Adventure Engineering: A Design Centered, Inquiry Based Approach to Middle Grade Science and Mathematics Education

MICHAEL A. MOONEY
School of Civil Engineering & Environmental Science University of Oklahoma concept understanding and immerse students in the engineering design experience. The AE curriculum units are designed to effectively teach required mathematics and/or science concepts in the same amount of time traditionally devoted to the pertinent concepts. Further, the curriculum units are specifically developed for existing middle grade mathematics or science classes to reach all students during the regular school day and to enable adoption in any school without modifications to the infrastructure, e.g., creation of new classes, after school program, etc. This paper describes the AE program, the curricula developed, and presents findings from AE curricula implementation. Also presented are precurriculum assessment results pertaining to attitudes towards and knowledge of engineering.

TIMOTHY A. LAUBACH
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum University of Oklahoma

ABSTRACT
Adventure Engineering (AE) is a middle grade science and mathematics outreach initiative that entails the development and implementation of single day to four-week adventure-driven, engineering-based curricula for grade 5 through 9 science and/or mathematics classes. The curricula is inquiry-based and openended; activities are designed to facilitate the learning and application of concepts identified in national mathematics and science standards, and to immerse students in the engineering design experience. This paper reports the findings from the development and implementation of AE curricula in six different middle grade subjects in urban and suburban schools. Rigorous assessment revealed that the AE curricula have successfully improved mathematics and science content knowledge. Student attitudes towards mathematics and science, and in limited cases engineering, also improved. This paper also presents the results of a survey of urban and suburban student attitudes towards mathematics, science and engineering.

II. THE IMPETUS FOR ADVENTURE ENGINEERING

Engineering schools can no longer ignore the failings in K-12 mathematics and science education. Engineers have always matriculated from the brightest and most interested mathematics and science students in middle and high schools; yet, engineering colleges have historically done very little to affect the student talent entering college. A closer look at the baptism of students into engineering illustrates major concerns. First, many bright students, particularly women and minorities, choose not to pursue engineering careers. The Department of Labor projects 6 million new technology jobs by 2008, however the total number of mathematics, engineering, and physical science majors has been shrinking since the mid-1980s. The U.S. trails all industrialized nations in the percentage of Bachelors degrees in engineering [14]. Second, unlike the sciences, arts, and business disciplines, engineering lacks a formal presence in K-12 education. The dire consequences of this lack of exposure are made evident by the findings of Berryman [8]. Considering the mythical pipeline that leads to scientific and technical careers, Berryman states that the quantitative talent pool emerges by grade 9 and is essentially complete by grade 12. After high school, essentially all changes in the pipeline are due to emigration from, not immigration to, the pool. Compounding the lack of engineering presence in the critical primary and secondary school years is the stigma of engineering as appropriate only for the technically elite. As a consequence of the misperceptions and lack of engineering presence, many practicing engineers either stumbled upon their careers or were influenced by a family member, a relative or friend in engineering, or a dedicated and knowledgeable school counselor who dispelled the myths and encouraged them to pursue engineering. What about all the bright, creative students who were not exposed to engineering, do not have that engineering role model, were not made aware of the tremendous opportunities available in exciting, evolving Journal of Engineering Education 309

I. INTRODUCTION
Adventure Engineering is a middle grade (59) science and mathematics outreach initiative aimed at students who, without the benefit of a positive engineering experience, are not likely to consider technical careers in mathematics, science, and engineering (MS&E). Adventure Engineering (AE) strives to: (1) improve interest in and attitudes towards MS&E; (2) improve concept learning in science and mathematics; and (3) provide a meaningful and enjoyable pre-college engineering experience. The program involves the development and implementation of single day to four-week adventure-driven engineering-based curricula for grade 5 through 9 science and/or mathematics classes. Given a designated time period and concepts identified in national mathematics and/or science standards, the AE team develops an adventure-based scenario filled with obstacles that require the learning and application of the desired science and/or mathematics concepts. The curricula are inquiry-based and open-ended; activities are designed to facilitate July 2002

disciplines, and werent apprised of the creativity and satisfaction rooted in engineering and technology? To steer able young students towards engineering and other technical careers, the engineering community must impress upon them the creativity, influence, and societal impact of engineering. The engineering community must participate in motivating students to learn science and mathematics during the critical middle grade years (grades 59), before the mythical pipeline emerges. There is a clear need to develop effective, lasting mechanisms to reach all bright, creative students during the time that matters, their formative middle grade years. K-12 is not without noble engineering-related efforts [15]. Programs like Botball [9] and FIRST [5] involve K-12 students in annual robotics competitions. The JETS [7] program introduces engineering to high school students. The vast majority of outreach programs, however, are extracurricular in nature, i.e., not a part of the regular curriculum, and thus they only reach a fraction of the student population. In todays knowledge-based, technologydriven economy, the engineering community must reach out to the entire K-12 population base and attract greater numbers of well-prepared students to engineering, particularly females and minorities.

