AC 2012-3170: I2D2: IMAGINATION, INNOVATION, DISCOVERY, AND
DESIGN
Dr. Kerry Meyers, University of Notre Dame
Kerry L. Meyers is a Professional Faculty member in the College of Engineering at the University of Notre
Dame, is an instructor and coordinator in the First-year Engineering program and is also involved with
students at a variety of levels including a graduate student teaching apprentice program, an undergraduate
peer mentoring program, and STEM outreach). She has a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Purdue
University, M.S. in mechanical engineering from Oakland University, and completed her Ph.D. in engineering education at Purdue University. Meyers has several years of industrial experience in automotive
design, but has since shifted her focus to engineering education.
Dr. Victoria E. Goodrich, University of Notre Dame
Dr. Jay B. Brockman, University of Notre Dame
Mr. Jay Caponigro, University of Notre Dame
Jay Caponigro is the Drector of community engagement in the Office of Public Affairs at the University
of Notre Dame. In this position, Caponigro supports the Associate Vice President in the development,
execution and measurement of the institution’s efforts to strengthen its relationship with the local community. Caponigro holds a master’s in religious studies degree from the University of Chicago, and a B.A.
in government and international studies from Notre Dame. With experience as a faith-based community
organizer early in his career, Caponigro was the founding director of the Robinson Community Learning
Center, a 10-year-old educational partnership between the university and the northeast neighborhood of
South Bend. In that capacity, he was the PI on community-based projects through the Department of
Justice, the Small Business Administration, and HUD’s Office of University Partnerships, where he also
served as a reviewer. Caponigro has co-authored articles in Christian Higher Education and the Journal of
Higher Education Outreach and Engagement.
c
American
Society for Engineering Education, 2012
I2D2: Imagination, Innovation, Discovery, and Design
Abstract
A large-scale collaborative learning project involving first-year engineering students at a private
research university and fifth graders from local schools was developed and implemented during
the fall of 2010. Entitled “I2D2: Imagination, Innovation, Discovery, and Design,” the
program’s success in the first year has inspired program continuation during the 2011 school
year and beyond. The program focuses on creativity and innovation, and using experimentation
to test ideas. While this could be classified as an outreach event, the program was developed
with an intended dual benefit of both college and intermediate school students. The college
students worked with the intermediate school students on Lego® activities and then had the
opportunity to talk with them about their ideas for a Robotic Pet – in this way serving as a
“customer” to a first-year engineering design project. For the intermediate school students, the
goal was to offer exposure to the university setting, and instill an interest and recognition of the
engineering / scientific process to help prepare them for upcoming science fair projects. The
intermediate school students were surveyed before and after the program and results showed an
increased interest in college, science, and engineering (science and engineering were statistically
significant). The results indicate that while intermediate school students are already interested in
going to college, exposure through hands-on activities with college students can increase their
interest level in STEM fields. Future plans for improved program administration and assessment
are discussed.
Introduction / Background
The I2D2 project conforms to STEM outreach goals of providing a low cost program12 for the
betterment of the community schools, especially those with high minority populations5 with a
broad goal of increasing student interest in science and engineering10. Further, it offered the
additional benefit of providing a meaningful experience to undergraduate engineering students
which has been shown to increase retention by offering “a sense of purpose”8,10. Specifically,
program development began by working with the University’s Community Engagement Director
to identify schools with high minority populations and an interest in partnering with the
university. A description of the proposed University activities was presented to each principal for
consideration. Appropriate age levels, state STEM standards, school goals, budget and logistics
were considered before the Engagement Director organized a planning session for all
stakeholders. In this way, insights from teachers/administrators were included in the
development of the program, a recognized outreach program best practice6. Based on this input,
custom curricular materials were developed to support teaching and assessment of the projects at
both the university and intermediate schools. For the fifth grade classes, a workbook included
background materials and exercises for before, during, and after the event, including pre and post
surveys on perceptions of engineering and science. For the college students, a complete set of
lectures and laboratory assignments introduced programming concepts in LabVIEW for a halfsemester team design project.
I2D2 encompasses two primary activities during a day-long event in which the fifth graders
visited the university. In the first activity, Robotic Pets, the engineering students led a LEGO®
“Serious Play” exercise to solicit ideas from their fifth grade customers for robotic animal toys.
In the second activity, the Freewheeling Derby, the fifth grade students were challenged to
predict how the weight of a vehicle would influence how far it would roll down a straightaway,
starting from an inclined ramp. The very nature of this project makes it unique in that it was
designed to have mutual benefit for both the engineering students and the fifth grade students. A
YouTube video from the initial program administration in the fall of 2010 depicts the energy
level at the I2D2 event when so many creative minds of diverse backgrounds and ages are
brought together (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvrjr7Qd1Rk).
