Chapter 5 Informal STEM Learning PDF

Chapter 5 Informal STEM Learning Hyunkyung Kwon Danielle Bevan Macie Baucum Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Our wor...

Chapter 5 Informal STEM Learning Hyunkyung Kwon Danielle Bevan Macie Baucum Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Aggie STEM Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Texas A&M University Our world is changing rapidly and becoming more complex. As a result, there has been an increasing demand for an adaptable workforce that requires solving challenging problems with collaboration among people. A survey in 2014 of CEOs of major U.S. corporations indicated that approximately 60% of jobs require basic science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) literacy and 42% require advanced STEM skills (Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force, 2012). However, 41 percent of these same corporations reported that they struggle finding qualified applicants for jobs requiring STEM skills. To be prepared for this workforce and to solve complex problems, our students must gain critical thinking skills offered by STEM activities. Therefore, educational reform was needed. There have been several efforts to improve science and mathematics education in grades K-12 since the 1960s (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 1989; National Research Council, 1989). These efforts included curriculum change, professional developments, and new national standards such as Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (Common Core State Standards Initiative, 2010) and the Next Generation Science Standards (Achieve, 2013). Additionally, many researchers reported that exposing students to the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics has the potential to improve learning of science and mathematics. As a result, there has been an increased attention to STEM education through the development of programs such as Engineering is Elementary, Project Lead the Way, Summer Science Academy, and Techbridge. Informal STEM Learning 73  Chapter Outcomes When you complete this chapter, you should better understand and be able to explain the difference between formal and informal STEM learning environments and the benefits of each the history behind informal learning the different kinds of informal learning environments available to students how informal STEM project-based learning (PBL) activities benefit student learning When you complete this chapter, you should be able to Identify instructional methods that can be used in both formal and informal learning settings Determine what skills and learning attributes may be best supported through PBL activities in informal learning environments Identify resources to effectively implement PBL into your classroom Chapter Overview This chapter will discuss the importance of informal learning environments, which can be more effective in increasing student interest in STEM topics than formal learning environments and also easily accommodate the use of PBL. The history of informal learning environments in the U.S. educational system is reviewed as are the unique benefits of specific kinds of informal learning settings. Finally, we provide examples of how to implement STEM PBL in formal and informal learning settings. Many of the nation’s K–12 public schools, as formal learning settings, attempt to highlight STEM subjects. Schools evaluate students’ science, mathematics, and engineering content knowledge through standardized testing and classroom assessments. Additionally, some teachers use STEM PBL activities in their classrooms. Schools have attempted to highlight the connection among STEM subjects through afterschool programs and STEM organizations such as Robotics clubs and Lego League Jr. However, it seems impossible for formal school settings to do it all. The nature of 21st century proficiency in STEM is too complex for any school setting to handle alone. Informal STEM institutions or programs that include museums, zoos, aquariums, summer camps, nature centers, and planetariums should work with public schools to provide STEM education for all learners. Bridging informal and formal STEM learning will provide aspects of STEM education to students that are unavailable in school classrooms. 74 Informal STEM Learning  Additionally, informal STEM learning experiences can be an Informal settings extension of formal STEM learning. For example, students can go can fill gaps with on field trips or perform a curriculum-based experiment in the extra STEM learning community through scouts or an afterschool activity. In fact, opportunities. informal learning settings can fill the gaps created by the lack of extra STEM learning opportunities and skills accrued in schools. Although both formal and informal STEM settings allow students to learn, there are some differences among these two different environments. Formal STEM learning environments are highly structured. For example, learning takes place in traditional classroom settings with a teacher as the sole provider of information. In contrast, informal learning environments are less structured, and the teachers play the role of a facilitator