III. THE STATUS OF MIDDLE SCHOOL MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE EDUCATION

The mathematics and science skill deficiencies in our nations primary and secondary school students, compared to other industrialized countries, are well chronicled [12]. The 1995 Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) revealed that in mathematics and science, U.S. 4th grade students scored above the international average of the twenty-six countries that participated in this study [17]. The TIMSS statistics for U.S. 8th graders, however, revealed student mathematics scores below the international average and science scores above the international average. The 1999 TIMSS Repeat (TIMSS-R) which assessed 8th grade students and then compared these data to those collected in 1995, revealed similar findings for U.S. 8th grade mathematics and science scores [18]. Mathematics scores were below the international average while science scores were above the international average. In both TIMSS and TIMSS-R, the mathematics and science scores declined from 4th grade to 8th grade. Recent national results published in a 30-year report [3] indicated that mathematics scores for 4th and 8th grade students have either remained stable or slightly increased over the last thirty years. Scores reported for 4th grade science declined in the early 1970s but have either increased or remained stable since that time. Scores collected for 8th grade science students in 1999 were similar to 8th grade scores in 1970. To this end, the National Science Education Standards (NSES) recommended that teachers of science should plan an inquiry-based science program for their students, guide and facilitate learning, engage in ongoing assessment of their teaching and of student learning, and actively participate in the ongoing planning and development of the school science program [13]. The National Research Council recently published a practice guide for teachers, professional developers, administrators, and others who wish to respond to the NSES call for an increased emphasis in inquiry. [12] The program of study in science for all students should be developmentally appropriate, interesting, relevant to students lives, should emphasize 310 Journal of Engineering Education

student understanding through inquiry, and be connected with other school subjects. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) advocates these same principles for mathematics teaching and learning [11]. The standards are grounded in the belief that all students should learn important mathematical concepts and processes with understanding. The American Association for Advancement of Science states that students must construct their own meaning regardless of how clearly teachers or books tell them things [2]. Concepts are learned best when they are presented and expressed in a variety of ways. If applying ideas in novel situations is expected, then they must practice them in novel situations. Likewise, if students are expected to think critically, analyze information, communicate scientific ideas, make logical arguments, work as part of a team, and acquire other desirable skills, then they must be permitted and encouraged to do these things repeatedly in a variety of contexts. TIMSS found that effective instruction and a coherent curriculum appear to be the strongest contributors to students science and mathematics performance [17]. The Adventure Engineering curriculum is rooted in the key concepts described from NSES, NCTM, AAAS, and TIMSS, through the use of the inquiry-based teaching approach [10]. AE places students at the center of their learning experiences, encouraging them to engage in explorations for new understandings and relate those understandings to other concepts. The AE curriculum embodies the NSES and NCTM objectives by encouraging students to construct solutions to real problems using inquiry and cooperative learning processes.

IV. THE AE CURRICULUM

Within the AE curricula, students in grades 59 are posed with adventure-driven scenarios, to which inquiry based learning, openended design, and target level mathematics and science principles are required to forge engineered solutions. Asteroid Impact is one such scenario that was developed to teach required concepts in 7th grade earth sciences:
NASA engineers have detected a one-mile diameter asteroid on path to collide with earth in approximately four months. If the asteroid maintains its current trajectory it will cause catastrophic damage to the United States and the world. You have been chosen by the governor to be part of an engineering task force responsible for saving all of Oklahomas (insert any State) inhabitants. Oklahoma has numerous rock formations well suited for constructing underground living quarters. Your task is to develop an underground cavern design for all Oklahomans to survive the impact! To accomplish this, you will actively work as a team towards saving the lives of those around you. Your engineering team will determine the required dimensions of the underground caverns and determine the most suitable location for the caverns. Your team will investigate the geology of Oklahoma, determine rock properties, consider construction issues, and prepare a well thought out feasible solution to the problem. When completed, your team will submit a design report and give a five minute presentation of your design.

Within Asteroid Impact, student teams investigate state geological maps (provided by the Oklahoma Geological Survey) for prominent mineral and rock types, aquifers, earthquake faults, etc. Once they design the required cavern dimensions and identify preliminary July 2002

sites, student teams are given minerals and rocks similar to those in the selected sites for hands-on testing (rocks provided by Oklahoma Geological Survey). Student teams use commercially available mineral and rock testing kits as well as laboratory scales and beakers to determine rock properties (e.g., hardness, density, luster, etc.). Student teams then analyze all of their collected data, explore web resources, forge multiple solutions, and narrow to a recommended design. Asteroid Impact is one of a number of AE scenarios proposed to captivate the minds and hearts of middle grade students. Obstacles and activities within each scenario are carefully constructed to teach national standards-based science and mathematics processes and content through teamwork and inquiry based exercises while immersing students in engineering design. Our objective is to replace n days of regular mathematics or science curriculum that covers x concepts with n days of AE curriculum that covers the same x concepts. To date we have developed curricula lasting two to four weeks in duration. In principle, an AE curriculum unit could last as little as one day or as long as one academic year. Regardless of the unit duration, our mantra for scenario development is to incorporate fun, urgency, and a need for engineering design and problem solving. Additional AE scenarios with obstacles and activities include the following. G Engineering the Congo: Student teams design a covert expedition deep into the Congo to extract diamonds from a mountain stream. They are faced with numerous obstacles including water purification, crossing perilous canyons, navigation to the prescribed location, diamond extraction from soil beneath a flowing stream, power generation, and wireless communication. Developed for 8th and 9th grade physical science. G Treasure Hunt: Student explorer teams look for hidden treasure on an island in the Bermuda triangle using global positioning system navigation as well as more precise pacing methods. Curriculum teaches algebra and geometry concepts, involves data collection, and error analysis. Developed for 7th, 8th, and 9th grade mathematics. G Surviving the Biosphere: Students become part of an engineering team that has been locked inside a failing biosphere and must determine the cause of oxygen/carbon dioxide imbalance through data collection, experimentation, and problem solving. Students then must design and implement a solution. Developed for 8th and 9th grade physical science. A. Curriculum Development & Implementation Process AE program personnel include College of Engineering and College of Education faculty, graduate students and undergraduate students, and middle grade mathematics and science teachers from urban and suburban public school districts in the State of Oklahoma. A team consisting of one to four engineering students (from different disciplines), one to two education students, and one or more middle school teachers develops AE curriculum units for a selected grade and subject. Each member of the AE team plays a critical role in development and implementation. The middle grade teachers and education faculty and students tutored the engineering group on educational standards, appropriate content and curriculum development methods. The engineering group crafted the multidisciplinary engineering obstacles to incorporate science and mathematics content while explaining the engineering design process. The entire AE team developed the inquiry-based learning strategies. Engineering and education faculty provide guidance and feedback. July 2002

The AE curriculum development process begins with the engineering students observing a selected classroom (e.g., 7th grade earth science) and interacting with the teacher and middle school students. This orientation period serves to reacquaint the engineering students with middle school content and level of learning. This also provides the engineering students with an opportunity to build a relationship with the teacher, to observe teaching methods, and to observe student-teacher interaction. Also during this orientation period, the engineering students learn about required content, national and state educational standards, classroom logistics, and class schedules for the semester or academic year. The engineering students begin to formally brainstorm possible adventure scenarios that will serve as the curriculum unit theme. Once the storyline for the scenario has been developed, the AE team crafts obstacles and activities that require both the learning of the desired mathematics or science concepts and the application of the desired concepts to solve the problem and/or design a solution. All AE curricula employ an inquiry-based approach to concept learning. The curricula are designed to utilize available textbooks and the Internet. Once the scenario, obstacles and activities have been developed, the AE team prepares a teachers guide designed to lead a teacher with no prior engineering experience and with no help from AE team members through the implementation of the curricula. While challenging, unassisted teacher implementation is our ultimate goal. We want teachers from communities across the U.S. to download and implement AE curricula from the AE website with little assistance. Activity directions, handouts, and worksheets are incorporated into the teachers guide for distribution to the students. During the first implementation of a curriculum unit, AE students help the teachers to understand the unit and to carry out daily activities. More importantly, the AE students observe and assess curriculum implementation by noting student responses during each activity and the teachers effectiveness in facilitating each activity. Since each curriculum unit is designed for unassisted use, engineering student observations and the subsequent corrections to the curriculum are essential to the development process.

V. AE CURRICULA IMPLEMENTATION
Adventure Engineering curricula were first (phase 1) developed for and implemented in one suburban middle school (grade 7) and one suburban high school (grade 9). Phase 2 AE curricula development and implementation was conducted in two urban middle schools (grades 7 and 8), one suburban middle school (grades 7 and 8) and one suburban high school (grade 9). The urban school district (K-12) is comprised of 65 elementary schools, 10 MS/JHS, and 9 high schools. Average enrollment for the 199798 school year was 38,376 students while the total number of regular classroom teachers was 1,990. Ethnicity makeup based upon fall 1997 enrollment was as follows (given as percentages): Black, 40; Caucasian, 35; Hispanic, 17; Native American, 5; and Asian, 3. The suburban school district (K-12) is comprised of 15 elementary schools, 4 MS/JHS, and 2 HS. Average enrollment for the 19971998 school year was 12,543 students and the total number of regular classroom teachers was 679. Ethnicity makeup based upon fall 1997 enrollment was as follows (given as percentages): Caucasian, 82; Black, 6; Native American, 6; Hispanic, 3; and Asian-2. Journal of Engineering Education 311

A. Phase 1 Findings Driven by the Engineering the Congo scenario (see Section IV), AE curriculum was first developed and implemented in 7th grade mathematics at a suburban middle school and in 9th grade science at a suburban high school. The following water purification obstacle was adopted in 9th grade physical science to teach two concepts, namely: (1) separation of mixtures by physical means, and (2) identification of substances by their properties.
Water is readily available in numerous Congo rivers; however, its purity for human consumption is questionable. Extensive mining operations throughout upstream sites have rendered a majority of the surface water polluted and non-potable. Surface water has been contaminated with cyanide used in gold mining operations, as well as with heavy metals and volatile organic compounds from mined ore. The presence of bacteria is also of concern.

The 7th grade navigation and coding curriculum was successful because the students gained a thorough understanding of exponents and their relation to binary counting. When compared with students in the traditional curriculum, students who experienced AE curriculum scored average and above average on exponent, data collection and statistical analysis test questions. The students enjoyed working in teams and were very involved with the problem solving aspect of taking measurements with the GPS. Also, the AE curriculum unit prompted many questions from the 7th graders about the different types of engineering. B. Phase 2 Implementations Following phase 1, AE curricula were developed for and implemented in four middle grade subjects. Table 1 lists the curricula theme, subject and grade level, and the demographic makeup of each class. In three of the four subjects, similar sized control groups consisting of similar level students were employed. In each case, the experimental and control groups were taught the same concepts in the same amount of time and by the same teacher. The experimental groups experienced the AE curriculum and methods while the control groups experienced standard teaching methods (e.g., lecture, textbook reading, assigned problems, etc.). The OU Survivor curriculum unit was taught to a 7th and 8th grade cluster group of students and covered mathematics and science concepts. Cluster classes are theme based interim courses offered every day for two weeks each spring. There was no available control group for this class. Each curriculum unit was developed to teach relevant NCTM and NSES standards. A detailed list of the NCTM and NSES standards taught by each curriculum unit is presented elsewhere [1]. Pre-curriculum and post-curriculum assessment instruments were utilized in each experimental and control class to measure attitudes towards engineering, science and mathematics, as well as content knowledge. The pre- and post-attitudinal assessment instruments were modified from existing assessment instruments [4, 6]. The modified assessment instruments used in this study were designed to determine student perceptions and understanding in the following five areas: (a) perceived value of science and/or mathematics [4]; (b) interest in and attitude towards engineering; (c) self-assessment of ability and expectancy in science and/or mathematics [4]; (d) gender bias; and (e) expectancy/intention to further pursue science and/or mathematics [6]. Statements on the assessment instruments (18 preassessment; 14 post-assessment) were evaluated based upon a five item, Likert-type scale using strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, and strongly disagree. C. Phase 2 Findings Table 2 summarizes the pre-assessment attitude/understanding questions together with average male and female responses for each class. Given that the experimental and control classes were comprised of similar students, all pre-curriculum assessment responses were combined for analysis. An independent samples t-test was used to test for differences between male and female responses for each curriculum group with the level of statistical significance based on a p-value of 0.05 (i.e., 95% confidence interval). The difference between the male and female responses is presented for each question and each curriculum group. One asterisk implies a statistically significant difference with 95% confidence while two asterisks implies statistically significant difference with 99% confidence. A lack of asterisks indicates that 95% confidence was not achieved. While July 2002

Given the obstacle description, the charge to design a solution for a reconnaissance team, and a beaker of contaminated water (consisting of pond water, charcoal, iron sulfide, vegetable oil, and sodium chloride), student teams researched and identified various techniques for water purification, e.g., decanting, filtration, distillation, and reverse osmosis. Students then assessed the ability of the various techniques to remove contaminants. Student teams also performed a demand analysis to identify the quantities of water needed, and then defined the criteria for success and the design constraints, e.g., portability, power consumption, operation requirements, capacity, underlying treatment methods required, cost and allowable risk. Student teams then researched commercially available equipment via the Internet and local merchants and narrowed to a best design based on the criteria for success. Using an Engineering the Congo navigation and de-coding obstacle, AE curriculum was developed for 7th grade mathematics to teach grade level appropriate statistics, data collection, latitude and longitude, and exponents. Student groups began with Morse code, developed their own code for the alphabet, and progressed through binary code. Students could then be provided with intercepted secret coded messages key to the Congo mission; they had to decipher the codes using the binary system. The 7th grade students were also posed with the task of designing a navigation strategy for the reconnaissance mission. Through research activity, student groups identified the possible navigational methods. Then, given GPS units, students were required to assess whether GPS was a suitable means for navigation with a desired precision. Through team brainstorming, the relevant issues were discovered, e.g., accuracy, transmission through tree canopy, available satellites, etc. Student teams designed and completed experiments to determine the accuracy, and they performed data reduction and statistical analysis, e.g., mean, median, mode, and range. Assessment of the first two AE curriculum experiences was anecdotal and the results were encouraging. Both teachers reported increased student enthusiasm during AE activities. Levels of student ability among the 102 ninth-grade physical science students involved in the water purification obstacle ranged from accelerated or above grade level to severely learning disabled. Students of all abilities were successful in completing the obstacle. The inquiry-based format of the project was found to be particularly appealing to special needs students, allowing them to learn using kinesthetic modalities, verbal modalities, pictorial representations, and creativity, features that can facilitate learning for special needs students. 312 Journal of Engineering Education

Table 1. Summary of Phase 2 curricula and demographics of population used in the study.

the number of statistically significant differences in gender-based responses is limited, trends appear in the data. Based on Table 2, the following findings are posed. 1. Student attitudes towards engineering were less favorable than in all other categories evaluated. Average responses to engineering questions in all classes ranged from 2.8 (between disagree and uncertain) to 3.6 (between uncertain and agree). Perceived value of, self-assessment in, and attitudes towards mathematics and science were very favorable in all classes. 2. Male students perceived engineering as more enjoyable than did female students in all classes. However, this difference was statistically significant in only one class. 3. Despite the fact that the male and female students perceive that they are doing well in mathematics and/or science (item AE1) and that they like doing mathematics and/or science (item PV1), both male and female student mean scores were unfavorable when asked if they were interested in pursuing a career in engineering. Male students reported a greater interest in engineering than female students. 4. Female students responded very favorably that both women and men could be good at engineering (items G3 and G4). Male student responses were less favorable than female student responses, particularly to the statement women can be good at being an engineer. Three of the four class differences were statistically significant for this item. Students were asked to explain their response (strongly agree, agree, uncertain, disagree, strongly disagree) to the statement, I am interested in pursuing a career in engineering during the preassessment. Thirteen percent of all 8th grade pre-algebra (urban July 2002

school) students (N 46) either reported they strongly agree or agree to this statement. Fifty-nine percent were uncertain with their intentions, reporting I dont know much about engineering as their most common explanation. Twenty-eight percent of the students either disagreed or strongly disagreed claiming they had intentions for a different career or they dont know much about engineering. Of the 16 male and female 7th/8th grade students in the combined mathematics/science class (suburban school), 25% either strongly agreed or agreed while 69% were uncertain. Those students who reported being uncertain were either undecided upon a career or didnt know much about engineering. Only one student disagreed or strongly disagreed because he/she was interested in a different career. Thirteen percent of all 9th grade (suburban school) students (N 67) either strongly agreed or agreed to item E3. Thirty-six percent were uncertain reporting, I dont know much about engineering as their most prevalent answer. However, 51% of the total number of students either disagreed or strongly disagreed noting their choice of a different career as the most common reply. An additional number of these students reported they didnt know much about engineering. Of the 81 male and female students in 7th grade (urban school) earth science, 13% strongly agreed or agreed while 38% were uncertain in their intentions of pursuing an engineering career. In addition to the representative explanations already given for students who were uncertain, these students claimed their lack of science ability as a reason for their uncertainty. Forty-nine percent of the total sample size either disagreed or strongly disagreed expressing their intentions of a different career, their lack of science ability, or they dont know much about engineering. Journal of Engineering Education 313

Note. PV = perceived value of science and/or mathematics; E = engineering; AE = ability and expectancy; G = gender bias; EI = expectancy/intention. Data are based upon likert scale 1-5: 5 = strongly agree; 4 = agree; 3 = uncertain; 2 = disagree; 1 = strongly disagree. *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001 Table 2. Summary of pre-assessment attitudinal questions and responses from each implementation.
With the exception of the urban 7th grade earth sciences class, the majority of 7th and 8th graders have not yet closed the door on pursuing engineering. In contrast, over 50% of the 9th graders indicated they were not interested in pursuing engineering as a career. While not conclusive, this sheds some light on importance of the middle grade years. The disinterest expressed by almost half of the 314 Journal of Engineering Education urban 7th graders can be explained by the poor attitudinal scores of Table 2, markedly lower scores than in the other three schools. The common reason for disinterest being a lack of science ability is particularly discouraging at the 7th grade level. Students responded to a similar attitudinal assessment instrument after each implementation of AE curricula. Paired samples July 2002

t-tests were performed to determine statistical significance in mean score differences between pre- and post-curriculum male, female, and combined male/female responses. Table 3 summarizes the difference in post minus pre item scores from each of the groups that completed AE curriculum. Statistical significance was determined for male, female and combined group improvement. Asterisks in Table 3 depict the levels of statistical significance. Table 3 illustrates the following findings: (1) AE improved students perceived value of science in 2 of the 3 science curricula; (2) it is not clear from the data if the AE curriculum was successful in improving student attitudes and understanding towards engineering (Although there was a majority of positive scores, statistically significant improvement in male attitudes and understanding occurred in only two instances. The results indicated that female interest in engineering decreased after the Congo Communications curriculum (9th grade science)); and (3) in two of the four classes, the male perception of female ability to pursue engineering improved significantly. This was most evident in the urban school. The perception of whether males would be good engineers was not changed by the AE curricula. During post-assessment, students who experienced AE curriculum were asked to elaborate on the statement, I could be a successful engineer (item E2 in Table 2) Of the 18 pre-algebra students who experienced the Treasure Hunt scenario (urban school), 50% either expressed they strongly agreed or agreed; 33% were uncertain in their ability of becoming a successful engineer while 17% either disagreed or strongly disagreed that they could be a successful engineer. Those students who were uncertain, strongly disagreed or disagreed provided many different explanations of which no categorical themes emerged. Fifty-six percent of students (N 16) in the 7th and 8th grade mathematics/science class (suburban school) who experienced the OU Survivor scenario reported that they strongly agreed or agreed to item E2; thirty-one percent from the 7th/8th grade students were uncertain. Even though these students were uncertain the majority expressed that I am good at mathematics and science. Thirteen percent of the OU Survivor students disagreed or strongly disagreed by stating they dislike science or they were unsure. Of the 31 9th grade students (suburban school) who experienced the Congo Communications scenario, only 29% responded that they strongly agreed or agreed to item E3; 48% were uncertain providing many explanations but different career and just not interested in engineering were the

most common reasons given. Of the 23% of 9th grade students who responded disagree or strongly disagree, the majority stated they were not interested in engineering. Results from the 7th grade students (urban school) who experienced the Asteroid Impact scenario (N = 32) revealed that 21% of the students either strongly agreed or agreed that they could be a successful engineer while 41% were uncertain. Representative responses of those who were uncertain include I dont know much about engineering, I am interested in a different career, and I dont have the science ability. Twenty-eight percent of the total sample disagreed or strongly disagreed because of a different career or a dislike of science. Though the percentages reflected by the post-assessment item E2 are not directly comparable with the pre-assessment percentages of item E4, they do suggest a stark reduction in the number of students not interested in engineering. Student understanding of curriculum specific content was assessed using quantitative analysis of pre-assessment and postassessment open format questions in two of the four curriculathe Treasure Hunt and Congo Communications. We evaluated each students written response for both pre-assessment and postassessment conceptual understanding and ranked the degree of understanding based upon the following criteria as modified from existing assessment techniques [19]: Sound Understanding (SU), the students response parallels a concrete, scientific view of the concept; Partial Understanding (PU), the students response contains part, but not all, of the information necessary to convey sound understanding; Misunderstanding (MU), the students response contains some correct information, but also indicates a misunderstanding concerning some aspect of the concept; and No Understanding (NU), the students response consists of I dont know, the question repeated, or irrelevant remarks. Tables 4 and 5 and Figures 1 and 2 summarize the results. Each student was recorded as having one pair of explanations, a pre- and a post-explanation. The Wilcoxson signed-ranks test was used to compare the distributions of two related samples by ranking the differences in pre- and post-understandings without considering if there was a positive or negative difference, restoring the sign (positive or negative difference), and summing the ranks separately for the positive and negative differences [16]. Results from the 9th grade physical science class illustrates a significant number of positive ranks in the experimental group, i.e., the number of students that increased their

Table 3. Statistically significant improvements in attitudes in male, female, and combined groups (values reflect post minus pre-assessment scores to Likert scale questions of Table 1). July 2002 Journal of Engineering Education 315

Table 4. Frequencies of conceptual change and Wilcoxson signed ranks test for degree of conceptual change from pre- to postimplementation. understanding of the content topics (see Table 4 and Figure 1). Over 50% of the experimental group students improved their understanding compared with less than 25% in the control group. A z-test revealed that the increase in understanding exhibited by the experimental group was statistically significant with a p 0.001. In the 8th grade mathematics class (see Table 5 and Figure 2), students who participated in the AE curriculum also significantly increased their concept understanding ( p 0.05). As a testament to the teacher, there were a considerable, though not statistically significant, number of positive ranks in the control group.

Table 5. Frequencies of conceptual change and Wilcoxson signed ranks test for degree of conceptual change from pre- to postimplementation.

VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

The Adventure Engineering program strives to create engineeringbased curricula that can be readily adopted in mainstream middle grade mathematics and science classes such that all students can experience the exciting, rewarding and enjoyable fields of engineering. Adventure Engineering curriculum units have been developed to effectively improve mathematics and science concept learning, and to provide an enjoyable and meaningful engineering experience for middle grade (59) students. This paper reported the findings from the development and implementation of AE curricula in six different middle grade courses at urban and suburban schools. In each case, teachers expressed an increased interest and enthusiasm for learning among their students. Assessment data illustrates that the 316 Journal of Engineering Education

Figure 1. Frequencies of conceptual change for 9th grade physical scienceCongo Communications (SU Sound Understanding; PU Partial Understanding; NU No Understanding; MU Misunderstanding; NR No Response). AE curricula has successfully improved mathematics and science content knowledge, more so than the traditional curricula. Assessment also reveals that the AE curricula improved attitudes towards mathematics and science, and in limited cases, attitudes towards engineering. The assessment data does reveal that, for the most part, July 2002

REFERENCES
[1] Adventure Engineering. http://www.coecs.ou.edu/aeweb, accessed March 9, 2002. [2] American Association for Advancement of Science, Science for all Americans: Project 2061, 1989. New York: Oxford University Press. [3] Campbell, J.R. et al. 2000. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress: Three Decades of Reform. NCES 2000469. [4] Eccles, J.S., and A. Wigfield. 1997. In the mind of the actor: The structure of adolescents achievement task values and expectancy-related beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21, 599607. [5] For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology (FIRST). http://www.usfirst.org, accessed March 9, 2002. [6] Fouad, N.A. et al. 1997. Reliability and validity evidence for the middle school self-efficacy scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development. 30(1), 1731. [7] Junior Engineering Technical Society ( JETS). http://www.jets. org, accessed March 9, 2002. [8] Kahle, J.B., and J. Meece. 1994. Research on gender issues in the classroom. In DL. Grable (Ed.) Handbook of Research on Science Teaching and Learning. New York, New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.: 542557. [9] KISS Institute for Practical Robotics. http://www.kipr.org, accessed March 9, 2002. [10] Marek, E.A., and A.M.L. Cavallo. 1997. The Learning Cycle: Elementary School Science and Beyond. Portsmouth, New Hamphire: Heinemann. [11] National Council of Teachers in Mathematics. 2000. Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, Virginia: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. [12] National Research Council. 2000. Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. [13] National Research Council. 1996. National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. [14] National Science Board. 2000. Science and Engineering Indicators2000. Arlington, Virginia: National Science Foundation (NSB-00-1). [15] The ASEE Engineering K-12 Center. www.asee.org, accessed June 15, 2002. [16] SPSS. 1999. SPSS Base 9.0: Users Guide, Chicago: SPSS. [17] TIMSS International Study Center. 1995. Third International Mathematics and Science Study. http://timss.bc.edu, accessed March 9, 2002. [18] TIMSS International Study Center. 1999. Third International Mathematics and Science Study. http://timss.bc.edu, accessed March 9, 2002. [19] Westbrook, S.L., and E.A. Marek. 1991. A cross-age study of student understanding of the concept of diffusion. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. 28 (8), 649660.

Figure 2. Frequencies of conceptual change for 8th grade prealgebraTreasure Hunt (SU Sound Understanding; PU Partial Understanding; NU No Understanding; MU Misunderstanding; NR No Response). the AE curricula did not significantly improve student knowledge about engineering. Further, student perception of being personally successful as an engineer or of engineering being enjoyable increased, but not in a statistically significant fashion. This may indicate that 13 weeks of curriculum may not be sufficient to affect this student perception, thus underscoring the need for more or longer duration engineering experiences for middle grade students. This finding may also indicate that it is easier to develop engineering driven curricula that effectively teaches mathematics and science content; however, writing curriculum that educates students about engineering is more difficult. Nevertheless, we are working to improve the engineering component and message of the curriculum units. Conducted prior to implementing the AE curricula, a survey of urban and suburban students revealed that male and female middle grade students are less positive towards and knowledgeable about engineering than they are towards mathematics and science. Generally speaking, students responded unfavorably when asked if they were interested in pursuing a career in engineering. The majority of students were uncertain or not interested in engineering due to a lack of knowledge, inferior perception of science skills, or interest in a different career. There was also a clear gender bias in the male responses; males responded unfavorably when asked if women could be good at engineering. These findings, coupled with the strong need for talented engineers in todays technology driven knowledge-based economy, illustrate the importance of integrating engineering and technology into the K-12 education community, particularly at the middle grade levels.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Adventure Engineering is supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (Grant Nos. DUE-9950660 and GK-12 0086457). We are extremely grateful for their support. We also acknowledge the effort and contributions of the many engineering students and middle grade teachers who helped develop and implement the AE curriculum. July 2002 Dr. Michael A. Mooney is an Associate Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Oklahoma. He received a B.A. from Hastings College in Hastings, NE, a B.S. from Washington University in St. Louis (1991), an M.S. from the University of California, Irvine (1993), and a Ph.D. from Northwestern University in Evanston, IL (1996). In addition to Adventure Engineering, Michaels educational activities include involvement in the development of Sooner City, a design throughout the CE curriculum Journal of Engineering Education 317

reform effort. Michael is a member of ASEE and ASCE, and has taught courses in geotechnical, structural, civil and general engineering. Address: School of Civil Engineering & Environmental Science, University of Oklahoma, 202 W. Boyd St., Room 334, Norman, OK, 73019; telephone: (405) 325-3550; fax (405) 325-4217; e-mail: mooney@ou.edu. Timothy A. Laubach is a doctoral student studying science education at the University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK. He received a B.S. from Tennessee Temple University in Chattanooga, TN

(1995), and a M.Ed. from the University of Oklahoma (1998). Tim has served as a Graduate Research Assistant within the department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum since 1995. During that time he has assisted with research projects, co-authored science education-related articles, and served as laboratory assistant at the Science Education Center. Tim also has taught elementary science methods courses within the College of Education. Address: College of Education, University of Oklahoma, 820 Van Vleet Oval, Room 114, Norman, OK, 73019; telephone: (405) 325-1498; fax (405) 325-4061; e-mail: laubach@ou.edu.

318

Journal of Engineering Education

July 2002