The “serious play” activities during I2D2 were designed to elicit meaningful customer input
from the fifth grade students; the college students then designed and built pets using LEGO®
Mindstorms NXT technology over several weeks. To prepare for the event with the 5th grade
students, there was in class discussion and assignments that guided the engineering students to
consider the importance of customer input in the design of a product. This included the design
process introduced by IDEO, international design firm and innovator, for the redesign of a
shopping cart1 which highlights the importance of understanding and meeting customer needs.
The goal of this design project for the engineering students was to design and build a robotic pet
that both looked and behaved like the type of pet they determined was worthwhile by the fifth
grade customers. The best designed robotic pets from each section of the first-year engineering
course, as voted on by their peers, were invited to attend a follow-on event at the intermediate
school where the fifth graders evaluated the designs. The fifth graders then completed an
assignment to create an advertisement for their favorite pet. Figure 1, below, is an example of a
Penguin Robot designed by a team of First-Year Engineering Students (right) and the
advertisement developed by a Fifth Grade student.
Figure 1. Penguin: First-Year Design (right) & Fifth Grade Advertisement (left)
For the Freewheeling Derby, the long term goal was to spur the thought process for science fair
projects for the fifth graders. The fifth graders began with pre-activities from the workbook that
were based on the state requirements for fifth graders9. For reference, a pdf of the workbook is
available at the following link (http://engineering.nd.edu/I2D2/I2D2_Workbook.pdf). The
events of I2D2 were intended to guide students towards a scientific process of forming a
prediction and then testing that hypothesis and drawing conclusions in the same way their
teachers were encouraging for science fair projects. So after making their predictions, with
assistance from college students, the fifth graders built vehicles using LEGO® components, and
then ran trials and collected and interpreted their data to see if their hypotheses were correct.
This approach of mentoring teachers and students has been reported to result in higher student
achievement in science fair competitions11.
In addition to these hands-on activities, the fifth graders and their teachers were also given a tour
of campus engineering and science facilities. And while the I2D2 event was a single day, the
preparation and follow on activities in the workbooks that the fifth graders completed at their
school extended over several weeks, which has been recognized as important by others who have
engaged in outreach activities6,12. Over the six weeks following the event, students at each
school continued to work on aspects of the project, after which 60 of the college students visited
the intermediate schools to demonstrate their pets. The following link shows videos of the
demonstrations (http://engineering.nd.edu/I2D2/videos).
Methods:
The primary data evaluated and discussed in this paper was for the fifth graders through a written
survey administered before and after the I2D2 event. The survey was brief, but sought to
understand their interest levels in science, math, and going to college (and how they changed
after participating in the event). Statistical evaluation (one sample paired ttests) of pre and post
surveys served as the primary source of data in the current study for assessment of program
effectiveness.
Setting
The administration site for the current study was a medium sized, Midwestern, private institution
with a traditional student composition, i.e. the vast majority of students completing their
undergraduate studies in four years and are in the age range of 18-22. The overall student body
is 53% male and 47% female, while the College of Engineering is approximately 75% male and
25% female.
Population
The population of intermediate students that participated in the program totaled ~650 fifth grade
students from two different public schools in close proximity to the host university that designed
the activities and study. During the 2010 program there were ~350 fifth grade participants, and
in 2011 there were ~300 fifth grade participants which were combined for the purposes of
analysis (statistical analysis looking for group differences confirmed that combining the data was
reasonable). Table 1 shows the number of responses from both program administrations -which was largely dependent on the teachers from each school administering both surveys at the
appropriate time and returning those workbooks to the research institution. For example in
2010, of the ~350 program participants there were a total of 162 workbooks returned for analysis
in which 142 were complete, usable data (20 responses were dropped from the analysis because
they did not complete the post survey). In total these complete survey responses are ~40% of the
population that participated in the event. The demographics of this group are not completely
known because those questions were optional but were completed at a rate of ~90%. Of those,
the gender split was almost exactly 50/50 (with one more female respondent than male in 2010,
and 11 more in 2011) and 66% definitively reporting that at least one of their parents attended
college. Finally, the ethnicity of respondents is shown in Figure 1.
Table 1. Breakdown of Respondents by Administration Year
Total Respondents
Boys
Girls
Not Reported
2010
142
66
65
11
2011
141
60
71
10
Total
283
126
136
21
Figure 1. Ethnicity Distribution for I2D2 Survey Respondents
Results:
A primary purpose for conducting pre and post surveys of fifth grade program participants was
to determine if there was a change in their interest in science, math, or college in general. Figure
2, shows the questions asked on both the pre and post survey that relate to interest levels.
Please circle the number that best tells us your interest level for questions 1-3.
1) How interested are you in Science? (1 = Least interested, 5 = Most interested)
1
2
3
4
5
2) How interested are you in Math? (1 = Least interested, 5 = Most interested)
1
2
3
4
5
3) How interested are you in going to college? (1 = Least interested, 5 = Most interested)
1
2
3
4
5
Figure 2. Pre and Post Survey Question for Fifth Grade Student Interest Level
Comparison by administration year showed a similar trend in terms of an increase in interest
levels pre vs. post administration but there was no statistically significant difference in preinterest levels of science, math, or college (2010 vs. 2011) nor was there a statistically significant
difference in post-interest levels (2010 vs. 2011). Further, there was little difference between
administration sites. One of the schools showed a slightly larger change in interest between the
pre and post interest level for math only. Based on these preliminary results, it was determined
that the data from the two administration years and sites could be collapsed together.
Table 2 reports the mean survey responses with a scale of 1-5 in which 1=least interested and 5 =
most interested; so a negative t test result indicates increase interest after participating in the
program (based on a paired ttest). It was found that in all three categories, science, math, and
college, there was an increase in interest, however; it was only statistically significant for science
and math.
Table 2. Science, Math, and College Interest for all Fifth Graders
Mean Pre-Survey
Mean Post-Survey
ttest
Science Interest (1-5)
4.11
4.23
-2.12*
Math Interest (1-5)
3.82
3.95
-2.48**
College Interest (1-5)
4.57
4.63
-1.24
*p<0.05, **p<0.01
The data were further broken down for comparison between male and female students as shown
in table 3. The only statistically significant differences were found in interest level in science.
For female students, their interest level in science starts out slightly higher than male students
(4.16 vs. 4.06); however, they show almost no change in interest level after the event. As a
result the delta or change in interest between the pre and post administration is statistically
significant for male students for the two sample paired ttest. Further, the comparison between
female and male students in terms of the delta (pre vs. post) by a two group mean comparison is
also statistically significant.
Table 3. Science, Math, and College Interest by Gender
Female
Male
ttest
Science
Math
College
Mean Pre
Interest
Mean
Post
Interest
Delta
(pre vs.
post)
4.16
3.82
4.66
4.18
3.92
4.66
0.02
0.10
0.00
*p<0.05, **p<0.01
Two
sample
Paired
Mean Pre
Interest
Mean
Post
Interest
Delta
(pre vs.
post)
-0.17
-1.37
0.00
4.06
3.89
4.46
4.32
4.00
4.58
0.26
0.11
0.12
ttest
Two
sample
Paired
ttest
-2.90**
-1.40
-1.43
Female
vs. Male
ttest
Two
group
mean
2.01*
0.11
1.24
The data were also analyzed by comparing Caucasian students (76) to all other students
combined (170). These schools are ethnically diverse, with the combined group including
African American (75), Asian (5), Hispanic (28), mixed (53), other (12). There are other ways
that the population could have been compared, but it was determined that comparing groups that
have traditionally been considered minorities relative to Caucasian students would be of greatest
interest. Table 4 breaks down student’s interest in science, math, and college and the biggest
difference found was in interest post survey level for math in which the Other Ethnicity group
was higher than the Caucasian group.
Table 4. Science, Math, and College Interest by Ethnicity
Caucasian
ttest
Science
Math
College
Mean Pre
Interest
Mean
Post
Interest
Delta
(pre vs.
post)
4.14
3.59
4.49
4.26
3.69
4.47
0.12
0.10
-0.02
Caucasian
vs. Other
Other Ethnicities
Two
sample
Paired
Mean Pre
Interest
Mean
Post
Interest
-1.10
0.78
0.16
4.10
3.93
4.64
4.21
4.06
4.71
Delta
(pre vs.
post)
0.11
0.13
0.07
ttest
ttest
Two
sample Two group
Paired
mean
ttest
-1.59
-0.01
-1.92*
-0.54
-1.48
-0.97
*p<0.05
Additionally, a question of student perceptions as to what a scientist does at work. Students were
free to select as many of the prewritten selections as they wished, or they could write in their
own. Table 5 is a summary of the responses in each category from both the pre and post survey.
The relative percentages from pre / post survey were generally consistent although the
percentages increased in most categories. Since none of the options offered were intended to be
“wrong” this increasing trend indicates that the 5th grade students may have broadened their
understanding of the different types of things scientists do at work as a result of this program.
Table 5. 2010 Summary: What do you think Scientists do at work?
Observe things
Measure what people or things do
Predict what will happen next
Test if their ideas will work
Build models, make new things
Explain why the world is the way it is
Break things and start over
Other
Pre-Survey (%)
48.3%
21.7%
28.0%
56.6%
57.3%
25.9%
14.0%
4.2%
Post-Survey (%)
43.4%
25.9%
32.2%
54.5%
60.8%
26.6%
16.1%
6.3%
Finally, the ways in which students prefer to learn science was posed and are summarized in
Table 6. The relative percentages remained generally consistent from pre / post survey;
however, more students did say that they learn best by working on a project with their hands.
Table 6. Summary 2010: Preferred Method for Learning Science
Watching a video
Listening to a teacher
Working on a project with my hands
Trying it out with my classmates
Pre-Survey (%)
25.2%
35.7%
51.7%
37.8%
Post-Survey (%)
23.8%
41.3%
58.7%
35.7%
Discussion / Future Work:
The results of the assessment of the perceptions of intermediate school students showed that
there was no statistically significant difference for interest level in College, although the ratings
for both pre and post surveys were both very high. Collectively we interpret these results to
indicate that fifth grade students are already interested in going to college, but participation in an
extended program such as this can positively influence the interest in STEM fields5,10. The
results further show that the interest level of these young students in science and engineering
increased as a result of participation in this program (statistically significant), both for boys and
girls equally. Overall these results support program continuation in the future; although there are
several areas for improvement the main areas are assessment of college student perceptions and
adding a parent program.
There was some general feedback from the engineering students that came from lecture
discussion and comments from their project peer evaluation. The spirit of the event and the
project overall received positive feedback, students were asked as a group what they felt about
the event, and the following is a brief summary of the collective outcome:
•
•
•
Pro: “It’s really fun playing Lego’s with 5th graders”
Con: “It’s difficult to keep the 5th graders focused on the task / discussion”
Timing: ½ the class said it was not enough time to discuss the product ideas with their 5th
grade “customers” (the other ½ said it was too much)
The individual comments from the on-line peer evaluation system, CATME3,13,16, are
confidential but there were a few free responses volunteered. A few comments volunteered by
the first-year engineering students are presented to express the generally positive view of the
project and working with their team (there were of course also a few comments from individuals
that had conflicts with their teams, but by in large the feedback was very positive).
I think the project went really well overall. My group worked long, hard hours to
make sure our pet would be a success and meet all the requirements.
I liked working with a team and even though the project was difficult and time
consuming, we had fun.
I thought that this was a great project to start the year off with. It let us jump straight
into all the characteristics of a well-rounded engineer and allowed us to learn some
new concepts that are applicable to all disciplines of engineering.
Our group worked great together, we split tasks evenly, finished our project in a
timely manner, and still put together a great project we are proud of.
Everyone in the group worked extremely hard and did things together. It was a great
experience!
I thought my group was great. We really worked well together and everyone
contributed. I had a lot of fun building this pet project with them.
This project provided a good opportunity to work with teammates and experience
both the advantageous and difficult aspects of group work.
Another aspect of the program that could be further assessed in a future program offering
involves relating the performance of the 5th graders in their classrooms. Are the students in the
classes that participated in the program more prepared to participate in their Science Fair
Projects? And is their performance in math and science courses influenced by this experience?
This may also include qualitative feedback from the teachers that participated in the preactivities, I2D2 event, and post-activities.
Finally, one other aspect of the program that will be added for the 2012-2013 school year
surrounds parent involvement. And specifically, exposure of parents to STEM fields and the
thought process as well. Numerous studies have been conducted to explore the relationship
between parental involvement, support, and views towards their child’s motivation, self-efficacy,
and long term aspirations and achievements. For example, Fan and Williams reported that
parents’ educational aspiration for their child had a positive effect on motivational outcomes
such as engagement and self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation in math and English7. It has also
been reported that the relationship between parental involvement and college aspirations is
dynamic, and in fact has been shown to weaken as the student moves further in the educational
process2 indicating that early and consistent support throughout K-12 education is most
significant. But looking more specifically at STEM education, family support for academic
achievement is among the best predictors of earning a degree in a STEM field (in addition to
predictors such as academic preparation levels in math, science, and reading)15. And due to
these independent but mutually supportive studies of parental influence on a child’s aspirations
and achievement, it has been recommended that strengthening support networks, such as parents
and teachers, can positively influence the number of students entering STEM fields17.