of learning. In these environments, learning can take place outside of a traditional classroom setting, such as at zoos and museums, and the learner becomes responsible for their own learning (Marsic & Watkins, 2001). Due to these differences, informal STEM learning settings seem to work better for students who are traditionally disengaged from the STEM fields. Particularly, female students, ethnic minorities, students from low-income households, and students with disabilities are more likely to face challenges and obstacles in STEM and are more likely to be disengaged in STEM education. The U.S. Census Bureau (2013) reported that among STEM professions, only 26% were women. Additionally, Hispanic and African American groups were underrepresented in STEM fields. This indicates that there is clearly an underrepresentation of women and minority groups in STEM careers. Hence, formal education is not doing enough to address this problem. Informal Learning The existence of man precedes the development of formal learning structures, yet humans thrived on earth years before the invention of such a system. This indicates that humans had a way to adapt and learn informally from their surroundings long before the organization of schools or formal education systems. Informal learning has continued to emerge as a legitimate and effective way to learn and has evolved as humans and their environments have changed, even with the development of schools and universities. Additionally, students spend more than 80% of their time during the academic year outside of a classroom (Denson et al., 2015); thus, it’s important to provide informal learning opportunities for students to experience authentic learning. Informal learning is commonly intentional but not always structured (Marsick & Watkins, 2001). It often occurs simultaneously with incidental learning—learning that occurs as a Informal STEM Learning 75 byproduct of another activity and often happens unconsciously to the learner (Marsick & Watkins, 1990). Additionally, learning in general is iterative and often nonlinear. We are frequently triggered by a need or challenge that may be sparked by an interaction with others or our environment. As we respond to situations, our understanding grows and we reflect and assess our mistakes, assumptions, unintended consequences, and views (Watkins et al., 2018). This type of learning is common across many cultures and contexts. For example, parents raise their children according to cultural norms by teaching them skills and expectations that prepare them for life after childhood. Oftentimes, informal learning is integrated into daily routines, is triggered or motivated by an internal or external spark, is reflective, and is linked to the learning of others (Marsick & Watkins, 2001). Without considering structured environments, informal learning can take the form of networking, coaching, mentoring, self-directed studies, or performance growth plans (Marsick & Watkins, 2001). This type of informal learning is often incidental and occurs unbeknownst to the learner. For teachers, this could be reflecting on a lesson, a discussion with colleagues of pedagogy, monitoring student progress, analyzing data, or developing professional growth plans. While informal learning environments are not a substitute for traditional classrooms, they do provide additional and extended learning opportunities for students and teachers to engage in hands-on activities that spark motivation towards further learning. While informal learning can look different depending on the setting, for the purpose of this chapter, the definition of an informal learning environment is any educational experience outside of the formal school environment, such as camps and afterschool programs, that promotes STEM learning and involves real-world experiences and/or the ability to fully engage in activities (Denson et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2018). A Brief History of Informal Learning Environments Informal learning environments provide educational experiences that incorporate social learning (Vygotsky, 1934/1962) and Informal settings are Dewey’s (1916, 1938) theory of progressive education and student-centered experiential learning. Progressive education first began in 1880 settings. and established an educational system in America that supported the idea that a school’s curriculum should reflect the community and present life as well as the idea that a child’s experiences outside of school influences their education (Dewey, 1916, 1938). Such experiences occur in informal learning environments, which incorporate the use of hands-on activities, a strategy supported by Dewey’s (1916, 1938) experiential learning theory. Instead of the teacher being the center of the students’ learning process, hands-on learning allows students to learn by doing. Research has shown that a 76 Informal STEM Learning hands-on learning approach allows students to be more engaged in learning, which leads to increased retention (Bergin, 1999; Krapp, 2005). Additionally, hands-on activities can lead students to a higher level of conceptual understanding that may allow them to transfer knowledge more