InnoWorks
Boosting Scientific Literacy and Interest Among
Underprivileged Middle School Students Using
Experiential Learning Theory And College Volunteers
Vineet Agrawal, Ahrash N. Bissell, William L. Hwang,
Daniel M. Kaplan, Jessica E. Manson, Matthew K. Mian
2006 Scholarship of Teaching & Learning Faire
Western Carolina University
February 23, 2006
Overview
• What is InnoWorks?
– Motivation and rationale
– Goals
– Program development and structure
• Evaluating InnoWorks
– Student interest in science and learning gains
– Mentor training and gains
– LSI and ELT as guide for program structure and
mentor strategies
• Future Outlook
Mission Statement
Design and implement innovative
workshops and programs in science
and engineering for students from
underprivileged backgrounds.
What is InnoWorks?
• Student-founded and led 501(c)(3) non-profit
educational organization
• Completed two successful years and exciting
outlook for future
• Current chapters: Duke, UMCP
• 2006 chapters: Georgetown, UPenn
• Global interest: England, Saudi Arabia, India
Goals
•
•
•
•
Establish links between classroom science
and engineering and the real world through
fun, engaging activities
Encourage students to consider science and
engineering as potential career paths
Foster teamwork and development of strong
work ethic
Provide positive role models and develop
lasting relationships
Target group
• Middle school students (11-14
yrs)
– Enough maturity, yet still
impressionable
• Students from underprivileged
backgrounds
– Unable to afford science
camps, and may grow up in
environments that lack
academic role models
Student Nominations
• Recommendations
by principals,
counselors, teachers,
and community
leaders
• Student interest in
science/engineering
but lack of
opportunities
CBS (WRAL 5)
Motivation
• US is falling behind in
STEM education
• Low high school
graduation rates—
particularly for minorities
• “Achievement gap” shown
to widen with age
Potential Impact
• Mentoring shown to be effective for inspiring
students to succeed in and out of the classroom
• Increasing and helping to sustain enthusiasm
for science
• Contributing research and data to broader
educational community
• Offering a model for supplemental-education
and service-learning programs
Program Structure
• Free week-long program
(includes food, transportation,
prizes, t-shirts, etc.)
• Morning presentation
followed by hands-on
activities and competitive
missions
• Students work in teams of 3-4,
each mentored by 1-2 college
students
Structure Cont’d
• Missions involve design and experimentation to
solve real-world problems
• Students formally present their solutions
• Teams rewarded for teamwork and success in
missions
• Curriculum designed to be flexible and modular
Students as Mentors
• College students with a
passion for sharing
interests & knowledge
• Age and experience make
them ideal role models
• Offers college students a
meaningful role in
community outreach
A Novel Approach To
Mentoring & Learning
• D. A. Kolb’s “experiential learning cycle”
– Four essential learning processes: concrete experience,
reflective observation, abstract conceptualization, and
active experimentation
• J. Zull: learning cycle reflected in physical
structure of brain
• Our goal:
Engage all stages of the learning cycle
• Program activities are designed from the ground
up with these educational principles in mind
• Reflective questions after each mission =>
metacognition
InnoWorks 2005:
Making Sense of Senses
44 participants at Duke, 32 at UMD
InnoWorks 2005:
Making Sense of Senses
• Theme: Human senses
• Curriculum, mentoring methods,
research, and program logistics
published in two books
…and the future:
InnoWorks 2006 entitled
“Explorations” – students will
explore the oceans, outer space, the
rainforest, and more!
Duke News &
Communication
Program Outcomes
• Was the InnoWorks program successful?
• Our data suggest that InnoWorks was an
enormous success
–
–
–
–
–
Student responses
Mentor responses
Family responses
Community responses
Sponsor responses
Program Evaluation
• Many different approaches to evaluating and
improving program
• We are sharing student and mentor gains as
overall assessments of the program
• We also selected one particular area of
research we incorporated into the program
this past year, related to learning styles
Student Gains
• Pre- and post- surveys were electronically
administered on the first and last days of the
camp, respectively
• Data collected and compiled were based on
responses of 60 students (31 females, 29
males)
• Students were asked to be completely honest,
and they were assured there would be no
repercussions for negative responses
Student Demographics
African American
10.00%
8.33%
Other
10.00%
6.67%
Caucasian
65.00%
Asian/Pacific
Islander
Bi-racial
• 80% of the students were middle school students
Student Pre-Survey
“How interested are you in science?”
