Advertisement

Studio STEM: A Model to Enhance Integrative STEM Literacy Through Engineering Design

  • Michael A. EvansEmail author
  • Christine Schnittka
  • Brett D. Jones
  • Carol B. Brandt
Part of the Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education book series (CTISE, volume 44)

Abstract

Developing and implementing integrative curricula that enhances STEM literacy by providing meaningful connections to the lives of youth is challenging. Equally demanding is to invoke the desired cognitive, social, and affective changes that could positively influence motivation in STEM learning (Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009). In this chapter, we present the Studio STEM model, which is comprised of theory, curricula, training, implementation, and assessment that attempts to overcome known barriers. Studio STEM is an out-of-school, design-based science and engineering program intended to engage middle school youth in critical STEM concepts and practices. The design principles that frame the model include: curricula based on science inquiry, engineering design, studio-based learning, technology-enhanced experiences and opportunities, and a focus on community connections through service organizations and businesses. The Studio STEM model addresses several issues identified by recent reports that highlight potential hindrance of full adoption of integrative STEM programming. We offer the framework by which Studio STEM was intentionally designed to be a practical program based on current theory and research. We also discuss details of what constitutes an engineering design-based science learning environment, a description of the program curricula and training, assessment measures used, and results from several implementations of Studio STEM in varying informal learning contexts (Evans et al. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 3(2), 1–31, 2014; Schnittka, C. G., Brandt, C. B., Jones, B. D., & Evans, M. A. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1–31, 2012; Schnittka et al. Looking for learning in afterschool spaces: Studio STEM (2015). Preliminary results suggest positive changes in youth engagement toward and interest in STEM as a result of participating in Studio STEM. As a result, we highlight the connections among theory and research, practical implementations of the program, and positive student and teacher outcomes related to motivation and STEM literacy driven by a focus on engineering design practices as core to these efforts.

Keywords

Engineering Design Process Youth Engagement Site Leader Music Model Undergraduate Mentor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aikenhead, G., Calabrese, A. B., & Chinn, P. W. (2006). Forum: Toward a politics of place-based science education. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 1(2), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teaching: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archer, L., DeWitt, J., Osborne, J., Dillon, J., Willis, B., & Wong, B. (2010). “Doing” science versus “being” a scientist: Examining 10/11‐year‐old schoolchildren’s constructions of science through the lens of identity. Science Education, 94(4), 617–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asghar, A., Ellington, R., Rice, E., Johnson, F., & Prime, G. M. (2012). Supporting STEM education in secondary science contexts. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 6(2), 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  6. Barab, S. A., & Duffy, T. M. (2000). From practice fields to communities of practice. In D. H. Johassen & S. M. Land (Eds.), Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 25–55). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. Baram-Tsabari, A., & Yarden, A. (2009). Identifying meta-clusters of students’ interest in science and their change with age. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 46(9), 999–1022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barrows, H. S. (1998). The essentials of problem-based learning. Journal of Dental Education, 62(9), 630–633.Google Scholar
  9. Barton, A. C., & Tan, E. (2010). We be burnin’! Agency, identity, and science learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(2), 187–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Barton, A. C., Tan, E., & Rivet, A. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Basu, S. J., & Barton, A. C. (2007). Developing a sustained interest in science among urban minority youth. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 466–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Becker, K. H., & Park, K. (2011). Need a title here. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 12(5–6), 23–37.Google Scholar
  13. Bell, R. L., Smetana, L., & Binns, I. (2005). Simplifying inquiry instruction. The Science Teacher, 72(7), 30–33.Google Scholar
  14. Bell, P., Lewenstein, B., Shouse, A. W., & Feder, M. A. (Eds.). (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  15. Bevan, B., Michalchik, V., Bhanot, R., Rauch, N., Remold, J., Semper, R., & Shields, P. (2010). Out-of-school time STEM: Building experience, building bridges. San Francisco: Exploratorium, Retrieved April, 29, 2013.Google Scholar
  16. Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (1997). Changing problem-based learning. In D. Boud & G. Feletti (Eds.), The challenge of problem-based learning (2nd ed., pp. 1–14). London: Kogan Page.Google Scholar
