Designing for Student Engagement in

Middle School Science: Collaborative Problem-Solving in Environmental

Science Using Nanotechnology and Electron Microscopy

Andrea J. HarmerDirector of EducationCenter for Advanced Materials and NanotechnologyDepartment of Materials Science & Engineering

April 17, 2007

Background and

Statement of Problem

• In 4th grade, U.S. students rank 6th in science achievement

• By 8th grade, U.S. students rank 9th in science achievement

• By 12th grade, U.S. students rank in the bottom 10% in math and science compared to international peers (NAS, 2006)

• Achievement in science and math are pressing needs for nanoscale technologies emerging worldwide, 2 million workers needed by 2015 (Roco, 2001; NAS, 2006)

93% of students understand scientific principals, 58% cannot apply them (NCES, 2002)

U.S. Competition for Economic Health and a Science Literate Population (NAS, 2006)

500

510

520

530

540

550

560

570

580

4thGrade

8thGrade

U.S.SingaporeJapanHong KongEnglandChinese Taipei

Differences in Science Achievement (NCES, 2003)

• Student Engagement = Academic intensity with positive emotional response (Shernoff,et al. 2003)

• Flow Theory - union of concentration, interest, and enjoyment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990)

• Strategies include (NRC, 2003)

–Relevant, meaningful purpose–Promoting student pride–Sense of belonging–Student control (creative freedom)–Social connectedness

• Evidence of engagement–Look forward to science (Carlson, Humphrey, & Reinhart, 2003)

–View themselves as scientists and seek to collaborate–Desire to learn more science and engage in exploration

Theoretical Foundations for Designing Science Inquiry to Engage Students

What was missing?• Combination of these methods AND ALLOWING STUDENTS TO

CREATE OR GENERATE THEIR OWN DATA FROM RESEARCH SCIENTISTS’ INSTRUMENT, ex. in the form of images or databases

• HAVING STUDENTS PARTICIPATE AS A TEAM AND INTERACT DIRECTLY WITH OUTSIDE EXPERTS, ex. a university, industry, and/ or non-profit organization TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR IDEAS AND DATA TO A SHARED DATABASE

• Or used these inquiry design elements to UNDERSTAND NANOSCALE science and engineering, and NANOTECHNOLOGY applications related to topic

Purpose of Study *What West Nile Virus Pilot Study told us

• To examine sixth-graders engagement with science while studying an authentic, relevant problem --

The Lehigh Gap Environmental Remediation Inquiry

• To examine effectiveness and functionality of Web-based prototype in classroom

– Students reacted to problem• Real, relevant Purpose

– Engaged with cutting edge content

– Collaborated with experts using shared resources

– Use microscopy to generate and analyze sample data

– Freedom to design solutions– Contribute to database– Communicated outside class – Understand nanoscale

Learning Design

Logistical Adaptations to Lehigh Gap Inquiry based on Pilot Purpose

Cutting edge content

Collaboration with experts Working on same problem(in class and at Lehigh)

Shared resources & accessto real SEM with EDS(Scanning Electron Microscope w/ Energy Dispersive Spectrometer to generate and analyze data)

Creative Freedom

Contribution (to database)http://imaginations.web.lehigh.edu

Important factors for student engagement

Functionality Adaptations:

Used XL30 remotely from classroom

Linked nanotechnology to problem solution by:

Added nanoparticles to soil to see effect (suggested by W. Zhang during practice run to strengthen science)

Consulted with environmental scientists at Natural Lands Trust Co. about more relevant sample set

Revised Lehigh Gap WISE with COE faculty, Alec Bodzin, after practice run

•WNV Pilot Study - green

•Lehigh Gap - green+brown

Method• Lehigh Gap Environmental Remediation Project

– Students studied underlying science about the toxic waste site near the Lehigh Gap, known by EPA as the Palmerton Zinc Pile Superfund Site.

– Students generated and analyzed data from Lehigh Gap samples and contributed SEM images and energy dispersive spectra (EDS) to university database.

– Students applied scientific knowledge of remediation techniques, formed hypotheses, experimental designs to test hypotheses, including dependent and independent variables

– In process, students understood nanoscale science, nanotechnology for soil and groundwater remediation, electron microscopy as a tool for analysis, and considered social and ethical implications of new science

