getting playful about science and engineering education

35548.InSight Leadership 2003 12/30/03 1:18 PM Page 5

1

GETTING PLAYFUL ABOUT SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION Borjana Mikic, Kara Callahan, and Domenico Grasso

We are becoming increasingly aware that toys and games can result in serious learning. Borjana Mikic, Kara Callahan, and Domenico Grasso describe two Smith College initiatives, TOYtech and TOYchallenge, designed to enhance science, technology, and engineering experiences for students K-16. In the Vision section, Kurt Squire and Henry Jenkins present five detailed educational gaming scenarios that cut across different game genres, academic fields, pedagogical models, and strategies for integrating games into the classroom.

| 2003 | VOL. 3 | LEADERSHIP 5




1

L E A D E R S H I P

GETTING PLAYFUL ABOUT SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATION Borjana Mikic, Kara Callahan, and Domenico Grasso Because all our children play with mechanical toys, they are picking up pieces of applied sciences before they can read. That is an advantage we haven’t made the most of. C. P. Snow 1

I

Background The Need for Qualified SET Workers

n 1998, the National Science Foundation (NSF) projected that, over the next

decade, the number of jobs in science, engineering, and technology (SET) fields would increase by 51 percent.2 While these projections may be somewhat high given the recent

economic downturn, there is no doubt that, over the long term, the need for qualified workers in these fields will continue to grow. Yet, the United States currently is not producing enough skilled workers to meet this growing need.3 As stated by the Congressionally established Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology, “Today’s U.S. economy depends more than ever on the talents and knowledge of skilled, high-tech workers. . . . An increasingly large proportion of the work force consists of women, underrepresented minorities, and persons with disabilities—groups not well represented in the SET pipeline. Unless the SET labor market becomes more representative of the workforce as a whole, the nation may well face severe shortages in SET workers, such as are already seen in many computer-related occupations.”4 After two years of research into this issue, the commission concluded that if women and other underrepresented groups were to join the SET fields on parity with their representation in the general workforce, this situation might be averted.



The Problem of Scientific and Technological Illiteracy in the United States At the same time, evidence suggests a trend toward science and technology illiteracy for all Americans, regardless of gender, and it appears that this occurs at an early age.5 Based on the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the mathematics and science performance of eighth-grade students in the United States was lower in 1999 than it was for this same cohort of students four years earlier, relative to the group of more than 50 nations involved in the study.6 In today’s technology-driven society, it is imperative that all Americans become sufficiently educated in SET disciplines to make informed decisions regarding the economy, health care, the environment, and other areas of national and international interest.

One Possible Solution As educators, we7 believe that one solution to the problems of too few qualified SET workers and the lack of science and technology literacy is to engage children in the excitement of science and technology through discovery and play.8 By capturing the interest of children when they are young, we hope to increase the likelihood that they will persist in these fields as they continue their educations. Toward this end, the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College established a partnership with the Institute for Women and Technology (IWT) in 2000 to serve as a Virtual Development Center, or VDC. The mission of IWT is “to increase the impact of women on all aspects of technology and to increase the positive impact of technology on the lives of the world’s women” (http://www.iwt.org). IWT reasons that women are 50 percent of the population (and thus 50 percent of the end users of products, processes, and technologies designed by engineers) but only 10 percent of practicing engineers (i.e., those charged with designing these products, processes, and technologies). As a result, the needs and perspectives of women are not adequately represented when identifying technological problems and developing appropriate solutions to those problems. Through the VDC program, students from colleges and universities partner with local community members to identify problems and develop appropriate solutions to identified needs. The term problem includes as wide a range of community-based needs as possible. While solutions to these problems may be technology-based, they are not explicitly