Student Interest in Science Prior to Program (n = 60)
25
22
21
Number of Students
20
16
15
10
5
1
0
0
Not At All
Interested
Perhaps
Interested
Somewhat
Interested
Interest Level
Reasonably
Interested
Very Interested
Student Pre-Survey
“How important will science be in your future?”
Importance of Science in Future
30
27
Number of Students
25
20
20
15
10
8
5
5
0
0
Not at All
Perhaps Important Sort of Important
Reasonably
Important
Very Important
Importance Rating
• 24 students indicated interest in a scientific career
Student Pre-Survey
“How hard do you try in school?”
Student Effort in School (n = 60)
30
26
25
Number of Students
25
20
15
9
10
5
0
0
0
None
A little
Average
Effort Rating
A Lot
My Best
Student Feedback
• 55/60 students stated they understood science
better as a result of InnoWorks
• 51/60 students stated they were more interested in
learning science after InnoWorks
• 90% would recommend InnoWorks to a friend
• Over 94% of the students would participate in
InnoWorks again
• Of the 22 that reported “Very Interested” in
science, all but one were even more interested in
learning science afterwards
Student Feedback
• 52/60 students feel better about being able to
learn science as a result of InnoWorks
• 51/60 students stated they learned some
things in this program that they can use in a
science class in school in the future
• 50/60 students were now more aware of the
importance of science in everyday life as a
result of InnoWorks
• 54/60 students told their family/friends what
they did in the program
Student Reflections
Staff-Student Composition
Duke Breakdown
Mentors
Staff
Students
UMCP Breakdown
Mentors
Staff
Students
• Duke
– 12 mentors
– 18 staff
– 44 students
• Maryland
– 14 mentors
– 20 staff
– 32 students
Number of Mentors Matters
Duke Breakdown
Mentors
Staff
Students
UMCP Breakdown
Mentors
Staff
Students
• Mentors preferred
the two-mentor
model
• Division of labor
– Disciplinarian
– Teacher
• Closer guidance
• Idleness a potential
drawback
Quotations
“. . . by having Duke students as mentors, the
students received the information in a much
more relaxed setting among people they
could consider as role models, peers, and
friends.” – Jessica Manson (Duke)
Quotations
“Almost as a rule for these three students, the
more that they could see practical
applications to an activity or mission, the
more they enjoyed it.” – Amit Patel (Duke
and Maryland)
Quotations
“It’s really heartwarming to see kids respond to
the program and I feel that that’s why we
exist. Overall, mentoring was a great
experience and one that I would recommend
to others.” – Bilal Aijazi (Maryland)
Exit Survey Results
(for mentors)
• The structure of InnoWorks helped to keep
students motivated and excited
• Their leadership skills and their abilities to
comprehend and apply science-related
knowledge improved
• Room for improvement in mentor training;
many felt under-prepared for their duties
Learning-Styles Theory
• Recent advances in brain sciences are
informing our understanding of how people
learn
• Synthesis of neurobiology, cognitive science,
and educational theory: Dr. James Zull of
Case Western Reserve University
• Interesting parallels between one of the most
widely used and tested learning-styles
inventories (Kolb’s LSI) and the physical and
functional structure of the brain
Learning-Styles Theory
• Four stages of Kolb’s learning cycle
– Concrete Experience
– Reflective Observation
– Abstract Conceptualization
– Active Experimentation
Learning-Styles Theory
Active
Testing
CONVERGER
ACCOMODATOR
Motor
Cortex
Sensory
Cortex
Concrete
Experience
Abstract
Hypotheses
Frontal
Integrative
Cortex
ASSIMILATOR
Back
Integrative
Cortex
Reflective
Observation
DIVERGER
Impact on InnoWorks
• InnoWorks is designed to try and exploit
every stage in the learning cycle
• Provides a different way of thinking about
the value of certain program elements than
most programs of this type
– Emphasis is not simply on doing cool, attentiongrabbing things
– While “cool” factor was definitely there, intent
was to provide concrete experiences from which
to engage students in rest of the cycle
Kolb’s LSI
• Administered LSI on first and last days of
program
• In theory, we can measure whether students
evolved in terms of their learning preferences
by measuring shifts in LSI scores
• Since InnoWorks is intended to encourage all
stages of learning, we would not necessarily
predict a shift in any particular direction
• We are only presenting a partial analysis here
Kolb’s LSI
• Four calculated scores
• MATLAB script to compute and produce
“kite plot”
Converger Shift
• 33 of 60 students
exhibited a change
in preferred
learning style
• Converger category
transitioned from
having fewest (9) to
most (19) students,
whereas all other
categories had
decreases
Converger Shift
• Possible interpretations of “converger shift”
– Science and engineering in general tend to
emphasize converging stage; perhaps any
enjoyable science learning experience disposes
participants toward preferring this quadrant?