Research DesignSingle case study research design

Population & SampleTypical 6th Grade US suburban student

Primarily U.S. Caucasian

Age Range 11- 13, Mean age: 12

Sample: 55 total studentsClass Female MaleTotal Class 1 17 13 30Class 2 12 13 25

Lehigh Gap Project Procedure• Introduce local, relevant problem• Engage students in team effort with experts for shared purpose • Over 5 weeks - 2x/week• 2 classes - 60 sixth graders/12 groups• Web-based inquiry on WISE, Duckboy in Nanoland• Intro to microscopy and nanotechnology on ImagiNations• Student groups control group name, sample, and presentation

method • Groups remotely use XL30 electron microscope to generate

images & EDS to identify elements present and contribute to database

• Students visit Lehigh, relate to scopes & present results

Data Collection Tools• Students pre-response and post-response questions – “Attitudes Towards Learning Science” (LS)

– “Content Knowledge” (CK) questions

• Students daily journals

• Students interviewed

• Students comments

• Teacher interviewed

• Observation notes

Method of Data Analysis• Qualitative Analysis

– Constant comparative method– Reading and Coding data – Identifying recurring themes– Assigning categories for themes– Placing coded data into categories they represent– Determine common connections between data sources

• Quantitative Analysis– independent variables t test - equality of means

• pre and post responses to determine effect of inquiry on students’ understanding of nanotechnology-related content and changes in attitudes toward learning science

Validity and Reliability

Limitations and Generalizability

•Triangulation

• Member checks

• Peer examination

• Single Case Study

• Providing raw data prior to interpretation

• Details of research method and study

Ethical Considerations• Thorough ORSP IRB review with revisions

Design Intentions to Engage Student

1. Introduced authentic, local problem to which they could relate.

2. Simultaneously introduced them to nanoscience and electron microscopy, through cutting edge applications.

3. Gave them lots of freedom to promote creative thinking and learning.

4. Set up access to XL30 scanning electron microscope (SEM) with Energy Dispersive Spectrometer (EDS) capabilities.

5. Used vocabulary of empowerment, ex. “You are the scientist now!”

6. Emphasized collaborative team approach with outside experts.

Collaborative Problem-Solving in Environmental Science Using Nanotechnology and Electron

Microscopy

Cutting edge problems & applications discussed

Real tools are accessed for helping to solvethe problem Students analyze

and inquire

Students see scopes, present at Lehigh and discuss problem solution with researchers

Students contributeSEM images and EDS data

FindingsInquiry Implementation and Technology

• Twelve student groups successfully accessed SEM and used EDS, generating 16 micrographs and 13 spectra, although ran out of time to do both backyard samples.

• Each student used a new laptop and

computer problems were minimized.

• Students excited and frustrated with “chat” option in WISE. Some complained about too many questions.

• Inquiry functioned well with Mrs. Bauer as only teacher (she attributed this to her past experience with WISE, ImagiNations).

FindingsHow Learning Design Affected Student EngagementEight Categories of Broad Themes Emerged from Data Sources:

1. Personal Relevance

2. Sharing Knowledge and Experience with Collaborators

3. Value of Using Scientists’ Tools

4. Understanding Importance of Environmental Problem and Value of Deriving a Solution (indicating Community or Global Relevance)

5. Interest or Positive Attitude Towards Topic and/or Task

6. Students’ Investment of Emotions

7. Students’ Investment of Additional Time and Energy on Science, including Sharing of Knowledge with Non-collaborators

8. Students’ Investment of Longer Term or Future Commitment to Science

Findings, continuedHow Learning Design Affected Student Engagement

• Raw data for 1st four categories associated with Behavioral Domain (active responses to task, relevance)

• Raw data for 2nd four categories associated with Affective Domain (students’ investment, emotional response)

Hierarchy of Empowerment in Behavioral Domain

Importance of Problem & Value of Deriving Solution

Interactions with Scientists Tools

Sharing Knowledge and Experience with Collaborators

Personal Relevance

Highest Level Of Empowerment

Lowest Level Of Empowerment

Hierarchy of Investment in Affective Domain

Student Investment of Longer Term Commitment to Science

Student Investment of Additional Time and Energy

Student Investment of Feeling and Emotion

Interest or Positive Attitude

Highest Level Of Investment (Passion)

Lowest Level Of Investment

FindingsHow Learning Design Affected Students’ Attitudes Toward Learning Science

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

Percentage of Student Responses

P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t

M y l e a r n i n g s t a r t s

w i t h p r o b l e m s

a b o u t t h e w o r l d

o u t s i d e o f s c h o o l

S o l v i n g p r o b l e m s

i s o n e o f t h e b e s t

w a y s f o r m e t o

u n d e r s t a n d

s c i e n c e

S t u d y i n g s c i e n c e ,

I g e t a b e t t e r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

t h e w o r l d

o u t s i d e .

W h a t I l e a r n i n

s c i e n c e h a s

n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h

m y o u t - o f - s c h o o l

l i f e .