required to be, as the most appropriate solution to a design problem may not include technology. The VDC at Smith College is implemented through our first-year Introduction to Engineering course (EGR100) via the TOYtech, or Teaching Our Youth Technology, project. Here, our students learn engineering design as they develop fun, interactive, gender-neutral toys or educational tools that teach children fundamental principles of science and technology. Smith is the first and only women’s college in the United States to offer an engineering degree, and one of only a handful of liberal arts colleges to do so. By educating women engineers, the school addresses the same problem as IWT at the college level. A primary goal of Smith’s Picker Engineering Program is to improve the retention and success of women in engineering by shifting our pedagogical approach toward a learner-centered form of instruction. Typically, engineering education focuses on teaching and learning procedures for solving very specific types of problems. Unfortunately, this approach can result in an inability to transfer knowledge (i.e., to solve problems that draw on the same fundamental principles, but are not posed in exactly the same way as those used for practice and instruction).9 Learner-centered education strives to develop a deeper, more meaningful understanding of concepts and material through a more integrated approach.10 As outlined by Huba and Freed, one of the eight hallmarks of learner-centered teaching is that “learners apply knowledge to enduring and emerging issues and problems.”11 Thus, throughout the curriculum, we attempt to include opportunities for students to work on problems of consequence to them. The societally relevant design issues addressed by students through TOYtech and its offspring TOYchallenge are examples of such opportunities.

TOYtech—Teaching Our Youth Technology Course Focus During the Introduction to Engineering course, our students work in teams to perform background research on the societal need being addressed, meet with community collaborators (teachers and students) to discuss local needs relevant to the project, brainstorm solutions, learn various decision analysis tools such as the



Much of our in-class time is

construction and use of weighted objective trees, and, ultimately, produce a functioning prototype. Deliverables include a written letter of intent, written and oral project

spent discussing larger issues

proposals, written progress reports, and written and oral final reports, which include

related to the

demonstrations of student prototypes. Throughout the semester, students are expected

impact of

to meet regularly with their community collaborators to obtain feedback and perform

technology on

proof-of-concept testing (see Figure 1). Much of our in-class time is spent discussing

society and helping students articulate

larger issues related to the impact of technology on society and helping students

their evolving

articulate their evolving understandings of the nature of engineering and where they

understandings of

“belong” in this field. The rationale for these strategies comes from the literature on

the nature of

cognitive science and its explication of the basic requirements for meaningful learning.12

engineering and where they “belong” in this field.

Figure 1. Proof-of-concept testing with community collaborators



Year 1: Designing Educational Toys

For the past two years (2001-2002

During the first year in which TOYtech was implemented (2000-2001), we focused on designing gender-neutral toys to teach children about technology. The design criterion of gender neutrality aimed to address the issue of underrepresentation

and 2002-2003), we have focused on designing fun and engaging

of girls and women in science and engineering by ensuring that toy designs would be

educational tools

equally appealing to girls and boys. The semester began with an “innovation workshop”

with an

for 90 local middle school children and teachers from Smith College Campus School,

additional

during which hundreds of ideas for designs were generated. After conducting their own

criterion—to help children learn

extensive brainstorming sessions, our Smith College engineering students (21 total) then

about science

chose and developed five of these concepts to the prototype stage and presented their

and technology.

work at the 2001 VDC Conference in Palo Alto, California. A detailed description of the 2000-2001 implementation of TOYtech can be found in Mikic and Grasso.13

Years 2 and 3: Designing Educational Modules to Promote Inquiry-Based Learning For the past two years (2001-2002 and 2002-2003), we have focused on designing fun and engaging educational tools with an additional criterion—to help children learn about science and technology. The rationale for this came from our collaboration with Professor Alan Rudnitsky in the Department of Education and Child Study at Smith, an expert in the inquiry-based approach to science education.14 In this approach, children are presented with some system that they can use in teams to explore the relationships among variables within the system. After exploring the system through an “immersion experience,” students then formulate specific questions and design experiments to answer those questions. In most cases, the teacher presents a consequential problem as the culmination of the unit and asks the students to accomplish something that demonstrates their understanding of the relationships among variables in the system they have studied. For 2001-2002 and 2002-2003, we challenged our Introduction to Engineering students to design and build such inquirybased learning modules.



In 2001-2002, our primary community collaborators consisted of the teachers and students at the Smith College Campus School, a K-6 educational laboratory affiliated with the Department of Education and Child Study at Smith. All of the teachers were familiar with inquiry-based learning and were already using a variety of these types of educational modules in their classrooms. Enrollment in EGR100 jumped from 21 students to 60 students, requiring us to teach the course in three sections, and each section worked with a different grade level (grade 2, 5, or 6). The second-grade module focused on exploring how liquids behave. Fifth graders learned about the physical principles underlying propulsion, and sixth graders studied simple machines such as gears and pulleys. Our 14 teams of engineering students developed final prototypes that were tested with our community collaborators. Three of these projects are described here, one from each section.