  17. Bouvier, S., & Connors, K. (2011). Increasing student interest in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM): Massachusetts STEM pipeline fund programs using promising practices. Report Prepared for the Massachusetts Department of Higher Education, 74.Google Scholar
  18. Brandt, C., Motto, A., Schnittka, C.G., Evans, M., & Jones, B. (2011). Socio-cognitive scaffolding in the studio: Informal STEM learning and identity. Proceedings of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Orlando.Google Scholar
  19. Brophy, S., Klein, S., Portsmore, M., & Rogers, C. (2008). Advancing engineering education in P‐12 classrooms. Journal of Engineering Education, 97(3), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Campbell, K., & Ellingson, D. A. (2010). Cooperative learning at a distance: An experiment with wikis. American Journal of Business Education (AJBE), 3(4), 83–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen, B., & Bryer, T. (2012). Investigating instructional strategies for using social media in formal and informal learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(1), 87–104.Google Scholar
  22. Chouinard, M. M., Harris, P. L., & Maratsos, M. P. (2007). Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 72(1), vii–ix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Cresswell, J., & Plano-Clark, V. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Deater-Deckard, K., Chang, M., & Evans, M. A. (2013). Engagement states and learning from educational games. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 139, 21–30. doi: 10.1002/cad.20028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Department of Energy [ED]. (2012). Energy literacy: Essential principles and fundamental concepts for energy education. Retrieved from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/education/pdfs/energy_literacy_1_0_high_res.pdf
  27. DeWaters, J. E., & Powers, S. E. (2011). Energy literacy of secondary students in New York State (USA): A measure of knowledge, affect, and behavior. Energy Policy, 39(3), 1699–1710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Diefes-Dux, H. A., Moore, T., Zawojewski, J., Imbrie, P. K., & Follman, D. (2004). A framework for posing openended engineering problems: Model-eliciting activities. In Frontiers in Education, 2004. FIE 2004. 34th Annual (pp. F1A-3). New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
  29. Dreyfus, A., Jungwirth, E., & Eliovitch, R. (1990). Applying the “cognitive conflict” strategy for conceptual change: Some implications, difficulties and problems. Science Education, 74, 555–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Driver, R., Guesne, E., & Tiberghien, A. (Eds.). (1985). Children’s ideas in science. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Driver, R., Squires, A., Rushworth, P., & Wood-Robinson, V. (1994). Making sense of secondary science: Research into children’s ideas. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Duit, R., & Treagust, D. F. (2003). Conceptual change: A powerful framework for improving science teaching and learning. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 671–688.Google Scholar
  33. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task values and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  35. Elliot, D. S., & Voss, H. L. (1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington: D. C. Heath and Company.Google Scholar
  36. Evans, M. A. (2009). Promoting mediated collaborative inquiry in primary and secondary science settings: Sociotechnical prescriptions for and challenges to curricular reform. In R. Subramaniam (Ed.), Handbook of research on new media literacy at the K-12 level: Issues and challenges (Vol. I, pp. 128–143). Hershey: Information Science Reference.CrossRefGoogle 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. Won, S., Drape, T., & Smalls, D. (2013). STEM Club Hang Out: Social media use in an informal learning space. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, San Francisco, 27 Apr–1 May 2013.Google Scholar
  39. Evans, M. A., Lopez, M., Maddox, D., Drape, T., & Duke, R. (2014a). Interest-driven learning among middle school youth in an out-of-school STEM studio. Submitted to the Journal of Science Education and Technology. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  40. Evans, M. A., Duke, R. F., & Jones, B. D. (2014b). Characterizing youth academic engagement with STEM in an afterschool design studio. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  41. Evans, M. A., Maddox, D., & Lopez, M. (2014c). Youth interest in and motivation toward informal STEM education: Two case studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  42. Evans, M. A., Won, S., & Drape, T. (2014d). Interest-driven learning of STEM concepts among youth interacting through social media. International Journal of Social Media and Interactive Learning Environments, 2, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fraser, B. J., & Kahle, J. B. (2007). Classroom, home and peer environment influences on student outcomes in science and mathematics: An analysis of systemic reform data. International Journal of Science Education, 29(15), 1891–1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Fusco, D., & Barton, A. C. (2001). Representing student achievements in science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(3), 337–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Gattie, D. K., & Wicklein, R. C. (2007). Curricular value and instructional needs for infusing engineering design into K-12 technology education. Journal of Technology Education, 19(1), 6–18.Google Scholar