I t h i n k t h a t m y

i d e a s a b o u t

s c i e n c e m a t t e r t o

t h e w o r l d

Q u e s t i o n s

L e a r n i n g S c i e n c e A t t i t u d e s P r e I n q u i r y a n d P o s t I n q u i r y R e s p o n s e s P e r i o d 1

F A L S E

S o m e t i m e s

F a l s e

S o m e t i m e s

T r u e

T R U E

FindingsHow Learning Design Affected Students’ Attitudes Toward Learning Science

0 %

1 0 %

2 0 %

3 0 %

4 0 %

5 0 %

6 0 %

7 0 %

8 0 %

9 0 %

1 0 0 %

Percentage of Student Responses

P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t P r e P o s t

M y l e a r n i n g s t a r t s

w i t h p r o b l e m s

a b o u t t h e w o r l d

o u t s i d e o f s c h o o l

S o l v i n g p r o b l e m s

i s o n e o f t h e b e s t

w a y s f o r m e t o

u n d e r s t a n d

s c i e n c e

S t u d y i n g s c i e n c e ,

I g e t a b e t t e r

u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f

t h e w o r l d

o u t s i d e .

W h a t I l e a r n i n

s c i e n c e h a s

n o t h i n g t o d o w i t h

m y o u t - o f - s c h o o l

l i f e .

I t h i n k t h a t m y

i d e a s a b o u t

s c i e n c e m a t t e r t o

t h e w o r l d

Q u e s t i o n s

L e a r n i n g S c i e n c e A t t i t u d e s P r e I n q u i r y a n d P o s t I n q u i r y R e s p o n s e s P e r i o d 2

F A L S E

S o m e t i m e s

F a l s e

S o m e t i m e s

T u r e

T R U E

Findings How Learning Design Affected Students’ Knowledge of Nanoscale,

Nanotechnology, and Electron Microscopy

FindingsHow Learning Design Affected Students’ Knowledge of Nanoscale,

Nanotechnology, and Electron Microscopy

Summary of General Trends Found in Data• Inquiry implementation worked well technically.

• Students related to inquiry problem and reacted positively to the inquiry design.

• During inquiry, students exhibited various levels of behaviors and emotions associated with engagement in science (eight categories). – From personal relevance - contribution to community– From interest - career possibility

• Students’ reacted negatively to some WISE activities, ex. too much reading, too many questions, not enough games, too much standing during microscopy tours.

• Researcher bias was addressed in qualitative analysis.

Summary of General Trends Found in Data,continued • Generally, students reported feeling more favorable towards science

after inquiry.

• Specifically, significant gain (30%) in higher achieving students’ attitudes towards learning science (thinking their ideas about science mattered more to the world outside).

• Generally, both groups demonstrated knowledge gain in environmental science, electron microscopy, nanoscale and nanotechnology applications (P1-8/11, P2-10/11).

• Specifically, significant gain in 54% of questions in average achieving students’ knowledge about nanoscale, nanotechnology and electron microscopy.

Conclusions• Students engaged in Lehigh Gap Inquiry

– Five design elements associated with engaging students were noted

– Hierarchies of Engagement were noted

• Inquiry design favorably impacted students’ attitudes toward learning science.

• Design allowed students to gain knowledge and apply scientific principles used in environmental science, nanoscale, nanotechnology, and electron microscopy without traditional testing and textbooks.

Five Design Elements Associated with Engagement

• Cutting edge – Content (nanotechnology) and tools (SEM w/EDS) to which students could

relate and be recognized for having “special knowledge and access.”

• Contribution – To pollution problem, scientists, and scientific knowledge, and university

database

• Creative Freedom– Over identity, inquiry process and presentation style

• Collaboration– With group peers and experts outside classroom

• Communication– Students present research and discuss with experts

Cutting Edge Content & Tools (Remote Access to Electron Microscope, “NanoNews”)

• Students desire for more science and technology – Bringing in additional objects to look at under scope (zinc penny)– Asking for more activities related to microscope– Making connections to other subjects, such as volcanic ash– Feeling special to be able to “drive” expensive instrument– Feeling especially knowledgeable about atoms, elements and nanoscale

science as a result of daily Nano news and Lehigh tour– Interested in technology and how microscopy could operate remotely

from Lehigh to classroom– Being recognized for their research results and contributions

(micrographs and spectra on Lehigh database)

• Confirms that students engage with science for various reasons when allowed to use authentic scientists’ tools related to cutting edge science.

Collaboration, Communication, and Control • Sharing ideas and presenting research to faculty (Dr. Zhang,

Dr. Harmer’s visit, Dr. DeLeo’s NASA presentation), and peer group problem solvers contributed to student engagement.

