The Party’s Over: Sustaining Support Programs When the Funding is Done

In the lifecycle of an engineering education grant, the phase where best practices are sustained and disseminated is perhaps the most crucial stage for maximizing impact. Yet this transition phase often receives the least attention as project team enthusiasm can wane, while funding tapers off, and faculty priorities are pulled in other directions. There are numerous obstacles associated with sustaining program changes, even those perceived as very valuable. Typical challenges are: What happens when the funding runs out? What grant-developed programs should be sustained by the university? Does the institution need to internally allocate resources in an annual budget large enough to replace the grant? Ultimately, sustaining successful programmatic improvements is about “change management” in an institution. In this paper, we will review the literature relating to institutional change in engineering education. We will build on current curriculum change models, in the context of a major engineering education grant at Boise State University that included a variety of curricular enhancements, academic support, and outreach efforts. Over the past two years, the project team focused considerable effort on institutionalizing the most successful programs, and met with mixed results. While many programs will continue and benefit students long-term, other programs, even ones with stellar success and solid assessment, have not been entirely adopted for a number of reasons that we will examine. We will review the role assessment played in the process of program transfer (from the grant to the university) and lessons learned about building alliances with other campus partners to achieve university-level buy-in, well before the last stage of the grant. Finally, we will discuss two factors that are not identified in institutional change literature, but that contributed significantly to the successful transition of our programs—the importance of taking a research based approach, and flexibility in time and resource allocation

Teaching Inquiry-Based STEM in the Elementary Grades Using Manipulatives: A SySTEMic Solution Report

Young learners come to school holding myriad conceptions about how the world works, particularly in the areas of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM.1-3 Further, young students\u27 conceptions are commonly based on fragmented knowledge or naïve perspectives that contribute to the importance of early exposure to and practice with scrutinizing situations scientifically.1,3 An important part of helping children gain the skills necessary to approach situations scientifically involves preparing them to conduct scientific inquiry.3 The development of critical thinking skills and scientific approaches to problem solving should begin early in education.4 However, lack of elementary teacher comfort and familiarity with inquiry may be a significant barrier hindering early learner experience with and development of inquiry skills.5 Additionally, although engineering topics are particularly well suited for teaching inquiry, most teachers, like the general public, are not well versed in engineering. Therefore, teachers are excellent candidates for participation in professional development that enhances their knowledge and comfort with teaching inquiry-based STEM curriculum and engineering content in particular

A SySTEMic Solution: Elementary Teacher Preparation in STEM Expertise and Engineering Awareness

Research shows that most K-5 teachers are typically required to complete only minimal coursework in science and mathematics, which constrains their knowledge, efficacy, and confidence for teaching STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) content. Additionally, elementary teachers, like much of the general public, have limited comprehension about the relationship between STEM concepts and engineering fields and the kind of work and societal contributions made by engineers. Yet, elementary school is a critical time in which students develop foundational understanding of STEM concepts, career options, and inquiry learning. To address students\u27 STEM needs and limited teacher preparation, the Idaho SySTEMic Solution research project was implemented by the College of Education and College of Engineering at Boise State University, in partnership with the Meridian Joint School District and educational products and services company PCS Edventures! Funded by the U.S. Department of Education, the Idaho SySTEMic Solution is a STEM education initiative designed to advance achievement and confidence among elementary-age learners and their teachers. Phase I of the Idaho SySTEMic Solution, which is the subject of this report, focuses on teachers, with the goal of increasing their STEM content knowledge, instructional practices, awareness of engineering, and overall confidence for teaching STEM concepts. Phase I began with a three-day summer institute for 39 elementary teachers at seven schools representing socioeconomic diversity in the largest school district in Idaho. To measure the results of the workshop, several data collection methods were utilized, for pre- and post-intervention assessment. Repeated measures analyses revealed significant teacher increase in confidence to teach STEM curriculum (p \u3c .01), positive increase in engineering attitudes (p \u3c .01) and increase in STEM teaching efficacy (p \u3c .01) over the course of the threeday workshop. We attribute these changes to the content and context of the workshop instruction

Successes of an Engineering Residential College Program within an Emerging Residential Culture

Boise State University is in the process of transforming from a historically commuter campus into a metropolitan research university which includes a growing residential culture (currently 8% of students live in residence halls). First time, full time freshmen age 18 or younger have increased from 61% of the incoming class in 2000 to 72% of the incoming class in 2008. To support our growing residential culture, University Housing, in cooperation with six academic colleges, began the Residential College (RC) program in 2004. Key among the five current RC communities is the College of Engineering. The Engineering Residential College (ERC) admits first and second year students with declared majors in one of our six undergraduate programs (civil engineering, computer science, construction management, electrical engineering, materials science and engineering, and mechanical engineering) and undeclared engineering. The 2007- 2008 academic year was the first during which an engineering faculty member lived in residence, the Faculty-in-Residence (FiR), with the 26 members of the ERC. The physical structure of the ERC supported collaborative work and study with student community members. Daily interaction of student ERC community members with the FiR and structured activities outside the classroom facilitated learning that enhanced engineering academics. In this paper, we discuss the qualitative life skills and quantitative academic successes of this living-learning community facilitated by a live-in engineering faculty member during the past three semesters and make recommendations for improving the overall ERC experience