  46. Gerber, B. L., Cavallo, A. M. L., & Marek, E. A. (2001). Relationships among informal learning environments, teaching procedure and scientific reasoning. International Journal of Science Education, 23, 535–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Gold, M., & Mann, D. W. (1984). Expelled to a friendlier place: A study of effective alternative schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  48. Griffin, J., Brandt, C., Bickel, E., Schnittka, C., & Schnittka, J. (2015). Imbalance of power: A case study of a middle school mixed-gender engineering team. Princeton: IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference.Google Scholar
  49. Gross, L. (2005). As the Antarctic ice pack recedes, a fragile ecosystem hangs in the balance. PLoS Biology 3(4), 557–561. Retrieved from http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0030127 Google Scholar
  50. Gruenewald, D. A. (2003). Foundations of place: A multidisciplinary framework for place-conscious education. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 619–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hewson, M. G., & Hewson, P. (1983). Effect of instruction using students’ prior knowledge and conceptual change strategies on science learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 731–743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hewson, P. W., & Hewson, M. G. B. (1984). The role of conceptual conflict in conceptual change and the design of science instruction. Instructional Science, 13(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Honey, M., & Kanter, D. E. (2013). Design, make, play: Growing the next generation of STEM innovators. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Hsu, P. L., & Roth, W. M. (2010). From a sense of stereotypically foreign to belonging in a science community: Ways of experiential descriptions about high school students’ science internship. Research in Science Education, 40(3), 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ito, M., Baumer, S., Bittanti, M., Boyd, D., Cody, R., Herr-Stephenson, B., Horst, H. A., Lange, P. G., Mahendran, D., Martinez, K. Z., Pascoe, C. J., Perkel, D., Robinson, L., Sims, C., & Tripp, L. (2010). Hanging out, messing around, and geeking out. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  58. Ito, M., Gutierrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K., Schor, J., Sefton-Green, J., & Watkins, S. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design, The digital media and learning. Irvine: Research Hub.Google Scholar
  59. 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. Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/106/6/1844.full.pdf+html
  60. Jones, B. D. (2009). Motivating students to engage in learning: The MUSIC model of academic motivation. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 21(3), 272–285.Google Scholar
  61. Jones, B. D. (2015). Motivating students by design: Practical strategies for professors. Charleston, SC: CreateSpace.Google Scholar
  62. Jones, B. D., & Skaggs, G. E. (in press). Measuring students’ motivation: Validity evidence for the MUSIC model of academic motivation inventory. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.Google Scholar
  63. Jones, B. D., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2013a). Testing the MUSIC model of academic motivation through confirmatory factor analysis. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 33(4), 482–503. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.785044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Jones, B. D., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2013b). Validity evidence for the use of a motivation inventory with middle school students. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of Motivation, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  65. Jones, M. G., Jones, B. D., & Hargrove, T. Y. (2003). The unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  66. Jones, B. D., Osborne, J. W., Paretti, M. C., & Matusovich, H. M. (2014). Relationships among students’ perceptions of a first-year engineering design course and their engineering identification, motivational beliefs, course effort, and academic outcomes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 30(6A), 1340–1356.Google Scholar
  67. Jones, B. D., Sahbaz, S., & Chittum, J. R. (2015a, April). Science class motivational beliefs that impact students’ science identification and career plans. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  68. Jones, B. D., Chittum, J. R., Akalin, S., Schram, A. B., Fink, J., Schnittka, C., et al. (2015b). Elements of design based science activities that affect students’ motivation. School Science and Mathematics, 115(8), 404–415.Google Scholar
  69. Joseph, B., Shoemaker, C., & Martin, H. J. (2010). How using social media forced a library to work on the edge in their efforts to move youth from “Hanging Out” to “Messing Around”. The Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2(2), 181–184.Google Scholar
