You mentioned interest in "best ways to reach out to teachers to make them aware of our CBL training program". Our NSF funded https://passiondrivenstatistics.com model has found success in reaching new audiences through posting to list serve's, newsletters, and Facebook groups geared toward statistics, higher education, teaching, etc. 

Thanks for your input Kristin.  We are using Facebook but not Facebook Groups.  Great tip!  Will also check out your website.

Thank you, David,

I checked the BioBuilder website and the pricing for your workshops ($400 for early bird enrollment; otherwise $500).  If I am correct, these workshops are offered as in-person format.  Do the practicing bench scientists working with the teachers act like coaches assist the teachers in developing the curriculum to take back the workshop experience to their classroom?  We offer our workshops completely online and the teachers develop a curricular unit (with at least 4 activities or more, taking about 2 weeks or more to teach) under the guidance of a virtual coach.  In usual situation (when school is in operation), the teacher, after the unit is approved by the coach, teaches the unit, documents impact on student learning and personal reflections, and has a final session with the coach to discuss how it went and what could be improved upon.  STEMucation Academy also offers face-to-face workshop sessions (spread-out over a period) to a group of teachers from a school district or a school building.

Oh I am not affiliated with BioBuilder at all - I just know a little bit about it as I collaborated with them on other projects.  I believe these workshops have most generally been in-person but they are/have pivoted to more online engagement like everyone else is.  I believe there are scholarships for teachers through other support they have received and also that they are offered in multiple languages - but the BioBuilder folks would be able to tell you a lot more about that!

It is very interesting that they offer their workshops in different languages.  That broadens participation.  We can also look into that.  We will get in touch with BioBuilder.  Thank you for letting us know about it.

Thank you, Amy,

There is one difference between challenge-based learning (CBL) and problem- or project-based learning (PBL) approaches.  In our CBL approach the teacher guides the students (in teams, generally) to identify an engineering design challenge (the problem) around which the curricular unit is taught and facilitated by the teacher. We train the teachers on the process to follow to make this happen. The students solve the challenge using the engineering design process (EDP). In PBL approach usually the teacher pre-selects and presents the problem to the students. In both approaches the problem selected is open-ended and has multiple solutions. So, the students optimize their solution and defend the "best" solution obtained. Thus, CBL approach is student driven and based on our evaluation results it ensures student buy-in from the beginning to the end of the curricular unit. It does require more advance planning on the teacher's part. In our teacher the professional development program (both in online and face-to-face formats) the teacher develops a curricular unit (with at least 4 activities or more, taking about 2 weeks or more to teach) under the guidance of an assigned coach. In a usual situation (when school is in operation), the teacher, after the unit developed is approved by the coach, teaches the unit, documents impact on student learning and personal reflections, and has a final session with the coach to discuss how it went and what could be improved upon.

Hi again, in this respect it is very close to how we practice PBL. We actually have the students also define the problem. Only the general area of interest is defined, but students direct what problem to solve!  The major difference is our problems are generally health science related. For example, we are doing projects designed around addressing childhood obesity this year.

Very nice learning about this and thanks again!

Thank you, Michael,

I would like to refer to you to the book entitled, " Creating Engineering Design Challenges: Success Stories From Teachers,” published by NSTA Press, which was coauthored by the CEEMS project team. This book is especially important for secondary school teachers who are interested in integrating engineering into their curriculum. It showcases documented strategies to use engineering design practices in the classroom to teach math and science content and standards using CBL, which ensures student buy-in and engagement. As well, a substantial portion of the book is comprised of the voices of CEEMS teachers who created and implemented instructional units that incorporate both challenge-based learning and the engineering design process.  They have documented the success they documented and observed when the CBL-EDP units were executed.

The Cincinnati Engineering Enhanced Math and Science Program (CEEMS) project was executed over seven years, leading to the creation of the STEMucation Academy to offer the program’s successful professional development program to other teachers nationwide. Five cohorts of teachers participated in CEEMS, each cohort participating for two years. A few highlights of the quantified and qualitative evaluation results are presented below for your information:

• Student Feedback Survey (implemented from Year 1 to Year 7) from the CEEMS project indicated, the majority of students (over 80%) reported that they learned about the engineering design process (EDP) and had an increased interest in engineering following unit implementation (over 58% of students surveyed). Furthermore, the vast majority of students (≥ 89%) understood how the EDP helped them solve a problem. Teacher reports were consistent with student reports of increased interest whereby ≥ 98% of teachers were in agreement that their students’ classroom engagement had increased compared to when non-CEEMS units were taught. Taken together, students exposed to CEEMS units reported increased interest in STEM related careers and learned the EDP and knew how it helped with problem solving.
• Related to student knowledge, teachers created pre-post assessments for each unit to show content knowledge gains. Taken together over the seven years of the project, students exposed to CEEMS units were characterized by a gain in knowledge ranging from 29.6% (project beginning) to 41.7% (project end) with gains increasing across each year of the project. When comparison data were available, students in CEEMS units had statistically significantly higher knowledge gains (p<0.001) relative to peers taught similar content by non-CEEMS teachers.
• Related to changes in teachers’ (n=79) current instructional practices (CIP) indicate that all teachers are using the instructional practices promoted by the CEEMS training across all five cohorts and seven years of data.

In summary:

• The key findings from externally conducted evaluations of CEEMS project include: 1) student interest in engineering is increasing; 2) students are learning the engineering design process, and their content knowledge gains are increasing; 3) teachers are using CBL-EDP-promoted instructional practices which has remained steady after participation; 4) teachers use a wider variety of instructional practices; 5) teachers utilize their network of CEEMS project teachers and coaches; 6) the coaches are developing a collaborative coaching network allowing shared learning; and 7) the coaching team collectively developing coaching strategies to support teachers.
• The key findings from a separate CEEMS research study are: 1) teachers’ increased knowledge of the engineering design process; 2) teacher instruction became more intentional, exemplified by the increased use of scaffolding activities and handouts to prepare and support students with the design process and content learning; and 3) the reduction of barriers when implementation of engineering design lessons over the course of the project.

Thank you for complete and very informative answers. The longer history provides more data and the results certainly are encouraging.  I look forward to following this discussion throughout the week.

Thank you, Albert,

The authentic example given, a boy in sports practice dies from ingesting too much water, how can something essential for life be detrimental, is an excellent example. In our project we promote teachers to tease out such problems form teachers which the students will immediately connect to and run with it. In the CEEMS students worked in collaborative teams when teachers used the CBL approach. Grounded in student learning outcomes, teachers used a “Hook” (often a video about the issue) to introduce student teams to a relevant “Big Idea.” The big idea was an item of global, regional or local significance—something a student could readily relate to his or her life. Once the big idea was introduced, the first step was to collaboratively develop—with the students—an overview of the big idea and the related “Essential Questions” and choose one to set the broader context and foundation for the work that would follow. The class then identified a suitable “Challenge” or was guided by teacher questioning to select the challenge. The challenge established the context for the “Design Challenge” selected by the students and teacher for the curricular unit being taught. The students then began the process of identifying the “Guiding Questions” that would guide their analyses of the design challenge topic. These questions outlined what the students thought they needed to know and do to formulate a viable solution. Students needed significant guidance from the teacher at this stage, depending on the particular design challenge selected for the curricular unit and student preparation. This was where content knowledge requirements could be established. Student teams sought answers to the guiding questions by participating in a variety of learning activities, i.e., conducting research, learning new material (independently, in groups, or as part of a teacher-led lesson/activity), experimentation, interviewing, and exploring various avenues to craft the best solution for the challenge. In CEEMS, the EDP guided and informed the challenge solution, approaching it as an open-ended problem. Because the problem included constraints, trade-offs, and performance objectives, there was never a set solution. Instead, student teams refined, improved, and optimized their original designs, as this is how design innovation actually works outside the classroom. Additionally, in order to learn how to effectively communicate their new engineering knowledge, student teams also shared and defended their “best” solutions using one of many possible formats: oral, written, and visual communication.

As an example, for a High School Chemistry class, the teacher constructed a curricular unit, “Melt Away.” The CBL elements for this unit were:

• Big Idea: Transportation and safety on icy roads and sidewalks
• Essential Question: How can we keep our roads and sidewalks safe in sub-freezing climates?
• Challenge: Design a deicing product that includes a blend of chemical compounds and market it through a commercial.
• The Guiding Questions developed by the class and used by the teacher to develop and teach the unit are:
• What is a deicer?
• For what applications are deicers necessary?
• What chemical compounds are used as deicers?
• What is the chemistry behind their function?
• What is the economic impact of their use on various surfaces?
• What environmental risks are associated with the use of deicers?
• Will the product be eco-friendly?
• Is to be a high end or low-end product (cost and quality)?
• For what applications will the product be effective at melting ice?
• Will the product be a solid or liquid application?

 I hope this response helps in understanding how we use CBL process in our program.  

Outstanding Anat. Thank you for the example, Right on the mark!

The example I gave is actually one that was used in NSTA training for NGSS, where students (like in your excellent example), are then asked to design models to explain or demonstrate phenomena in question (less Engineering), like how does the body get rid of water, through the kidneys (where students might use a spaghetti strainer and beads to visualize this). This leads to more questions such as, if the body cannot get rid of the water where does it go; it may be absorbed in muscles, where in one instance the brain is a muscle that cannot expand encapsulated by a skull. So students use the observations and data from their own models as evidence to support their arguments and claims. Much better than, we are going to learn about the kidney today and how muscles handle water we ingest. I truly appreciate the scenario you provided. Great stuff!

Thank you, Jonathan,

Please see my reply to Dr. Albert Byers question. This describes the framework used by the teacher to construct a CBL-EDP curricular unit.

Marrying CBL and EDP pedagogies, CEEMS teachers developed a curricular unit using established templates, which helped them organize their information and content in a consistent way and required teachers to document how they planned to adhere to the program pedagogies throughout unit implementation. At least four activity templates were utilized for each curricular unit, as well as a pre-test and a post-test that were directly linked to the activities’ measurable educational outcomes. Each activity was designed to answer specific or a set of specific guiding questions. Consequently, the number of activities depended on the number of guiding questions and how they were grouped. An activity was a stand-alone learning module with defined learning outcomes, each with its own summative assessment, which sought to monitor educational outcomes, often for purposes of external accountability. At least one of the activities was used to find a solution to the design challenge using EDP. Additionally, there were some key teaching strategies teachers were required to plan and document prior to teaching, and to later revise, if they were changed during instruction. In each unit template, teachers anticipated and identified misconceptions students would likely have regarding the content and how these issues would be addressed. Additionally, teachers outlined how they planned to differentiate parts of the lesson activities to support diverse student learning needs. The goal for the construction of templates was to maximize organization and preparation before implementation in such a way that successful teaching methods and areas for improvement could be identified more easily by the teachers. After instruction, teachers reported student pre- and post-test results to document growth in student learning that resulted from the unit and provided a personal reflection on what worked and what could be improved.

Teachers who participated in CEEMS received extensive support throughout their two years in the program. Each summer they took three graduate courses and a seminar class devoted to CBL-EDP curriculum development for their classroom. Instructors of CEEMS graduate courses modeled how to use CBL and EDP while teaching engineering, science, and mathematics content. These courses required participating teachers to use EDP to develop and refine solutions to open-ended challenges or problems. For example, one teacher learned about aerospace engineering while designing, building, and testing a glider in order to determine which type of glider stayed in the air the longest. Throughout the coursework, teachers’ integration of hands-on EDP challenges in different fields of engineering provided them ample opportunities to practice engineering design, engage in teamwork, learn from failure, and experience the iterative nature of the design process. Teachers directly experienced how versatile real-world engineering applications were and how they could be used to teach standards-based content in secondary education.

In the seminar class, each summer, teachers worked with Resource Team coaches to develop CBL curricular units that involved engineering design. During two summers of coursework and professional development seminar sessions, teachers worked in collaboration with other higher and secondary education participants to design two curricular units that featured CBL and EDP. During program year 2, teachers also revised and re-taught one of the units taught during the previous academic year, providing them the opportunity to reflect upon and improve their practices.

In the online and face-to-face professional development programs developed by STEMucation Academy, we have captured the above magic of CEEMS training model through eight training modules a participant completes under the guidance of an assigned coach (virtual or real). These modules are completed one-by-one and proficiency demonstrated before a teacher can go to the next module by the coach. As part of the earlier modules, a teacher completes select sections of a curricular unit templates. Once the unit template is completed, reviewed and approved by the coach, the teacher teaches the unit. In the later modules that follow, after teaching the teacher documents growth in student learning by the teaching of the CBL-EDP unit, the misconceptions and differentiation addressed, and submit personal reflections. At the end the teacher has a meeting with the coach to document what worked and what could be done for further improvement. After unit completion, we encourage the teacher to publish the completed unit in the STEMucation Academy Website to dissemination to other teachers.

Hello Rebecca,

Thank you for getting back to us and for asking about how we foster a sense of community beyond the official PD that allows them to share their work.  In CEEMS 79 teachers completed the two-year program, and each teacher produced on the average 5 CBL-EDP curricular units, a few produced 4 units.  All these units are archived in a CEEMS Instructional Units Website.  So, there are over 350 fully developed and tested CBL-EDP Units available to any teacher to adopt and/or adapt for their own use.  Contact information of the teacher who created and implemented the original unit is also given.  Many of these units are also available in the STEMucation Academy Units Website.  Teachers who participate in the STEMucation Academy’s virtual or face-to-face PD training programs are encouraged to use these units to suit their purpose and are encouraged to contact the teacher who created the unit.  Most of the STEMucation Academy coaches assigned to participants are veteran CEEMS teachers, and they are encouraged to form a leaning community between the teachers assigned to a coach – usually 5 to 6.  Through such a learning community the teachers help one another.  Both the online and face-to-face STEMucation Academy training programs are structured for a group of teachers to collaborate during the training and even afterwards.  Our experience from the CEEMS project has been that teachers learn from one another when they:

• Ask questions: develop a list of "how to" and "why for" questions regarding student data, instruction, discipline, time management, etc. that one would ask their colleagues on their own
• Share: rather than wracking one’s brain for answers that others have already solved, one would share their frustrations with their colleagues and get the answers quickly so they can go on to other important matters
• Build relationships: They seek them out, spend time with one them, help them, and build relationships
• Observe the best: seek out the ones that one would like to emulate - looking for things that I could use
• Come prepared: Finally, and especially in formal collaboration meetings, but not solely, I have seen that teachers come prepared – they have ideas been mapped out prior to the meeting.

We have attempted to capture these benefits when modeling the PD in STEMucation Academy.  I hope this answers your question.

Hello Isabel,

Thank you for viewing out video and for the very pertinent question asked.  Put simply, the EDP flowchart we selected is a series of steps that engineers follow to devise solutions for problems.  Also, they cover the engineering practices outlined by NGSS for K–12 science content standards.  However, the nature of the EDP is inherently flexible because for any challenge or problem there are constraints, trade-offs, and performance objectives that make a variety of potential solutions available.  As such, the EDP is an iterative process that requires constant revision and optimization.  As the CEEMS project was started, it became apparent that a common definition of the term “engineering” and the “EDP iterative process” needs to be properly conveyed.  However, we also realized that the process of exposing secondary teachers to the concepts of engineering and EDP cannot be overly prescriptive, instead it must create a sense of understanding through practice and experience.  The EDP guides and informs the challenge solution as an open-ended problem: a central tenet of engineering is that there are many collaborative solutions to a given problem.  Thus, in engineering design, there is no one right answer and student teams have the opportunity to refine, improve, and optimize their original designs.  Using prior knowledge and experiences, students identify the best alternative and implement the most efficient solution.  Additionally, student teams must also share their solution to the challenge using one of many possible formats.  Oral, written and visual communication skills are used by the student teams as part of the process to present and defend their challenge solution.

 As a concept, engineering was introduced to the teachers as follows: Engineering seeks to improve quality of life by constructing innovative solutions to real world problems, while recognizing their ethical and societal impact.  In order to device solutions, engineering uses all available knowledge, especially from math and science. Engineering is a team-based practice where multiple, alternate solutions are identified under given constraints.  When solutions fail, we learn from the failure.  The process is repeated to refine and communicate the “best” solution. 

An iterative flow diagram for EDP was selected for the CEEMS project, which is shown in our video, and which is referred by you.  All steps shown in the figure presented must be completed and the results communicated after each step.  However, for some problems, steps can be combined.  As a guide, the following definitions for the steps are provided:

Identify and Define

• What are the goals and requirements for the design?
• What are the constraints (time, materials, …)?
• Identify the users (customers)
• Is this a new design or an improvement to some existing design?

Gather Information

• Are there any existing designs worth evaluating?
• If this is an innovation on a current design:

• What are the good features of the current design?
• What improvements seem necessary?

• Talk to the key people involved and/or experts in the field.
• Review existing data and collect more if necessary.
• Research any unfamiliar principles – learn what you don’t know.

Identify Alternatives

• Brainstorm Solutions.
• Generate multiple ideas for the design.  Don’t settle on the first solution that appears feasible.
• Don’t critique or rule out any design ideas.

• Be creative and innovative – a rich set of diverse ideas will lead to a better final design.

Select the Best Solution

• Does the design meet all the requirements and constraints?
• Evaluate each design idea in terms of cost, time/difficulty to implement, ease of use for consumer, safety, and maintainability.
• If possible, use computer simulation (mathematical modeling) to evaluate the effectiveness of each potential design.

Implement Solution

• Build a prototype (a working model used to test a design concept) of the selected design.

Evaluate Solution

• Test the design for functionality, quality, and safety.  Does the design meet all of the requirements and constraints?

Refine

• Testing often reveals that the initial design needs improvement(s).  Engineering design is an iterative process requiring a systematic approach for testing, evaluating, and refining in order to optimize the final design.

Communicate

• Good communication within the design team itself and with anyone else with a stake in the project is essential for success.  Communication skills include the ability to listen as well as the ability to write and speak well.

Communicate Solution

• Once the final design has been developed, the “solution” must be communicated to the customer.  Appropriate documentation must be provided, and depending on what the product design is, some training might be required.

The EDP flowchart selected was used by all project constituents: course and seminar instructors, coaches, and teacher participants.  We also showed the similarities and differences between the Scientific Method, which all teachers were familiar with and had used it, and EDP.

Thank you so much for your incredibly thoughtful and thorough answer! Did teachers find it helpful to compare the scientific method and EDP? Did teachers and students seem to grasp that EDP is a flexible framework more than a right set of steps?  Thanks again!

Hello Isabel,

 

As part of CEEMS project, the teachers really did not compare the Scientific Method and EDP.  The CEEMS training included a comparison between the two compared methods because nearly all the teachers were familiar with Scientific Method and had previously used it in their classroom to teach STEM content.  This comparison increased their comfort level in accepting EDP as an alternative method.  They could better appreciate that both scientists and engineers contribute to the world of human knowledge, but in different ways.  Scientists use the Scientific Method to frame a question and develop an experiment, or set of experiments, to answer that question.  If done correctly, everyone gets the same answer.  Engineers create, build, and find multiple solutions to a problem using the creativity based EDP, and defend the selection of the optimum solution.  By this comparison, the teachers get to see that if your project involves making observations and doing experiments, it is best to follow the Scientific Method.  If you are designing or building something, you should utilize the EDP.  By this comparison they developed a better appreciation of the power of integrating EDP with CBL as an effective teaching strategy to engage students in solving authentic problems more pertinent to their own lives, where often there is no one possible answer.

 

The CEEMS external evaluation results indicated that the majority of students reported that they learned about the EDP and had an increased interest in engineering following unit implementation.  This was one of the goals of the CEEMs project.  Also, when comparing CEEMS and non-CEEMS (traditional) classroom teaching, external evaluation indicated that teachers used a wider variety of instructional practices in CEEMS lessons than in traditional lessons. Instructional practices evident in CEEMS lessons included probative, open-ended questioning that encouraged critical thinking; the engineering design process; challenge-based learning strategies; collaborative grouping; and external resources (e.g., videos) as a means to focus the lesson on real-world issues. In addition, teachers supported their instructional practices by drawing upon a network of other CEEMS teachers and the CEEMS coaches that emerged as a direct result of the CEEMS program.  The CEEMS research study indicated that CEEMS teachers learned to negotiate many of the barriers and minimize their impact.  Over the duration of the project some barriers were reported less frequently, suggesting the CEEMS summer PD program and the CEEMS coaches were better preparing and supporting the teachers.  Summarized below are the barriers and steps that evolved to mitigate their impact on teacher implementation and perceived student learning:

1. The most consistent barrier discussed was time - more specifically finding the time to fully implement their units.
2. The second barrier reported was the mixed knowledge/skill levels of students - keeping all students moving at the same pace a challenge.
3. Space was a persistent and consistent barrier for teachers – particularly for students to build/work and to store work in progress.

In the STEMucation Academy’s PD programs we have attempted to retain the magic of the CEEMS summer PD program and the CEEMS coaches so that similar success is obtained.

This is wonderful! Thank you so much for your thorough response.  It's great to hear about your results and about what kinds of training were helpful to teachers!

Hello Andrew,

Thank you for your input and for raising an important point.  In the CEEMS project, of which STEMucation Academy is an outcome, there was no explicit strategy promoted to address gender and cultural stereotypes issues.  If a teacher recognizes that this issue needs to be addressed, then she can guide the class with an appropriate Hook and Big Idea when executing Challenge-Based Learning process in the classroom so that the student teams select an authentic design challenge of interest to the students which incorporates gender and/or cultural biases imbibed in it.  Since the challenge selected is student driven, this intentional intervention is possible to be attained.

Hello Kimya,

Nice to hear from you.  The point raised by you is very important pointing out that the success of STEM teaching strategies lies if it can engage some of our most reticent students and they find STEM learning to be meaningful to their own lives.  Both Jack and I have been debating how to design a balance between online and hands on to keep STEM alive.  I hope if you or others reading this reply can give us strategies worth trying or describe successful attempts tried by them.  We will be anxious to hear from all.  Thank you.

Jack, since the quaratine, I've been working with students who throughout the school year received computers to take home, so their familiarity with the devices was a non-issue.  But once, distance learning was implemented 100%, student engagement dropped off.  Those who needed internet access received it through the school, but student interest and attendance decreased over the time.  thus, another point not to overlook is the lack of control schools/teachers have over students once they leave the school building.  We have no idea the environments the students are in once they get home.  Then the students have to make some priority decisions - do I follow through with school work or do I deal with the home issues?  Many choose the latter (understandably so) and the school work takes a back seat.  CBL and EDP works most efficiently when there is teamwork and opportunities for frequent input and feedback.  One disadvantage of distance learning is attendance and accountability inconsistency.  School administrators are now wrangling over what format will schools will take in the fall;  how exciting will it be if we had proposals that incorporated CBL-EDP into distance learning formats!  I can see it being implemented if schools move to a combination of face to face and remote work, yet I anticipate it would be reserved for the advanced students.  Truly engaging formats face inequities under current school designs.  These challenges must be confronted.  

Hello Kimya,

Thanks for pointing out some of the limitations and shortcoming of distance learning that has been enforced upon us after the pandemic.  These are naked facts that cannot be ignored, and a solution has to be sought considering them.  A few ideas come to mind:

• Doing virtual process-driven type design challenge projects in teams where each team player has a defined role to play and has defined expectations laid out clearly by the teacher. If done in teams then the chances of participation may be higher.  A teacher will need to virtually monitor progress and plan out interventions as needed.  Such process-driven projects may involve the following: computer simulations by a team member; building, testing and finalizing a model by a team member; planning packaging and delivery by a team member, etc.
• If these projects address some burning issues which we are facing in the pandemic world we are currently living in, they will be attractive - something that addresses a void they feel the pandemic has created in their lives. Student buy-in will be higher.
• Incorporate in the projects real-world career connections by the teams virtually interact with practicing engineers and scientists or researchers as they work out their challenge solutions.
• Teams create video presentations of their final solutions which can be made available to the public, e.g., YouTube. Some of these ideas may be picked up by the industry.

These are possible to do virtually where individuals are working disparately.  These are some foods for thought.

Thank you, Dr. Kukreti.  I am working on some teams that are focusing on these questions and I will definitely share the ideas.

Hello Kimya:  I will be anxiously waiting to hear back. Thank you.