global challenge: Education in a competitive world. New MexicoState highlight 2012 (Special supplement, Quality Counts 2012). Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Inc. Retrieved from
  5. Hamilton, E., Lesh, R., Lester, F., & Brilleslyper, M. (2008). Model-eliciting activities (MEAs) as a bridge between engineering education research and mathematics education research. Advances in Engineering Education, 1(2). Retrieved from
  6. John-Steiner, V. (2000). Creative collaboration. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Johri, A., & Olds, B. M. (2011). Situated engineering learning: Bridging engineering education research and the learning sciences. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Karam, L. & Rice, D. (2000). Teaching image processing to high-school students: A web-based, active learning approach in teaching image processing to high school students is presented. SPE 2000 Workshop.Google Scholar
  9. Litzinger, T., Hadgraft, R., Lattuca, L., & Newstetter, W. (2011). Engineering education and the development of expertise. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 123–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mooney, M. A., & Laubach, T. A. (2002). Adventure engineering: A design centered, inquiry based approach to middle grade science and mathematics education. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(3), 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moschkovich, J. N. (2004). Appropriating mathematical practices: A case study of learning to use and explore functions through interaction with a tutor. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 55, 49–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Moschkovich, J., & Nelson-Barber, S. (2009). What mathematics teachers need to know about culture and language. In B. Greer, S. Mukhopadhyay, A. B. Powell, & S. Nelson-Barber (Eds.), Culturally responsive mathematics education (pp. 111–136). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  14. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics-CCSSM. Washington DC: Author.Google Scholar
  15. National Research Council. (2011). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  16. Radford, L., & Roth, W. M. (2011). Intercorporeality and ethical commitment: An activity perspective on classroom interaction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 77(2–3), 227–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shaughnessy, J. M. (2012). STEM: An advocacy position, not a content area. NCTM Summing Up. Retrieved from
  18. Strang, G. (2007). Computational science and engineering. Wellesley, MA: Wellesley-Cambridge Press.Google Scholar
  19. Syed, M., & Chemers, M. M. (2011). Ethnic minorities and women in STEM: Casting a wide net to address a persistent social problem. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 435–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. (2008). Using everyday experience to teach science. In A. Rosebery & B. Warren (Eds.), Teaching science to English language learners (pp. 39–50). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.Google Scholar
  22. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (expanded (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  24. Willey, C., LópezLeiva, C., Torres, Z., & Khisty, L. L. Chanzas (in press): The probability of changing the ecology of mathematical activity. In B. Flores, O. Vásquez, & E. Riojas Clark (Eds.), La nueva generación de la clase mágica. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis
    • 1
  • Carlos Alfonso LópezLeiva
    • 1
  • Marios S. Pattichis
    • 2
  • Daniel Llamocca
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Language, Literacy and Sociocultural Studies, College of EducationUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA
  2. 2.Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, School of EngineeringUniversity of New MexicoAlbuquerqueUSA

Personalised recommendations