– Perhaps program didn’t emphasize all stages of
learning cycle equally? The converging stage
may have been emphasized more, so students,
through their enjoyment the camp, now feel they
prefer that stage of the cycle?
Converger Shift
• Possible interpretations of “converger shift”
– Perhaps the students were particularly
encouraged to use converging stage by mentors?
Most mentors and curriculum developers were
convergers.
Student Effort & LSI Shifts
• Average self-reported effort made by students
to understand science at InnoWorks
– 4.63/5.00 for shift in learning preference
– 4.31/5.00 for no shift in learning preference
• Paired T-test, p = 0.070
• Result suggests that changes in LSI scores
may reflect engagement with InnoWorks
program, as opposed to random changes over
time or better understanding of survey
LSI Research Questions
1. Does the LSI have predictive value in the
InnoWorks setting?
2. Does the preferred learning styles of
mentors and students have any correlation
with mentor effectiveness?
3. Are group dynamics correlated with team
learning style composition?
Predictive Value
• All mentors that addressed this question
found that there was significant correlation
between student behaviors and the LSI results
for most students
“For each of the members of our team, it was striking how well
the pre-camp LSI agreed with our first impressions, and to some
extent the changes between the first and second LSI measurements
were also in accordance with our observations throughout the
weeks.” (Lisa Richards, Duke)
Clarifying Learning Styles
• For students that changed their learning style,
mentors often found that results of second
LSI were more accurate
• Some changes in LSI were not so much the
result of actual changes in learning style but
in the students’ understanding of how they
like to learn
• Most students could roughly evaluate their
own learning preferences
Impact of Mentor LS
• Most mentors found it much easier to mentor
students with similar learning styles to themselves
• Teams that had two mentors: each mentor found that
they were most compatible with students in their
group with similar learning styles
“The way a mentor learns could affect the interaction between
mentor and student. For example, I am an assimilator. I tend to
work better with Ashley and Amanda, whose kite is more similar to
mine than that of the other two. However, Sharad is a
converger/accommodator. He was much more capable at getting
Cydney and Kenneth interested in the projects than I was.
However, he did not connect with Amanda or Ashley.” (Nita
Amornsiripanitch, Duke)
Impact of Mentor LS
• One mentor with perfectly symmetrical LSI
kite plot could relate to and motivate all
students easily
• Numerous other factors that play a role in
mentor-student interactions (e.g., background,
gender, personality)
Group Dynamics
• Little agreement between mentors on if and
how learning styles of students had an effect
on group dynamics
• Similar learning styles: team members could
relate better, help each other, same difficulties
• Different learning styles: better distribution of
tasks
• Some groups had clear cooperative grouping
based on learning styles
Future LSI Research
• Ultimate goal: knowledge and methods from
cognitive neuroscience can lead to effective
techniques of providing insight into how to
help a student learn most effectively
• Well-trained mentors can strengthen learning
abilities and confidence of students by using
latter’s learning strengths to address their
learning weaknesses
Future LSI Research
• Continue administering and analyzing LSI
• Discussion of LSI results with students
during program (encourage metacognitive
development)
• Significant movement towards converger
category is interesting and should be explored
further
• More generally, how can LS theory and
metacognitive development be incorporated
into educational design and goals?
Future LSI Research
• Long-term research program that would track
ongoing development and retention of student
development (e.g., grades, webforum, events
involving mentors and students, etc.)