1. Liquids Module The second-grade module previously used by our community collaborators to teach students about the properties of fluids employed a simple wooden ramp that

A

B

C

D

Figure 2. Liquids Module. (A) Original device (B) Front view of the Submerged Tank design (C) Side view of two tanks with ramps, starting gates, and balls in place (D) Optical sensor detecting time of travel for ball



could be coated with different materials such as foil or waxed paper (see Figure 2A). The ramp could be adjusted to different angles, and students would drop different liquids onto it with a medicine dropper. Second-grade teachers identified several areas in need of improvement: inconsistent droplet size, inconsistent height of fluid release, inconvenient ramp angle adjustment and surface material exchange, fluid running off the ramp, and inability to accurately measure the travel time of an individual droplet. The Submerged Tank designed by an EGR100 team consisted of three clear Plexiglas tanks filled with fluids of different colors and viscosities (see Figure 2B-D). Ramps of different lengths could be inserted in the tanks, thereby allowing ramp angle to be modified. Several balls of the same size but different mass were available for use. Starting gates could be placed into two adjacent tanks to position balls at the same locations. Once the gates were lifted, the balls would roll down the ramps to the bottoms of the tanks. When a ball reached the end of its ramp, an optical sensor turned on a light, providing a measurable indication of ball travel time. This design allowed students to explore how fluid viscosity, ramp angle, and ball density affected travel time within a fluid.

2. Propulsion Module The fifth-grade module previously used for studying principles of propulsion employed a slingshot-like device from which Styrofoam balls of various sizes could be propelled via a rubber band that was pulled to different starting tensions (see Figure 3A). Variables included the size and mass of the ball, the size of the rubber band, and the degree of tension in the band, which depended on how far back it was pulled. The teachers identified several problems with the device, including inconsistent performance due to excessive inter-user variability, unclear demonstration of the underlying principles, and a need for greater durability and stability. As an alternative design solution, four of our engineering students developed The Star Blaster, a pneumatic device powered by a bicycle pump attached to an air canister with a pressure regulator and easy-to-read gauge (see Figure 3B-D). Small items of different weights could be attached to a projectile that was released with a controlled amount of air pressure using a hand-pressed lever much like those used for pumping air



A

B

C

D

Figure 3. Propulsion Module. (A) Original device (B) EGR100 team with final design (The Star Blaster) (C) Side view of The Star Blaster with inlay of the pressure regulator (D) Top view of the collapsed design as it would be stored

into automobile tires. The angle of launch could be adjusted by using a pin-locking rotational setting. Variables under the students’ control included air pressure, mass of the projectile, and angle of launch.

3. Simple Machines Module The module previously used by the sixth graders to study simple machines largely consisted of LEGO models that showed how gears function, crane models that showed rotational motion and lever arms, and collections of primary pulleys that showed mechanical advantage. Universally, the teachers expressed a desire for models that would enable students to feel the concept of mechanical advantage in a tangible way. One of the solutions designed by our engineering students was Pulley Tug-oWar, a colorful model made of PVC plastic (see Figure 4). Using this, two students could play tug-of-war in an effort to pull a central floating pulley over to their side. Attached to the central floating pulley were pulley systems on either player’s side that could be adjusted so the mechanical advantage of the system was always predictable. The sixth-grade students particularly liked this model as they were able to “beat” their teachers and school principal despite being much smaller than these adults! | 2003 | VOL. 3 | LEADERSHIP 14


A

Replicating TOYtech K-12 teachers and administrators interested in the types of classroom activities described here might start with a resource on inquiry-based learning. The Etheredge and Rudnitsky work (see note 14)

B

includes detailed guidelines for developing inquiry units, tools for formative and summative assessment, and examples of inquiry-based

C

modules. To replicate the TOYtech project, educators must establish partnerships that include, at a minimum, a K-12 school (of any configuration) and a nearby engineering school (college or university). Members of the faculties and student bodies at both institutions will need to work closely to ensure that engineering students learn about the design process and elementary teachers and students benefit from new, inquiry-based

D Figure 4. Simple Machines Module. (A) EGR100 student team designers of Pulley Tug-o-War (B) Top view of design (C) Close-up of floating center pulley (D) Pulley Tug-o-War in use

classroom modules.