  70. Kanter, D. E., & Konstantopoulos, S. (2010). The impact of a project‐based science curriculum on minority student achievement, attitudes, and careers: The effects of teacher content and pedagogical content knowledge and inquiry‐based practices. Science Education, 94(5), 855–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Katehi, L., Pearson, G., & Feder, M. (Eds.). (2009). Engineering in K-12 education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  72. Kitsantas, A., & Dabbagh, N. (2011). The role of Web 2.0 technologies in self‐regulated learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(126), 99–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30(3), 585–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Madden, M., Lenhart, A., Duggan, M., Cortesi, S., & Gasser, U. (2013). Teens and technology 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.Google Scholar
  75. Maltese, A. V., & Tai, R. H. (2010). Eyeballs in the fridge: Sources of early interest in science. International Journal of Science Education, 32, 669–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Markowitz, D. G. (2004). Evaluation of the long-term impact of a university high school summer science program on students' interest and perceived abilities in science. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 13(3), 395–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Merrill, C., Custer, R., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2007). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education. Washington, DC: ASEE.Google Scholar
  78. Merrill, C., Custer, R. L., Daugherty, J., Westrick, M., & Zeng, Y. (2009). Delivering core engineering concepts to secondary level students. Journal of Technology Education, 20(1), 48.Google Scholar
  79. Moore, T., & Richards, L. G. (2012). P-12 engineering education research and practice. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2). Downloaded from http://advances.asee.org/wpcontent/ uploads/vol03/issue02/papers/aee-vol03-issue02-p01.pdf
  80. Moore, T. J., Miller, R. L., Lesh, R. A., Stohlmann, M. S., & Kim, Y. R. (2013). Modeling in engineering: The role of representational fluency in Students’ conceptual understanding. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(1), 141–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Morrison, J. S. (2006). Attributes of STEM education: The students, the academy, the classroom. TIES STEM Education Monograph Series. Baltimore: Teaching Institute for Excellence in STEM.Google Scholar
  82. Motto, A., Brandt, C. B., Schnittka, C., Evans, M. A., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Studio STEM/Save the Penguins: Connecting youth to environmental issues through designbased projects. Roundtable presented at the American Educational Research Association meeting, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  83. National Academy of Engineering and National Research Council. (2012). Assuring the U.S. Department of Defense a Strong Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics [STEM] workforce. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  84. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  85. Osborne, J. W. (1997). Identification with academics and academic success among community college students. Community College Review, 25(1), 59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Osborne, R., & Freyberg, P. (1985). Learning in science. The implications of children’s science. Auckland/Portsmouth: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
  87. Osborne, J. W., & Jones, B. D. (2011). Identification with academics and motivation to achieve in school: How the structure of the self influences academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 131–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Osborne, J. W., & Rausch, J. L. (2001). Identification with academics and academic outcomes in secondary students. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association, Seattle.Google Scholar
  89. Osborne, J. W., & Walker, C. (2006). Stereotype threat, identification with academics, and withdrawal from school: Why the most successful students of colour might be most likely to withdraw. Educational Psychology, 26(4), 563–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Piaget, J. (1980). The psychogenesis of knowledge and its epistemological significance. In M. Piattelli-Palmarini (Ed.), Language and learning (pp. 23–34). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  91. Pintrich, P. R., Marx, R. W., & Boyle, R. A. (1993). Beyond cold conceptual change: The role of motivational beliefs and classroom contextual factors in the process of conceptual change. Review of Educational Research, 63(2), 167–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Potter, J. (2003). Discursive psychology: Between method and paradigm. Discourse & Society, 14(6), 783–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rahm, J. (2008). Urban youths’ hybrid positioning in science practices at the margin: A look inside a school – museum – scientist partnership project and an after-school science program. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 3(1), 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Rahm, J., & Grimes, K. (2005). Embedding seeds for better learning: Sneaking up on education in a youth gardening program. Afterschool Matters, 4, 33–41.Google Scholar