effectively compared to traditional teaching practices, and it also allows students to fix their misconceptions through hands-on learning (Alibali et al., 2009; Kapur, 2012). Furthermore, student-to-student interactions and student-to-teacher interactions, as stressed by social learning, are an important part of a student’s learning experience (Vygotsky, 1962), and informal learning environments provide an environment that requires students to take part in such interactions. This type of interactive learning is also supported by Albert Bandura’s (1986, 2001) social cognitive learning, which stresses the interaction between a student and their learning environment. Bandura (1986, 2001) argued that students’ decisions and behaviors are influenced by the learning environment and their perception. This may further affect their career decisions. Therefore, the integration of progressive education, experiential learning, social learning, and social cognitive theory provide a firm foundation for more structured informal learning environments. Because informal learning environments can focus more on the interests of the student and interaction between the student and their learning environment, the opportunities to provide these environments are also more flexible and diverse. Field trips are one of the most popular ways formal education can incorporate informal learning. Students are often taken to museums, zoos, parks, and other places in the community that provide a less structured environment for students to actively explore information. Other opportunities exist in afterschool or weekend programs, often referred to as “out-of-school-time activities.” One example of such an activity is the involvement in a program such as 4-H clubs or Scouts. Involvement in afterschool programs increases a student’s interest in STEM fields. Activities used in informal STEM learning settings allow prior knowledge to merge with real-world experiences (King & Pringle, 2019) and provide students with the confidence to solve real- world problems through critical thinking and problem solving (Burrows et al., 2018). Another example of an informal learning environment is STEM camps. These multiday, immersive environments allow students to become fully involved with the content and allow for in-depth interactions with peers and STEM professionals. Additionally, students are able to fulfill their social and emotional needs through informal STEM activities (Dorssen et al., 2006; Krishnamurthi et al., 2014). As new advancements are made in the STEM fields, immersive experiences (such as STEM camps) will also continue to develop, providing even more opportunities for students to become involved in the STEM fields. Informal STEM Learning 77 In this chapter, informal STEM learning settings refer to STEM summer camps, field trips, or afterschool activities. These settings allow students to fully immerse themselves in the learning of various STEM concepts that then creates an excitement for learning and provides a base and intrinsic motivation for learning in more formal learning contexts (Roberts et al., 2018). These added benefits to informal learning settings also indicate that informal STEM learning environments can fill gaps created by formal schooling and can expand and complement the skills encouraged through the interactions of people, places, and technology already found in formal education (Meyers et al., 2013). Further, these environments also encourage students to take control of their learning (Hall, 2009; Meyers et al., 2013) by incorporating the use of 21st century skills, such as problem solving, creativity, communication, and leadership skills (Bicer et al., 2017; Ghadiri Khanaposhtani et al., 2018). Meaningful real-world contexts and integrated STEM content embedded in Informal settings can STEM activities have shown to awaken students’ interest and focus on students’ increase the development of motivation to learn (Bergin, 1999; interests and increase Holstermann et al., 2010; Krapp, 1999). Therefore, these their motivation. elements of informal STEM learning can improve not only the learning experience but also students’ motivation. As students are more motivated to learn during informal STEM learning, their engagement increases. Many informal STEM learning environments utilize student-centered instruction, such as PBL activities. With PBL activities, students are responsible for their own learning, and they are actively engaged in the learning process (Colbert & Cumming, 2014; Zimmerman, 2000). Importantly, minority students are more engaged in learning when they learn through hands-on and/or inquiry-based instructional methods. Exploring and solving real-life problems allows them to connect and apply STEM subjects to their own lives, which increases their motivation to learn. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, underrepresented groups in STEM tend to fall behind in pursuing STEM careers. Allowing students to experience authentic STEM learning through informal learning settings, which will engage them in learning STEM, may boost their interest in STEM and STEM careers, and this is the key to solving the issue of underrepresentation in STEM. Therefore, informal STEM learning can not only allow all students to be engaged in STEM learning but also benefit underrepresented groups in STEM learning. Benefits of STEM Camps STEM camps specifically can increase students’ perceptions (Vela et al., 2020), attitudes (Hirsch et al., 2017), and self-efficacy (Kwon et al., 2019) of STEM fields and STEM careers. Students’ self-efficacy towards mathematics and science is connected to their interest in pursuing a STEM career (Kwon et al., 2019). Students with higher self-efficacy towards STEM 78 Informal STEM Learning  subjects were more likely to pursue STEM careers (Chemers et al., PBL activities 2011; Hernandez et al., 2018). Additionally, students developed connect the abstract interests and career aspirations in STEM after participating in to real-world afterschool programs and summer camps (Kwon et al., in press). applications. Participating in STEM camps allowed students to interact with STEM professionals, which allowed them to understand the true nature of STEM careers (Asiabanpour et al., 2010; Hirsch et al., 2017; Maiorca et al., 2021). Because students are provided opportunities to become more aware of STEM-related career choices and degrees, the likelihood that they would develop an interest increases, and this hopefully leads students to pursue and complete a STEM degree and, ultimately, select a STEM career (Cooper & Heaverlo, 2013). These results indicate that students are highly influenced by interactions in educational environments. The chance to immerse students in a multiday, STEM-enriched environment provides multiple opportunities to increase their interests in the STEM fields and STEM careers (see Chapter 9 to learn why increasing female students’ interest in STEM is particularly important and challenging). In several studies, when STEM camps allowed students to gain interests toward STEM subjects and STEM careers, they also allowed students to develop deeper knowledge in STEM subjects, which they may not have had the opportunity to experience in formal learning environments (Mohr-Schroeder et al., 2014; Tseng et al., 2013). Students were able to choose the subjects that matched with their own interests and were able to apply STEM knowledge to real life, which increased the chance of gaining interests toward STEM (Kwon, 2016). In addition, students’ STEM skills increased because students were engaged in the learning process and were motivated to learn. Moreover, the student-centered approach of STEM PBL has been found to positively influence student engagement and academic achievement (Bicer et al., 2017; Erdogan et al., 2016). Therefore, informal STEM learning experience can not only allow students to gain STEM knowledge but also interest towards STEM and STEM careers. Benefits of Informal STEM Learning Informal STEM learning environments also encourage the use of discipline-specific technology, which increases the technology literacy among students (Ghadiri Khanaposhtani et al., 2018). Research indicated that integrating technology into learning has increased students’ motivation to learn because it provides interactive ways for students to engage in STEM learning (Hollenbeck & Fey, 2009; Kwon, 2016). With the increasing demand for virtual learning, informal learning experiences can also extend online. While not a substitute for face-to-face informal learning environments, online learning provides a myriad of opportunities, particularly for students that lack the resources or access to more immersive opportunities, such as clubs or camps (Means et al., 2014). In general, students enjoy online learning and Informal STEM Learning 79 value the social interactions that can take place in online environments (Tan, 2013). These social interactions incorporate the use of technology, complementing the technological and social skills already encouraged by formal learning environments (Meyers et al., 2013). Informal online learning can also extend to professional development of teachers and other education personnel through the use of digital badges and other online credentialing platforms (Newby et al., 2016). With the latest advancements in technology, more online informal learning opportunities will arise to meet the needs of a wide range of learners. While multiday STEM camps are an excellent example of informal learning environments, they are not the only opportunity for students to become involved in the STEM fields. Scouts, 4-H clubs, STEM afterschool and weekend programs, and in-school PBL activities have the opportunity to enhance students’ perceptions of STEM. Application of STEM PBL Now that we have explained a little more about formal and informal learning settings as well as the importance of both in learning STEM concepts, what are actual examples of how to include STEM PBL into formal and informal settings? Engaging in PBL activities has been shown to improve students’ understanding and application of mathematics in the world around them (Efstratia, 2014; Gijbels et al., 2005; Lee, 2018). When students are motivated, they are more willing to invest time into their learning. High school mathematics courses are challenging, but using PBL enhances students’ understanding of mathematical concepts. Students who engaged in PBL activities in high school mathematics courses, compared to those who did not, performed better in algebra and geometry and demonstrated improved problem-solving skills (Han et al., 2016). The following is an example of how PBL can be used in a high school Algebra II classroom. Consider the following scenario in which a high school mathematics teacher incorporated PBL activities in the classroom to help students understand the concept of various functions. An experienced Algebra II teacher has found conics, explanations about various functions, and the importance of restrictions on related equations when graphing were difficult concepts for students to understand. Over the years, the teacher has introduced students to asymptotes, restrictions on the domain and range, and various types of functions, including linear, quadratic, nth root, exponential, absolute value, logarithmic, and rational. The students have had a difficult time understanding certain functions and how to properly restrict the domain and range. The teacher decides to design a project to help the students gain a better understanding of these topics, which will require the students to construct a picture using a variety of concepts learned throughout the year. The teacher provides the students guidelines for the project, one of which is to think more creatively when designing the picture. Within 80 Informal STEM Learning this specific conic project, students will have to create a novel picture using the computer program Desmos with a limited number of equations and their knowledge of conics. Through this, students will improve their problem-solving skills and critical thinking when having to create an equation and learning from their mistakes. Additionally, once the students decide on a picture to construct, they will research the history of the picture’s subject or the history of mathematics and art. Including a PBL in an Algebra II classroom allows the students to explore their own knowledge within an added interdisciplinary component. As this scenario demonstrates, PBL activities can connect disciplines in a manner that traditional teaching does not always do successfully. The conic PBL activity incorporates both mathematics and technology skills. In addition, if the Algebra II teacher collaborates with other teachers, he or she can find out what is being taught in social studies or English writing classes and connect the picture being sketched in the PBL activity to a history lesson while also integrating English writing concepts. For instance, the teacher could instruct students to complete the following conic PBL activity: Working with a partner, use Desmos to sketch a picture of an important U.S. monument using between 10–15 equations, research the monument and its impact on U.S. history, then write a short 2–3-page paper about the findings and include a presentation. Giving the constraint of 10–15 equations will allow students to think creatively when they design their monument of choice and will help them better understand restrictions of domain and range. The connection of concepts learned in class to the real world can help students better relate to the concepts and more easily grasp what they are learning. Incorporating partner work, the writing, and the presentation will help improve communication skills, use of technology, problem solving, and creative thought, all of which are 21st century skills. The skills required to successfully engage with this PBL activity will prepare students for richer understandings of mathematics concepts. Okay, but How Can I Implement PBL in the Formal Learning Environment? Attempting to teach using a non-traditional strategy like PBL can be daunting to classroom teachers. Ideally, teachers want to make learning as enjoyable as possible for their students, especially in mathematics classrooms. Instructional coaches are a great resource to support teachers in effective implementation using multiple pedagogical strategies. Awareness of constraints on teachers’ schedules should guide professional development providers and coaches in making the most effective use of their time (Cucchiara et al., 2015) and mitigate the stress and frustrations teachers may experience when implementing new procedures Allowing for more structure and sufficient time for implementation of new pedagogical strategies can hopefully lead to more effective classroom instruction. Informal STEM Learning 81  Incorporating PBL into a mathematics classroom can be difficult and time consuming when teachers are more comfortable with Collaboration is key! traditional direct teaching methods. A common reason that PBL and other non-traditional teaching strategies are not incorporated into classrooms is a lack of confidence or understanding of the strategy by the teacher. Additionally, teachers might fear improper implementation or an inability to be able to follow a project through to its full potential. This reluctance to implement STEM PBL learning is problematic because students are denied exposure to learning strategies that may enhance their learning. One way to alleviate teachers’ concerns about