Pedaling to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond with the NASA Human Powered Rover Team

PEDALING TO MARS:Impact on Student Attitudes, Interest, and Performance in

STEM with a Mixed Approach of Project-Based Learning,

Career and Technical Education, Informal Education, and

Interscholastic Team Athletics Models

D. W. Ruby

University of Nevada, Reno

1

2010-2014 AACT Extraterrestrial Rover Project

PROJECT and RESEARCH

PROJECT: creation of an integrated curriculum for

the Academy of Arts, Careers, and Technology

(AACT) high school around NASA’s Human

Exploration Rover challenge.

• Bridge formal and informal education

• Train pre- and in-service Career Academy

educators

• Engage secondary students into higher ed

STEM careers (attitude & interest)

• Increase performance of CTE students in areas

of STEM

5

PROJECT SITE

For the project, specifics are important. AACT is a

collection of career academies of the Washoe

County School District (WCSD) with unique Career

and Technical Education (CTE) resources:

• Engineering Academy at TMCC Applied

Technologies campus—advanced fabrication

facilities, CAD lab, and bike shop with need for

Mechanical Principles curriculum

• New school with Project-Based Learning (PBL)

approach

• No interscholastic athletics

6

ROVER PROGRAM

• Hands-on CTE (physically and mentally

engaging; constructive)

• Cross-curricular and interdisciplinary (integrated

STEM, problem-based)

• Student-driven inquiry (PBL)

• International team competition with discrete

cycle of cohorts (interscholastic sports model)

• Extends experience to significant hours outside

of class (blended formal/informal education)

7

RESEARCH COMPONENT

Desire to strengthen evaluation by giving broader

application to findings; specifics less important.

Focus on part of project aims: does it do what it’s

supposed to do?

• Engage secondary students into higher

education STEM (attitude & interest)

• Increase performance of CTE students in areas

of STEM

8

• Constructivist education

• Inquiry methods

• Project-based learning

• Team design competitions

FRAMEWORK

9

CONSTRUCTIVIST EDUCATION

Learners construct knowledge for themselves;

constructing meaning is learning.1

1) Focus on the learner in thinking about learning

(not on the subject/lesson to be taught):

2) There is no knowledge independent of the

meaning attributed to experience by the learner, or

community of learners.

1 Dewey and Piaget, as paraphrased by the Exploratorium’s Inquiry

Education Institute (1991)

10

INQUIRY METHODS

Students are encouraged to ask questions which

do not necessarily have easy answers.2

• Lessons (as) problems for students

• Conducive to hands-on

2 Postman and Weingartner (1969)

11

PROJECT or PROBLEM BASED LEARNING

(PBL)

Student-driven solutions to ill-defined problems as

a multi-disciplinary curriculum alternative to

traditional learning.3

• Learning by doing (i.e. inquiry)

• scaffolding knowledge (i.e. constructive)

• group component

• Effective for STEM, increasing student

performance and attitudes 4

3 Stepien and Gallagher (1992)

4 Gallagher (1993) and Boaler (1998)

12

TEAM DESIGN COMPETITIONS

An academic complement to interscholastic sports,

which have numerous psychological and physical

benefits. 5

• Team-based

• Goal-oriented

• Competitive placement

• Extracurricular

5 Harrison & Narayan (2003) and Eccles & Barber (2001)

13

RESULTS: question 1

Table 1a: STEM Semantics Survey,Attitudes of Pre-participants vs. non-participants (2013 data)

STEM Semantics Survey T-Test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

AREA Adjective Pre-Participant

Mean Score

(N=36)

Control

Mean

Score

(N=46)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Sig. (2-

tailed)

α = .05

Lower Upper Cohen’s d Effect Size

SCIENCE appealing 5.34 5.66 -0.316 0.391 0.421 -1.095 0.463

exciting 5.39 5.55 -0.157 0.411 0.705 -0.976 0.663

fascinating 5.46 5.56 -0.101 0.422 0.812 -0.942 0.740

interesting 5.54 5.52 0.019 0.438 0.965 -0.854 0.892

means a lot 5.20 5.67 -0.467 0.380 0.223 -1.224 0.291

combined 5.36 5.50 -0.148 0.347 0.671 -0.839 0.543

MATH appealing 3.57 4.73 -1.156 0.462 0.015 -2.080 -0.232 -0.58 moderate to large

exciting 3.69 4.64 -0.951 0.471 0.048 -1.891 -0.010 -0.46 small to moderate

fascinating 3.75 4.95 -1.202 0.458 0.011 -2.117 -0.288 -0.60 moderate to large

interesting 3.80 5.12 -1.319 0.486 0.008 -2.287 -0.351 -0.62 moderate to large

means a lot 4.60 5.83 -1.233 0.483 0.013 -2.199 -0.268 -0.59 moderate to large

combined 3.88 5.05 -1.171 0.373 0.002 -1.913 -0.429 -0.69 moderate to large

ENGINEERING appealing 5.94 6.47 -0.521 0.326 0.115 -1.170 0.129

exciting 5.63 5.84 -0.216 0.451 0.633 -1.113 0.682

fascinating 6.17 6.51 -0.340 0.276 0.221 -0.890 0.210

interesting 5.41 6.19 -0.779 0.448 0.088 -1.676 0.118 -0.41 small to moderate

means a lot 6.20 6.07 0.130 0.357 0.716 -0.580 0.840

combined 5.77 6.14 -0.369 0.317 0.248 -1.000 0.262

14

RESULTS: question 1

Table 1b: STEM Semantics Survey, Attitudes of Pre-participants vs. non-participants, (2013 data)

STEM Semantics Survey T-Test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence Interval of

the Difference

AREA Adjective Pre-Participant

Mean Score (N=36)

Control Mean

Score (N=46)

Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference

Sig. (2-

tailed),

α = .05


TECHNOLOGY appealing 6.14 6.16 -0.024 0.344 0.945 -0.708 0.660

exciting 5.56 6.00 -0.441 0.384 0.255 -1.207 0.325

fascinating 5.71 5.95 -0.249 0.391 0.527 -1.028 0.530

interesting 5.91 6.41 -0.497 0.279 0.079 -1.053 0.058 -0.40 small to moderate

means a lot 6.09 5.79 0.295 0.367 0.424 -0.437 1.027

combined 5.84 6.01 -0.173 0.293 0.557 -0.757 0.410

CAREER IN STEM appealing 5.76 6.44 -0.677 0.333 0.047 -1.345 -0.010 -0.32 small to moderate

exciting 5.58 6.09 -0.506 0.377 0.184 -1.256 0.245

fascinating 5.74 6.21 -0.466 0.358 0.196 -1.179 0.246

interesting 5.89 6.37 -0.486 0.336 0.152 -1.156 0.183

means a lot 5.86 6.07 -0.211 0.396 0.595 -0.999 0.577

combined 5.73 6.17 -0.442 0.299 0.144 -1.037 0.153

OVERALL 5.31 5.76 0.448 0.239 0.065 -0.028 0.924 -0.42 small to moderate

15

RESULTS: question 1

1

2

3

4

4

5

6

SC

IEN

CE

appea

ling

exci

tin

g

fasc

inat

ing

inte

rest

ing

mea

ns

a lo

t

com

bin

ed

MA

TH

ap

pea

lin

g

exci

tin

g

fasc

inat

ing

inte

rest

ing

mea

ns

a lo

t

com

bin

ed

EN

GIN

EE

RIN

G a

pp

eali

ng

exci

tin

g

fasc

inat

ing

inte

rest

ing

mea

ns

a lo

t

com

bin

ed

TE

CH

NO

LO

GY

app

eali

ng

exci

tin

g

fasc

inat

ing

inte

rest

ing

mea

ns

a lo

t

com

bin

ed

CA

RE

ER

IN

ST

EM

ap

pea

ling

exci

tin

g

fasc

inat

ing

inte

rest

ing

mea

ns

a lo

t

com

bin

ed

OV

ER

AL

L

Rover Participants Mean Score Control Students Mean Score

Figure 1: Participant vs. Control STEM Attiditudes by Area and Adjective Rating (2013 data)

16

RESULTS: question 2a

Table 2: GPA of Post-Participants vs. Non-Participants Above Grade 10 (2013 data)

T-Test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Area Participant Mean Score

(N=15)

Control Mean

Score (N=41)

Mean Difference Std. Error

Difference

Sig. (2-

tailed),

α = .05


GPA Overall 3.40 3.01 0.316 0.148 0.012 0.088 0.681 0.85 large

Math 3.03 2.57 0.458 0.245 0.067 -0.033 0.949 0.57 moderate to large

Science 3.08 2.87 0.101 0.422 0.249 -0.156 0.589 0.44 small to moderate

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

GP

A O

ver

all

Mat

h

Sci

ence

Rover Participants Mean Score Control Students Mean Score

Figure 2: GPA of Participant vs. Non-Participant Above Grade 10 Graph (2013 data)

17

RESULTS: question 2bTable 3: HSPE scores of Post-Participants vs. Non-Participants, Above Grade 10 (2013 data)

T-Test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence

Interval of the

Difference

Test Area NV State

Mean Score

Participant

Mean Score

(N-14)

Nonparticipant

Mean Score (N-24)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

Sig. (2-

tailed),

α = .05


HSPE Math 273.60 326.3 320.2 6.1 19.74 0.758 -33.9 46.2

Science 323.10 379.6 360.5 19.1 14.54 0.197 -10.4 48.6 0.17 small

100

200

300

400

500

HSPE Math Science

NV State Mean Score Rover Participants Mean Score Control Students Mean Score

Figure 3: HSPE Score Comparison Graph (2013 data)

18

RESULTS: post-participation survey

Table 4a: Post-Participation Survey Rated Questions (N=11) (2013 data)

Please rate your attitude toward the following statements regarding

interest in Science, Technology, Engineering, and/or Math (STEM):

1: Not at all 2 3 4 5: A lot Mean Percent

Index

1. Before participating in Rover, I liked science. 0 0 3 4 4 4.09 0.77

2. Rover increased my knowledge of earth and space science. 1 0 1 4 5 4.09 0.77

3. Before participating in Rover, I had a clear idea of what an engineer

does.

1 1 4 3 2 3.36 0.59

4. Rover increased my interest in engineering. 1 0 0 3 7 4.36 0.84

5. Before Rover, I was familiar with the engineering programs at the

University of Nevada, Reno (UNR).

2 3 3 0 3 2.91 0.48

6. I learned new information about the engineering programs at UNR

through a Rover program campus tour.

1 0 1 5 4 4.00 0.75

7. Before participating in Rover, I was good at math. 0 2 1 3 5 4.00 0.75

8. Rover helped me do better at math. 0 2 2 2 5 3.91 0.73

9. Before Rover, I felt that metal fabrication and mechanical knowledge

were important skills to have.

1 1 3 1 5 3.73 0.68

10. Rover increased my interest in metal fabrication and mechanical

principles.

1 0 0 2 8 4.45 0.86

11. Before participating in Rover, I knew what I wanted to be when I

graduated high school.

2 2 3 0 4 3.18 0.55

12. Rover helped me decide to pursue a career or study in a STEM

field.

1 2 1 2 5 3.73 0.68

13. Before Rover, I was familiar with available NASA scholarships and

internships.

4 5 0 2 0 2.00 0.25

14. Rover informed me of available NASA scholarships and

internships.

0 0 1 4 6 4.45 0.86

19


0 1 2 3 4 5

Before participating in Rover, I liked science.

Rover increased my knowledge of earth and space science.

Before participating in Rover, I had a clear idea of what an engineer does.

Rover increased my interest in engineering.

Before Rover, I was familiar with the engineering programs at the University

of Nevada, Reno.

I learned new information about the engineering programs at UNR through a

Rover program campus tour.

Before participating in Rover, I was good at math.

Rover helped me do better at math.

Before Rover, I felt that metal fabrication and mechanical knowledge were

important skills to have.

Rover increased my interest in metal fabrication and mechanical principles.

Before participating in Rover, I knew what I wanted to be when I graduated

high school.

Rover helped me decide to pursue a career or study in a STEM field.

Before Rover, I was familiar with available NASA scholarships and

internships.

Rover informed me of available NASA scholarships and internships.

Figure 4: Participant vs. Control STEM Attitudes by Area and Adjective Rating (2013 data)

20


Table 4b: Post-Participation Survey Open Responses (N=9) (2013 data)

15. What, in your opinion, was the aspect of the Rover program that you feel was most influential in building your

interest in STEM?

It is a great thing need to keep it around

I have always loved working with metal and building and designing projects. The Rover project was an excellent way to put an

idea into motion and showed me what needed to be done each step of the way. It showed me that I need to know math and be

able to do complex calculations in my head.

I believe the exposure to NASA's programs was easily the most influential thing.

The design and math behind it that it needed to work properly.

Combining different ideas to solve a problem, then witnessing it become a reality.

Seeing the creation of the Rover, riding it, and then being able to try my hand at a bit of welding.

the welding of the Rover

Our greatest gift as humans is the ability to create. Both the conception of our Rover and the dedication of our entire team

proved to be inspirational factors for me. It was an opportunity to develop relationships with some truly extraordinary people,

and attain a foundation of skill that I will continue to build upon for the rest of my life.

The hands on aspect

21

DISCUSSION

• Significant and practical difference between

Rover pre-participants and nonparticipants in

attitude toward math (Rover attracts students

with a more negative attitude toward math)

• Higher overall GPA among Rover participants

than nonparticipants

• Possibly higher math GPA for Rover

participants

• Equivalent HSPE scores for participants and

nonparticipants; both groups score much higher

than statewide means

22

DISCUSSION

Rover graduates agreed that:

• Rover increased knowledge of Earth & space

science

• Rover increased interest in engineering

• Rover increased interest in metal fabrication

and mechanical principles

23

DISCUSSION

• Significant and practical difference between

Rover pre-participants and nonparticipants in

attitude toward math (Rover attracts students

with a more negative attitude toward math)

WHY?

• Rover heavily encompasses CTE mainstays of welding and machining,

thus attracting students interested in those activities that have historically

less positive feelings toward math.

• Rover functions similarly to a varsity sports program, with significant

extracurricular participation, a team dynamic, and a competition goal with

potentially great personal and social payoff.

• Rover offers a nontraditional approach to STEM learning that differs from

what students new to the school are used to. Students already familiar

with PBL have more positive attitudes toward STEM.

24

DISCUSSION

• Higher overall GPA among Rover participants

than nonparticipants. WHY?

• GPA is an indicator of academic interest. Since the GPA increase is not

subject-specific, the study cannot claim that Rover is purely beneficial to

STEM areas; the study’s conclusion is that significant extracurricular

(informal) contact hours, on top of a solid formal PBL foundation, extend

the benefits of such an approach.

25

DISCUSSION

• Possibly higher math GPA for Rover

participants. WHY?

• Especially when contrasted to incoming program students’ dislike of

math, Rover graduate responses reinforce the theoretical assertion that

“learning by doing” with an integrated STEM approach complements,

(instead of replaces) existing math curriculum; students discovering their

own applications for math tools makes them meaningful.

26

DISCUSSION

• Equivalent HSPE scores for Rover participants

and nonparticipants. WHY?

• When compared to incoming program students’ special dislike of math,

this suggests that further research is needed to determine if Rover

participation helps bring students “up to speed” with their peers. Both

groups perform far better on the math and science sections of the HSPE

than their statewide peers; more research could establish a baseline of

difference (if any) between incoming Career Academy students and

traditional secondary students on standardized assessments.

27

TEAM SUCCESSES

As far as students are concerned, the point of the program is the annual race

of the vehicles as the culmination of NASA’s international design

competition; all of the effects of interest to educators and researchers are

beside that point. In that regard, students have done well; student teams

have won a series of awards from among nearly 100 competing teams from

around the world at the high school and college levels:

• 2011: Rookie of the Year award for fastest race time by a new team

• 2012: Featherweight award for lightest competitive vehicle, high school

division

• 2013: Neil Armstrong award for best design, high school division

• 2014: First overall and Neil Armstrong award for best design, high school

division

28

DEMOGRAPHICS

CTE is traditionally very poor at engaging women: only 5% of female high

school graduates received any Engineering Technology credit as opposed to

20% of male graduates.6 AACT’s Engineering Academy is no different, with

only 15% enrolled female students.

• The Rover program has included 30-40% female student participants,

including 50% of the female students enrolled in the Engineering

Academy.

• Rover has gone from 17% non-white students to 42% non-white

students over four years, aligned to the school’s demographic of 40%

non-white students.

6 US Department of Education (2005)

33

FUTURE STUDY

•How does Rover participation affect STEM attitudes in

the same students across their entire high school

career?

•How do the effects of this intervention compare to

similar interventions in other locations?

•How does integrating informal education as

extracurricular extension to classroom PBL work in

engaging women and minority students?

•What are the hallmarks of the Rover program that

produce measurable results?

34

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since initial results suggest effectiveness with a novel

approach to STEM that combines proven PBL techniques

with CTE, informal education, and appropriation of

existing athletics models, further research is

recommended on a larger scale to better understand

what these effects are.

Comparison to new research using the STEM Semantics

Survey from other locations will be useful in developing a

baseline of student attitudes toward STEM that will help

identify effects of a battery of treatments.

A survey of research from fields apart from STEM,

specifically CTE, informal education, and athletics, will

help in developing best practices for partnerships

between schools and museums.

35

The real moonbuggy:

Boeing LRV

Lunar Roving Vehicle

• Used on Apollo 15-17

• Driven many miles on lunar surface, up to 5

miles from the lander

• Weighed around 450 lb*, folded into about 64

cubic feet (half of a 5’ cube)

• Could carry 1000 lb* of payload (including two

suited astronauts)

NASA’s annual Rover

Challenge

• At U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville,

AL every spring

• Vehicles must fit in a 5’ cube

• Two-person capacity

• Must carry an assortment of mock antennae,

batteries, and controls

• Navigate a 3/4-mile obstacle-strewn course

simulating lunar and martian surface

Pedaling to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond with the NASA Human Powered Rover Team

Technology

Transcript of Pedaling to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond with the NASA Human Powered Rover Team