  95. Reid, K. C. (1981). Alienation and persistent school absenteeism. Research in Education, 26, 31–40.Google Scholar
  96. Riegle-Crumb, C., Moore, C., & Ramos-Wada, A. (2011). Who wants to have a career in science or math? Exploring adolescents’ future aspiration by gender and race/ethnicity. Science Education, 95(3), 458–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Reynolds, B., Mehalik, M. M., Lovell, M. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2009). Increasing student awareness of and interest in engineering as a career option through design-based learning. International Journal of Engineering Education, 25, 788–798.Google Scholar
  98. Rhodes, J. E. (2004). The critical ingredient: Caring youth-staff relationships in afterschool settings. New Directions for Youth Development, 2004(101), 145–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  100. Roth, W. M. (2008). The nature of scientific conceptions: A discursive psychological perspective. Educational Research Review, 3(1), 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Sadler, P. M., Sonnert, G., Hazari, Z., & Tai, R. (2012). Stability and volatility of STEM career interest in high school: A gender study. Science Education, 96(3), 411–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Schnittka, C. G. (2009). Engineering design activities and conceptual change in middle school science. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, PO Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106.Google Scholar
  103. Schnittka, C. G. (2012). How Kentucky coal keeps the lights on: Preservice teachers’ conceptions about energy. A paper presented at the University of Kentucky STEM symposium, Lexington.Google Scholar
  104. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Schnittka, C. G. & Ewald, M. L. (2013). Research results: The Alabama STEM Studio for Afterschool Learning (TASSAL). A paper presented at the Auburn University Outreach Symposium, Auburn.Google Scholar
  106. Schnittka, C. G., Brandt, C. B., Jones, B. D., & Evans, M. A. (2012). Informal engineering education afterschool: Employing the studio model for motivation and identification in STEM domains. Advances in Engineering Education, 3(2), 1–31.Google Scholar
  107. Schnittka, C. G., Evans, M. A., Drape, T., & Won, S. (2013). Looking for learning in afterschool spaces. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  108. Schnittka, C. G., Turner, G., Colvin, R., & Ewald, M. L. (2014). A state-wide professional development program in engineering with science and math teachers in Alabama: Fostering conceptual understandings of STEM. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education, Indianapolis.Google Scholar
  109. Schnittka, C. G., Evans, M. A., Drape, T. D., & Won, S. (2015). Looking for learning in afterschool spaces: Studio STEM. Research in Science Education. doi: 10.1007/s11165-015-9463-0 Google Scholar
  110. Seiler, G. (2001). Reversing the “standard” direction: Science emerging from the lives of African American students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(9), 1000–1014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  112. Shapka, J. D., Domene, J. F., & Keating, D. P. (2006). Trajectories of career aspirations through adolescence and young adulthood: Early math achievement as a critical filter. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(4), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Sobel, D. (2004). Place-based education: Connecting classrooms & communities. Great Barrington: The Orion Society.Google Scholar
  114. Strike, K. A., & Posner, G. J. (1982). Conceptual change and science teaching. European Journal of Science Education, 4(3), 231–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Tai, R. H., Sadler, P. M., & Mintzes, J. J. (2006). Factors influencing college science success. Journal of College Science Teaching, 36(1), 52.Google Scholar
  116. Torp, L., & Sage, S. (1998). Problems as possibilities: Problem-based learning for K-12 education. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  117. Trusty, J. (2002). Effects of high school course-taking and other variables on choice of science and mathematics college majors. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(4), 464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. Wang, H-H., Moore, T. J., Roehrig, G. H., & Park, M. S. (2011) STEM integration: Teacher perceptions and practice, Journal of Pre-College Engineering Education Research (J-PEER)1(2), Article 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284314636
  119. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 68–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wiggins, S., & Hepburn, A. (2005). Discursive psychology. Discourse & Society, 16(5), 595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael A. Evans
    • 1
    Email author
  • Christine Schnittka
    • 2
  • Brett D. Jones
    • 3
  • Carol B. Brandt
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Teacher Education and Learning SciencesNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Department of Curriculum and TeachingAuburn UniversityAuburnUSA
  3. 3.School of EducationVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.Department of Teaching and LearningTemple UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations