Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-22T14:34:43.279Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessing K–12 outreach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2011

Teri Reed-Rhoads
Teri Reed-Rhoads*
Affiliation:
Purdue University; trhoads@purdue.edu
Get access

Abstract

Outreach efforts within the materials science community include learning goals or outcomes designed with the purpose of increasing awareness or interest in the field, improving the learning or achievement of subject matter, or even supporting a type of literacy or understanding. These outcomes need to be defined and measured. To demonstrate the success of an outreach activity, an appropriate assessment scheme must be implemented to determine how effectively the goals have been met. Assessment of K–12 outreach is presented in this article using the framework of a K–12 engineering design cycle of Ask, Imagine, Plan, Create, and Improve. Links will be drawn from among the “Ask,” “Imagine,” and “Plan” phases to the development of objectives and the establishment of the assessment plan. The “Create” and “Improve” phases will be connected to data collection and analysis techniques. Three forms of evaluation are discussed—formative, summative, and interim—as well as four areas of knowledge—cognitive, affective, behavioral, and metacognitive. Finally, this article lists some common pitfalls to avoid when considering these issues in the planning and reviewing of programs that will make assessment of K–12 outreach efforts a more positive and rewarding endeavor.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Bulletin , Volume 36 , Issue 4: Addressing broader impacts through K–12 outreach in materials education , April 2011 , pp. 264 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Katehi, L., Pearson, G., Feder, M., Eds., Engineering in K-12 Education: Understanding the Status and Improving the Prospects. Committee on K-12 Engineering Education (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009), pp. 27.Google Scholar
2.Engineering is Elementary, Museum of Science, Boston; www.mos.org/eie/index.php (accessed July 5, 2010).Google Scholar
3.TeachEngineering; www.teachengineering.com/index.php (accessed July 5, 2010).Google Scholar
4.Giddens, D.P., Changing the Conversation: Messages for Improving Public Understanding of Engineering. Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2008).Google Scholar
5.Title 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46.102(f); www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.htm#46.102 (accessed July 5, 2010).Google Scholar
6.International Compilation of Human Research Protections; http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/hspcompilation-v20101130.pdf (accessed February 17, 2011).Google Scholar
7.Perie, M., Marion, S., Gong, B., Educ. Meas.: Issues Pract. 28 (3), 5 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Concept Inventory Hub; www.ciHUB.org (accessed September 30, 2010).Google Scholar
9.Bandura, A., “Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control” (W.H. Freeman and Company, New York, 1997).Google Scholar
10.Information on Self-Efficacy; www.des.emory.edu/mfp/self-efficacy.html (accessed September 30, 2010).Google Scholar
11.Flavell, J., Am. Psychol. 34 (10), 906 (1979).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12.Gall, M., Gall, J., Borg, W., Educational Research: An Introduction, 8th Edition (Pearson, Boston, MA, 2007).Google Scholar
13.Coalition for Evidence Based Policy; http://coalition4evidence.org/wordpress/ (accessed February 17, 2011).Google Scholar
14.National Curriculum; http://curriculum.qca.org.uk (accessed September 30, 2010).Google Scholar
15.Australian Qualifications Framework; www.aqf.edu.au (accessed September 30, 2010).Google Scholar
16.Resources—Other Assessment Web sites; www.flaguide.org/resource/websites.php (accessed September 30, 2010).Google Scholar
17.Yasar, S., Baker, D., Robinson-Kurpius, S., Krause, S., Roberts, C., J. Eng. Educ. 205 (July 2006).Google Scholar
18.Krause, S., Decker, J., Niska, J., Alford, T., Griffin, R., Annu. Conf. Expo. (Am. Soc. Eng. Educ.) 732 (2003).Google Scholar
19.Hestenese, D., Halloun, I., Phys. Teach. 33, 502 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20.Hestenes, D., Wells, M., Swackhamer, G., Phys. Teach. 30 (March), 141 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21.Kaiser, G., Sriraman, B., Int. J. Math. Educ. 38 (3), 302 (2006).Google Scholar
22.Diefes-Dux, H., Moore, T., Zawojewski, J., Imbrie, P., Follman, D., Conf. Proc. Front. Educ. (2004).Google Scholar
23.Zawojewski, J., Diefes-Dux, H., Bowman, K., Eds., Models and Modeling in Engineering Education: Designing Experiences for All Students (Sense Publishers, Rotterdam/Taipei, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Lambert, M., Diefes-Dux, H., Beck, M., Duncan, D., Oware, E., Nemeth, R., Conf. Proc. Front. Educ. (2007).Google Scholar
25.Diefes-Dux, H., Imbrie, P., Haghighi, K., Lee, G., Wereley, S., Wankat, P., in Proc. of the International Conference on Engineering Education and Research, Olomouc, Czech Republic, 27–30 June 2004.Google Scholar
26.Smith, C., Wiser, M., Anderson, C., Krajcik, J., Measurement 14 (1–2), 1 (2006).Google Scholar
27.Thompson, D., Battista, M., Mayberry, S., Yeatts, C., Zawojewski, J., Navigating through Problem Solving and Reasoning in Grade 6 (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Reston, VA, 2009).Google Scholar
28.Yildirim, T., Besterfield-Sacre, M., Shuman, L.. Annu. Conf. Expo. (Am. Soc. Eng. Educ.) (2010).Google Scholar