Parents whose educational backgrounds are from STEM fields have been shown to positively
influence student aspirations and achievement in those fields, especially among women and
minorities14 but what about parents that do not have those backgrounds? How much do other
parents know about STEM fields or educational opportunities made available through that
educational path? This presents an opportunity to influence the perceptions of parents about
engineering and other STEM fields.
Through an interdisciplinary collaboration with the University’s Education, Schooling and
Society program, this team plans to include the parents of participating youth in a STEM
outreach program in which they have a separate learning opportunity to better understand what
engineering is, as well as the diversity of the opportunities available in this broad field of study.
This parent workshop would be led by university faculty and community engagement
representatives. Authentic parental engagement specifically opens the door for candid
conversations between a parent and child about the project they developed during the I2D2
activities. Further, Greene & Long suggest that in a welcoming space, parents can partner with
faculty and teachers to appreciate their significant role in their child’s current educational
choices, as well as their future educational path4. Through this focused engagement, parents are
predicted to feel more comfortable talking with their children about what is involved in
engineering and STEM related fields, what opportunities exist locally, and how to access them.
While it is intended that the separate parent workshop would run simultaneously to the student
activities of I2D2, flexibility may be required given parent schedules. Alternatives such as
“Saturday Academies” will also be considered pending consultation with parents, school
officials, and partners.
1.
ABC News, 1999 & 2005. IDEO: Deep Dive on the Redesign of a Shopping Cart. Nightline hosted by
Ted Koppel. http://www.ideo.com/
2.
Brasier, Terry G. 2008. The effects of parental involvement on students’ eighth and tenth grade college
aspirations: A comparative analysis. Dissertation for Doctor of Education, North Carolina State University,
138 pages. http://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/ir/bitstream/1840.16/3952/1/etd.pdf (last accessed, April 2011).
3.
Comprehensive Assessment of Team Member Effectiveness (CATME), 2011.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/CATME
4.
Compton-Lilly, C. and Greene, S., editors, 2011. Bedtime Stories and Book Reports: Connecting Parent
Involvement and Family. New York: Teachers College Press, p.24-25.
5.
Crawford, M., Schmidt, K. “Aims for Engineering: Lessons Learned from a K-12 Project.” Annual
American Society for Engineering Education, 2004, June, Salt Lake City, Utah.
6.
deGrazia, J. Sullivan, J., Carlson, L., Carlson, D. “Engineering in the K-12 Classroom: A Partnership that
Works.” 30th Annual ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, 2000, Oct. 18-21 Kansas City, MO.
7.
Fan, W. and Williams, C. (2010). The Effects of Parental Involvement on Students' Academic SelfEfficacy, Engagement and Intrinsic Motivation Educational Psychology, v30 n1 p53-74.
8.
Houchens, B. “Service and Design as Mechanisms to Impassion the Study of Engineering, K12 to Higher
Education.” International journal for service learning in engineering, 2010, v.5, Issue 1, page 25.
9.
Indiana Academic Standards for Science during fifth grade education.
http://dc.doe.in.gov/Standards/AcademicStandards/PrintLibrary/docs-science/2010-science-grade05.pdf
10. Jeffers, A., Safferman, A., Safferman, S. “Understanding K-12 Engineering Outreach Programs.” Journal
of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice, April 2004.
11. Kaiser, B. “Mentoring Students and Teachers for High-Stakes Science Competitions” in Science
Education: Talent Recruitment and Public Understanding by P. Csermely and L. Lederman, 2003.
12. Kosbar, L. “Introducing Engineering in Middle Schools.” 33rd Annual ASEE / IEEE Frontiers in
Education Conference, 2003, Nov. 5-8 Bolder, Colorado.
13. Layton, R., Loughry, M., and Ohland, M. “Design and Validation of a Web-Based System for Assigning
Members to Teams Using Instructor-Specified Criteria,” in press, Advances in Engineering Education.
14. Leslie, L., McClure, G., and Oaxaca, R.. 1998. Women and minorities in science and engineering: A life
sequence analysis. The Journal of Higher Education 69 (3): 239–76.
15. Nicholls, G., Wolfe, H., Besterfield-Sacre, M., and Shuman, L. (2010). Predicting STEM Degree
Outcomes based on Eighth Grade Dada and Standard Test Scores. Journal of Engineering Education, July
2010, pg. 209.
16. Ohland, M., Layton. R., Loughry, M., and Yuhasz, A. “Effects of Behavioral Anchors on Peer Evaluation
Reliability,” Journal of Engineering Education, 94(3), July 2005, pp. 319-326.
17. Reyer, J. (2007). Influence of High School Students’ Perceptions on their Preparation for Engineering.
Frontiers in Education Annual Conference.