Future of InnoWorks
• We hope to be able to help participants
effectively transfer their new learning tools
and dispositions to the school environment
and lives in general
• Expansion on a national and international
level
Future of InnoWorks
• Development of “ready-to-go” kits
• Training materials
• New curricula (e.g., Explorations)
• Integrating InnoWorks into service-learning,
K-12 education, and/or community outreach
offices in universities
• Service-learning courses for mentoring
training and teaching credit
Future of InnoWorks
• Two-tier organizational structure
• National office for support
• Local chapters
–
Communicate with national staff on needs and
progress
–
Write proposals and raise funding at local level
–
Recruit and organize staff and mentors
–
Obtain and transport students to and from program
–
Work with local schools
–
Arrange necessary facilities equipment
–
Develop portions of new curricula
Summary
• InnoWorks is new paradigm in grade-school
science education and outreach
–
Use of undergraduate student volunteers as
mentors
–
Incorporation of best theories in the
educational research literature to guide overall
structure and purpose of learning environment
–
Strong program materials and staff dedication
InnoWorks
By Students, For Students
Acknowledgments
Special thanks to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Prof. Gary Ybarra
Paul Klenk
Dean Kristina Johnson
Dr. William McNairy
Dr. Annette Golonka
Dr. Chris Clarke
Kip Coonley
Linda Broughton
Beth Barak
Edward Paradise
Joe Freddoso
Shelvette Adderly
Prof. David Kolb
Dr. Alice Kolb
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Billie Wilson
Mary Linda Andrews
Elaine Rothbauer
Prof. Jeffrey Forbes
Dr. Vickie Knight
Terry Corliss
Prof. Rhett George
Prof. Lisa Huettel
Rebecca Small
Amy Hogaboom
David Stein
Dean Linda Franzoni
Dean Connie Simmons
Michelle Tabares
•
•
•
•
•
Cindy Cheamitru
Mark Galiano
Prof. Nannerl Keohane
Prof. Ian Baucom
Li-Min Lee
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
2002. Perth, Australia: HERDSA.
Matthews, M.R., ed. Constructivism in Science Education: A Philosophical Examination. 1998, Kluwer Academic
Publishers: Dordrecht.
Dehaene, S., et al., Sources of Mathematical Thinking: Behavioral and Brain-Imaging Evidence. Science, 1999.
284(5416): p. 970-974.
Gallagher, S.H., Left-brained versus right-brained: which is better for learning? National Teaching and Learning
Forum, 2005. 14(2).
Zull, J., The Art of Changing the Brain: Enriching the Practice of Teaching by Exploring the Biology of Learning.
2002, Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Applefield, J.M., R. Huber, and M. Moallem, Constructivism in theory and practice: toward a better
understanding. The High School Journal, 2000. 84(2): p. 35-53.
Miller, J.B. Examining the interplay between constructivism and different learning styles. in ICOTS - International
Conference on the Teaching of Statistics. 2002. South Africa: ICOTS.
Hein, T.L. Teaching to students' learning styles: approaches that work. in ASEE/IEEEE Frontiers in Education
conference. 1999. San Juan, PR: ASEE.
Terry, R.E. and J.N. Harb. Using learning style theory to improve learning and teaching in the engineering
classroom. in ASEE-IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. 1993. Washington, DC: ASEE-IEEE.
Kolb, A.Y. and D.A. Kolb, The Kolb Learning Style Inventory—Version 3.1: 2005 Technical Specifications. 2005,
Experience Based Learning Systems, Inc. and Hay Resources Direct: Boston, MA.
Lumsden, L.S., Student motivation to learn, in ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. 1994: Eugene,
OR. 4 p.
Neathery, M.F., Elementary and secondary students' perceptions toward science: correlations with gender,
ethnicity, ability, grade, and science achievement. Electronic Journal of Science Education, 1997. 2(1): 11 p.
Nolen, S.B., Learning environment, motivation, and achievement in high school science. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 2003. 40(4): p. 347-368.
Hwang, W.L., et al. On the Efficacy of Creative Mentoring and Teaching Methodologies: Novel Applications of
Experiential Learning Theory and Kolb’s Learning Style Inventory to InnoWorks, an Extracurricular Science and
Engineering Program for Middle School Students from Underprivileged Backgrounds. In prep.
Hwang, W.L., et al. Personal Development of Undergraduate Mentors in InnoWorks: Innovative Science and
Engineering Programs Developed by College Students for Middle School Students from Underprivileged
Backgrounds. In prep.
Greenfield, T.A., Gender- and grade-level differences in science interest and participation. Science Education,
1997. 81: p. 259-276.
Wenner, G., Comparing poor, minority elementary students' interest and background in science with that of their
White, affluent peers. Urban Education, 2003. 38(2): p. 153-172.
Fadigan, K.A. and P.L. Hammrich, A longitudinal study of the educational and career trajectories of female
participants of an urban informal science education program. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 2004.
41(8): p. 835-860.
www.innoworks.org