TOYchallenge—A Collaborative Effort During the first VDC

conference in 2001, the Smith College Virtual Development Center established a relationship with the keynote speaker, former astronaut Dr. Sally Ride. The Picker



Engineering Program at Smith joined with Hasbro and Imaginary Lines (the corporate entity behind the Sally Ride Science Club) to launch TOYchallenge, a project through which teams of children in grades 5 to 8 work together to design and build toys. This endeavor aims to encourage middle school students’ interest in science, engineering, and technology by engaging them in the engineering process for something that captures their interest—games and toys. Teams can have between three and six members, who must all be in grades 5 to 8. Each team needs an adult coach, and at least half of the team must be female.15 TOYchallenge consists of two phases. In Phase I, each team selects a toy category, brainstorms ideas, and presents written descriptions and sketches or photos to document its design. Categories include Incredible Creatures (interactive creatures designed to entertain and play with you), Crafty Creations (toys for creating and displaying crafts), Toys That Teach (educational toys for young children), Fun for Furry Friends (toys for pets), Games for the Family, Get Out and Play (toys to get children physically active), Builders of Tomorrow (construction toys), and Movin’ and Groovin’ (toys to get kids dancing and singing). In Phase II, the team constructs a prototype of the design, tests and evaluates it, and submits a written report and supporting materials for final judging. Detailed requirements of the Phase I and Phase II submissions can be found at http://www.toychallenge.com.

Table 1. Top ten Phase I TOYchallenge entries Toy Name

Toy Category

The Blinky Blanket

Toys that Teach

Groovin’ Gals

Movin’ & Groovin’

Brania Mania

Games for the Family

Myths and Legends


Runo the Rhino

Get Out and Play

Road Trip


Tick Tock, the Juba Clock

Toys that Teach

Galactic Voyage


Wet Your Pants!

Get Out and Play

Island Quest




In the inaugural year (2002-2003), Phase I entries were prescreened by 20 Smith engineering students organized by the Smith chapter of the Society for Women

In the first three years of the TOYtech project,

Engineers, all of whom had been involved in TOYtech in prior years. The field was

130 female

narrowed to 40 designs based on seven criteria: (1) safety, (2) originality and creativity,

engineering

(3) engineering elegance, (4) description of the design process, (5) clarity of

students

communication, (6) feasibility, and (7) the extent to which all team members were

developed more than 30 projects

involved in designing and developing the toy idea. Additional recognition was given to

in collaboration

designs that helped to advance technology and had universal gender appeal. During

with five local

National Engineers Week in February 2003, the panel of judges, recruited from

elementary and

industry and academia, used the same evaluation criteria to choose the top 10 (shown in

middle schools, 15 different

Table 1). These 10 teams then received seed money to produce prototypes for Phase II.

classrooms, and

While only 10 designs were recognized with seed money, all teams were eligible and

more than 300

encouraged to submit Phase II documents for the national showcase in June. Prizes were

children.

awarded in several categories that aligned roughly with the Phase I judging criteria. The winners of the inaugural year’s competition were announced at a national showcase held on the Smith College campus in June 2003.

Impact TOYtech In the first three years of the TOYtech project, 130 female engineering students developed more than 30 projects in collaboration with five local elementary and middle schools, 15 different classrooms, and more than 300 children. These figures do not reflect the large numbers of students and teachers likely to be affected by future use of the educational modules provided to community collaborators for their use. To obtain feedback about the effect of the TOYtech project on our engineering students, EGR100 students were asked to discuss the educational value of the project. As evidenced by representative comments from the 2001-2002 class (shown in Table 2), students perceived the project to have a high educational value, particularly with respect to learning how to work in teams, and many found the hands-on and societally relevant aspects of the project to be both motivating and rewarding.