• Technology-facilitated interactions contributed to student engagement.– Online “Chat” (P1-45%, P2-65%), sharing WISE resources,

individual responses to prompts helped shape ideas for group discussion

• Control of group name, creative control over solutions and style of investment contributed to student engagement. – Ex. building two mountains vs interviewing Palmerton native

Collaboration, Communication, and Control

Summary of Student Engagement

• Students engage with science inquiry on various levels both behaviorally and affectively .

• It is difficult to separate behavioral from affective, one affects the other so they were combined.

Cutting edgeContribution

Creative FreedomCollaboration with expertsCommunication to experts

EmpoweredPowerless

communica

tion

Disinterested

not relev

ant

no tools to

ols

relevant

no communication

not authen

ticauthentic

Passionate

Disengagement (within context of problem as purpose) Engagement

Summary of Students’ Reactions to Design Elements

Realm of Engagement Realm of Disengagement

• Passionate• Has tools• Willing to communicate• Purpose is authentic• Purpose is relevant

• Empowered• All of the above• Plus has collaborators• Purpose may become relevant through tools or collaborators

•Disinterested• May not have tools• May not have collaborators• Purpose is not authentic• Purpose is not relevant

• Powerless• Not tools• No collaborators• Purpose is not authentic• Purpose is relevant

Inquiry Effects on Students’ Attitudes Towards Learning Science

• Four higher achieving student groups (or 66% of the class were chosen to present their research at Lehigh).

• Many of the student presenters reported “being honored,” and said things, such as “it was awesome to

present for Dr. Zhang.”

• Overall, there was a 30% increase in the higher achieving class thinking that their “ideas about science matter to the world.”

• Students strong, positive reactions to presenting among recognizable experts working on the same problem confirms that students do engage with science to a significant degree through collaborations with outside

experts working on the same problem.

Communication with Experts and Contribution to Community

Lehigh Eyer Team Presenters Spring 2007

Inquiry Effects on Students’ Knowledge of Nanoscale, Nanotechnology and SEM

• Engagement is a robust indicator of improved student achievement (Finn,1994, Connell, et al.,1993).

• Significant gains in content knowledge were associated with– Use of the electron microscope and energy dispersive spectrometer

to identify elements in sample– Introduction to nanoscale and use of nanoparticles to remediate

polluted soil (nanotechnology)

• The use of the electron microscope to analyze problem and the association to university research in nanotechnology to remediate pollution, engaged students and provided a learning environment for achievement.

Summary of Implications for Designing Inquiry

to Engage Students • Lehigh Gap Inquiry confirms previous research (WISE, KaAMS, LeTUS)

that middle school students prefer social inquiry with a clear, meaningful, student-relevant purpose to which they perceive they can contribute.

• Access to cutting edge technology and content should facilitate students’ research and interactions.

• Need to design inquiry with elements found to empower and encourage student investment.

• Additionally, this study implies that inquiry should be linked to problem-based research conducted by experts and there should be opportunities for collaboration and communication of potential solutions with real-world experts.

Limitations• May be impractical for typical teacher

– Access to scanning electron microscope – Lack of access to latest scientific research– Enlisting help of experts researching a problem suitable for classroom– Time to develop Web-based materials

Recommendations for Further Study • Implement inquiry with larger population and sample, with those typically disengaged

• Focus topic on bio-nanotechnology or social

science aspect of nanotechnology

AcknowledgementsH.Lynn Columba-Piervallo Martin Harmer

Gary DeLeo Joyce L. Weiss

Chris Kiely Lorraine Liptock

Wei-xian Zhang James & Laura Pressler

George Motter

Sue Bauer

Eyer Middle School

6th graders

Xiaoli Zhao

Hanyu Zheng

Bill Mushock

Dave Ackland

Carol Kiely

Shen Dillon

Dan Kunkle

** Funded in part by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Commerce and Economic Development and the PA-MRSEC, (PIN) Pennsylvania Initiative in Nanotechnology.

*Pilot study, In press, Harmer, A.J., Cates, W.M. Designing for Learner Engagement in Middle School Science: Technology, Inquiry, and the Hierarchies of Engagement, Computers in the Schools.

•In press, Harmer, A.J.(2007). Education efforts in K-12 nanoscale science and engineering education and related research studies using electron microscopy. In Nanoscale Science and Engineering Education, A. Sweeney & S. Seal (Eds.). Stevenson Ranch, CA: American Scientific.

Pilot Study Told Us

Unanswered Questions from Pilot Study

Cutting edge, relevant, authentic content Contributing to Purpose in classroomShared ResourcesCreative ControlCollaboration in classroom and by my association

Cutting edge tool (SEM) shared with expertsContribution to Purpose (Lehigh database)Collaboration with experts from LehighCommunication outside classroom at LehighHow much science did they learn?