Table 2. Representative comments from EGR100 students on the educational value of the TOYtech project “TOYtech was a great project. It was a total immersion in the design process and a great introduction to engineering. I loved the way we were allowed to figure the design process out for ourselves. The project also greatly improved my teamwork skills.” “This project was very validating for me. I loved the entire process and project as a whole. The topic was interesting and very relevant.” “This project was great. It helped me understand how complex engineering is and all of the little things an engineer must consider because of the impact on society.” “There is nothing better than putting abstract ideas into practice.” “Excellent introduction to all aspects of the design process. Lots of problem solving both within the team and on our project. Also great to have the opportunity to actually speak with the people affected by our project.” “It is a good introduction to design because it is something that we can personally relate to. If the team does not work, then the project does not work.” “This was the best part of engineering class. At first I was thinking how a first year [student] in her first semester could design something [because] she doesn’t have enough knowledge, but we did it. Working in a team is both fun and [a] learning experience.” “Fabulous, learned to write technically, designed and built my idea with my hands, learned to work with a diverse group. I feel ahead of friends at other engineering schools because I’ve done this.” “The societal context of making toys that will actually be used—I loved that. Overall, I really think it works well.”



TOYchallenge In its first year of implementation, the TOYchallenge competition directly involved approximately 1,250 middle-school-age children in the engineering design process, 75 percent of whom were girls. Perhaps the project’s impact is best evidenced by the children’s own descriptions of their designs and the design process.

How to Make the Flat Switch First, we poked a hole in the top corner of each piece of tin foil. Next, we twisted a wire through the holes. Then we glued the foil to the plastic on each side. After that, we taped the two sides together with the plastic on top and a small gap in between. Pressing it causes the foil to touch and make a connection. When you let go, the plastic springs back to break the connection. Steps: 1. Baby pushes light, then the light at the next corner goes on. 2. Baby crawls to the next light. While on the way sees many other things sounds, textures, etc. 3. This goes on until baby reaches the finish. 4. Besides the main attractions, there are many other decorations, plus there is a park scene in the middle.

Here are some other electronics that have recording buttons and switches like we are going to use. We will work to adapt them to work in the blanket.

Cross section of blanket showing some of the features.

Figure 5. The Blinky Blanket TOYchallenge entry

As described by team 4-gTe (4 girl Toy engineers) in its Phase I entry, The Blinky Blanket “is a 7 foot by 8 foot blanket that parents will lay out on their floor [see Figure 5]. It has a path around the edge and a park scene in the middle of the blanket. The path is made from 18-inch-wide colored squares. Along it is a series of interesting features such as blinking lights, mirrors, fluffy clouds, rough textured alligator pictures, soft pillow mounds, and pictures of different animals. . . . At the start a light will go on to attract their attention and, when they crawl to it and press it, the light in the next corner will go on, and so on, until they get to where they started from. In between the lights there will be the extra features to keep them interested and happy.” The team



described their post-research design process as follows: “After we had all of our ideas we started by making a sample blanket. We took an old sheet and used electrical tape to mark the borders and the path. We also used painters’ tape to mark the squares. Then we took Post-it notes and wrote what we wanted on each square and put them in the right one. We had a lot of ideas for things that would be fun to include but we wanted to make sure we could make each thing. We had to limit ourselves to things we could do, such as simple circuits and things that we could make by taking apart other toys and using the bits in our blanket.” This group was particularly tuned in to the importance of working well together as a team: “We all meet once a week on Saturdays to discuss ideas. . . . In between meetings we did research ourselves. When we were designing things we also tried to make sure that we considered everyone’s ideas and let them give their different opinions. When we were making big decisions we made absolutely sure that everyone agreed on what we were doing.” A second team, the Brainstormers, also composed of four girls, designed Groovin’ Gals, a musical toy to increase physical activity among children (see Figure 6). The team described its design process this way: “Our biggest challenge was figuring out how to make the dolls move properly. We tried different track designs and devised a string system so the arms would move when the legs move. The criteria we used to design the toy was we wanted it to be original, appealing to a wide Figure 6. Groovin’ Gals TOYchallenge entry

range of kids, and we wanted it to be affordable. We needed to understand how



gears and pulleys work so we could decide how to make the dolls move. We also use technology to coordinate the music and movement of the dolls.” As part of their Phase I

As is true in the “real” world of engineering, the

entry, team members provided this assessment of their team skills: “We worked well as a

children learned

team. We had meetings and our coach gave us homework assignments. Whenever we

that it takes a

couldn’t agree on an idea, we had a vote to decide. We took advantage of our individual

highly

talents when we divided up the work. . . . No matter what the idea or who came up

functioning team for the project to

with it we all had input and worked together to change and improve the ideas.” As is true in the “real” world of engineering, the children learned that it takes a highly functioning team for the project to proceed successfully. The team responsible for the board game Myths and Legends admitted, “The major challenges were getting everyone to cooperate and focus on one idea and stick with it. Some people wanted to do this, and others wanted to do that.” The team behind Runo the Rhino noted, “Without each person we would never have been able to create this wonderful toy.” The team responsible for the board game Road Trip (designed “for a family to learn about the nation that they are living in”) admitted, “It would be difficult to say what we are interested in as a group. . . . Within our school, we care about having relationships with students of other ages—so many of us have younger or older buddies with whom we work. The older children learn how to be leaders, while the younger ones bond with an older friend whom they respect. . . . Whether it is exploring ideas or participating in activities, we are busy and committed to doing our best and contributing to our community. It is through this feeling of community that we were able to work together so well. . . . Although there were days when we had disagreements, the thing that stood out most was the way constructive criticism was given with respect and taken with respect. We were always able to come together as a group and we are proud of the work we put into this and the resulting product.” In addition to teamwork, the children described dealing with many of the issues faced by practicing engineers, such as budget and safety constraints. The Merry Island Merrymakers, designers of Wet Your Pants!, explained, “Our first criterion was safety. We were certain that we did not want to rely on home electricity . . . because electricity and water don’t mix!” The object of this game “is to step on the colored dots in the correct order that they light up or else there is a loud buzzing noise and you get


proceed successfully.


drenched with water (see Figure 7).” As with many teams, the Merry Island Merrymakers clearly performed extensive background research on components that would be helpful in taking their design from concept to reality: “Our first concept for the game was for just a mat with surrounding PVC plastic pipes to drench you. After thinking about our design and sketching it, we realized that it might be too bright outside in the sunlight to see the colored dots lighting up the mat. So we had to incorporate a tent covering for our game to make it a little darker to see the dots lighting up. . . . Another challenge is the solenoid that allows the water to turn off and on. We want to use a solenoid just like you would have on your home irrigation system for your lawn. . . . Another challenge was how to get the dots to light up. By researching the Internet, we found an existing product and technology that will be perfect for us. . . . We decided to use existing technology as much as possible to keep costs down.”

This diagram shows the main components of our game and how they go together. This diagram shows the game set up outdoors without the cover installed. Water sprays out of the holes or nozzles in the PVC pipe surrounding you when you are inside.

This is a packaging concept for the game.

Figure 7. Wet Your Pants! TOYchallenge entry


This is an overhead view of the game setup.


The Future The TOYtech and TOYchallenge initiatives described here have directly involved elementary and middle school teachers and children, as well as college-level engineering students. One obvious way to expand this work is to involve high school students and teachers both as designers and as community collaborators. Beginning in 2002-2003, we expanded our community collaborator base to include local public schools in the vicinity of Smith College. Although the teachers were less familiar with incorporating the inquiry-based approach to science education into their curricula than the teachers at Smith College Campus School, our engineering students felt these collaborations were more meaningful because the public schools represented a more diverse student population and, in general, the classrooms and teachers had greater need of educational tools. While we plan to continue the TOYtech project as a component of EGR100 in the future, it is likely to be one of several community-based, societally relevant projects from which students will be able to choose. As part of a grant from the G.E. Fund to one of our faculty members, we will also be developing a summer version of the Introduction to Engineering course for middle and high school age girls participating in the Summer Science and Engineering Program at Smith. In addition, we plan to offer a course for K-12 teachers to help them meet revised state testing requirements that include basic components of engineering, such as engineering design. By reaching out to teachers and students at multiple levels in grades K-16, we aim to provide more exciting opportunities for students in various aspects of science, engineering, and technology. We ultimately hope to increase the number and diversity of students who continue their educational preparation in these areas to the point where they are able and excited to pursue careers in these fields.

Acknowledgments We wish to thank the faculty of the Picker Engineering Program—Judy Cardell, Glenn Ellis, Andrew Guswa, Donna Riley, and Susan Voss—and our colleague Alan Rudnitsky in the Department of Education and Child Study for creating a collaborative environment in which the scholarship of education is encouraged and



deeply valued. We are particularly indebted to Donna Riley and Susan Voss, whose student projects from 2001-2002 have been highlighted here, along with those from Borjana Mikic’s section.

About the Authors Borjana Mikic is an associate professor in the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College. She received her B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in mechanical engineering from Stanford University, and was a postdoctoral fellow at the M. E. Mueller Institute for Biomechanics in Bern, Switzerland. She has been an assistant professor in the departments of orthopaedic surgery and biomedical engineering at the University of Virginia. In her research, she studies the role of biological and mechanical factors as they pertain to the establishment, maintenance, and restoration of mechanical function in the skeletal tissues. Mikic teaches Introduction to Engineering, The Science and Mechanics of Materials, Skeletal Biomechanics, and Failure Analysis.

Kara Callahan is assistant to the director of the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College. She holds an A.B. in mathematics from Smith College and master’s degrees in civil engineering and technology and policy from MIT. Prior to joining the Smith faculty, Callahan worked for nearly a decade in the international energy industry.

Domenico Grasso is the Rosemary Bradford Hewlett Professor and founding director of the Picker Engineering Program at Smith College. He holds a B.Sc. from Worcester Polytechnic Institute, an M.S. from Purdue University, and a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. Prior to joining the faculty at Smith, he was head of the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the University of Connecticut. His research focuses on molecular scale processes that underlie the nature and behavior of contaminants in environmental systems. Grasso teaches Engineering, the Environment and Sustainability, Chemical Engineering Principles, and Chemical & Environmental Reaction Engineering.



Notes C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

1

National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators 2000 (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, 2000). 2

See note 2.

3

Commission on the Advancement of Women and Minorities in Science, Engineering, and Technology Development, Land of Plenty: Diversity as America’s Competitive Edge in Science, Engineering, and Technology (Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation, September 2000), http://www.nsf.gov/od/cawmset/report/cawmset_report.pdf (17 October 2003). 4

National Center for Education Statistics, Pursuing Excellence: Comparisons of International Eighth-Grade Mathematics and Science Achievement from a U.S. Perspective, 1995 and 1999 (Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 2000). 5

6

See note 5.

7

Throughout this paper, “we” and “our” refer to the faculty of the Picker Engineering Program.

8 The basis for our belief is rooted in the evidence that children’s math and science performance declines at an early age (see note 5) and that children have a natural impulse to learn through discovery and inquiry (see Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education; Directorate for Education and Human Resources; National Science Foundation, Foundations: Volume 2. A Monograph for Professionals in Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education [Arlington, VA: Division of Elementary, Secondary, and Informal Education, 2000]).

For more information about learning and transfer, see John D. Bransford, Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds., “Learning and Transfer,” in How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School (Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2000): 51-78. 9

Daniel J. Schneck, “Integrated Learning: Paradigm for a Unified Approach,” Journal of Engineering Education 90, no. 2 (2001): 213-217. 10

Mary E. Huba and Jann E. Freed, Learner-Centered Assessment on College Campuses (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2000). 11

See, for example, Joseph D. Novak, Learning, Creating, and Using Knowledge (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998). 12

Borjana Mikic and Domenico Grasso, “Socially-Relevant Design: The TOYtech Project at Smith College,” Journal of Engineering Education 91, no. 3 (2002): 319-326. 13

Susan Etheredge and Alan Rudnitsky, Introducing Students to Scientific Inquiry: How Do We Know What We Know? (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2003). 14

Teams are self-selected and come from across the country. A typical scenario would be for a child of the appropriate age-range to come across the TOYchallenge announcement, pull together a group of friends, and recruit an adult to serve as coach (usually a parent or teacher). 15