implementing STEM PBL is by utilizing instructional coaches, who can use professional learning community (PLC) meeting times to explain and model an example PBL. Instructional coaches can take the “[During teacher time to break down a project into its component parts and identify constraints related to the overall concepts a teacher is expected to boot camp] I cover. Such a process may assist teachers in understanding both the learned that importance of interdisciplinary learning and how using PBL allows students learn them to integrate standards from multiple disciplines. Instructional more when they coaches can additionally highlight state standards from multiple collaborate disciplines and emphasize how using PBL is more comprehensive in and talk about delivering information than direct teaching. Another worry that may teaching and hinder teachers from using PBL is how to assess students and their doing.” learning. Instructional coaches and leaders can provide rubrics to help teachers accurately assess student learning. Breaking down the project step by step and opening up time for teacher questions should alleviate any concerns teachers may have when they enact PBL activities in their classrooms. Other methods to help with the implementation of PBL in the formal classroom setting is by working through the process during a PLC meeting and participating in professional developments or informal learning opportunities like teacher boot camps. Implementing new techniques is always a goal when teaching K–12 students, but effectively incorporating these techniques is where the challenge lies. Teacher boot camp allows teachers to learn how to implement PBL in their classrooms and allows for creative thinking. The pictures in Ch. 5 Appendix A show how teachers work together to create a “Do not allow students spaghetti tower. This activity included a list of constraints and to feel like failures. specific items that could be used. We see here the teachers are Encourage students to working together and discussing methods to solve their problem try and try again.” of creating the tallest spaghetti tower. Actively practicing and 82 Informal STEM Learning working through a short PBL activity can help teachers figure out what possible issues may arise and get an understanding of their students' thought processes. Additionally, teachers who participated in the teacher boot camp were willing to collaborate with other teachers at their schools in implementing PBL activities in their classrooms (see Ch. 5 Appendix B). Participating in teacher boot camps or using PLC time to work through and discuss PBL activities can decrease the worry of how to implement a PBL activity in the formal classroom and lead to an increased focus on what students will learn and how they can apply these skills to their lives. Conclusion Because afterschool programs and summer camps are voluntary, there is little chance for students who are not interested in STEM fields to participate in informal STEM activities (Torlakson, 2014). Despite this fact, participation may change a student’s attitude toward STEM, and if this is the case, many students will be able to increase their attitudes and interest towards STEM. Ultimately, they will be able to choose a STEM career. Thus, increasing access to informal STEM education is crucial and can change student affect towards STEM fields. Reflection Questions and Activities 1. How is a student’s understanding of STEM learning influenced by formal and informal education? 2. What are some examples of STEM activities that can be used in your classroom? 3. How can you incorporate PBL into my classroom? 4. In what ways can informal learning increase your students’ interest in learning STEM topics? 5. What are the benefits of informal STEM learning? a. Increase student attitude towards STEM b. Increase students’ STEM career interest c. Increase student perceptions of STEM d. All of the above 6. Circle all that applies to: What are the components of informal learning environments? a. Collaboration b. Problem solving c. Direct instruction d. Teacher-centered learning e. Communication 7. (T/F) Afterschool programs are an example of informal STEM learning. 8. (T/F) PBL activities focus on one content area. 9. (T/F) Informal learning environments can allow underrepresented groups to have better attitudes toward STEM and STEM careers. Key: 5(d), 6(a,b,e), 7(T), 8(F), 9(T) Informal STEM Learning 83  Additional Reading/ Resources Capraro, M. M., Whitfield, J. G., Etchells, M. J., & Capraro, R. M. (Eds.). (2016). A companion to interdisciplinary STEM project-based learning: For educators by educators (2nd ed.). Sense. References Achieve. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards. Alibali, M. W., Brown, A. N., Stephens, A. C., Kao, Y. S., & Nathan, M. J. (2009). Middle school students’ conceptual understanding of equations: Evidence from writing story problems. International Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(3), 235–261. Asiabanpour, B., DesChamps-Benke, N., Wilson, T., Loerwald, M., & Gourgey, H. (2010). “Bridging” Engineering & Art: An Outreach Approach for Middle and High School Students. American Journal of Engineering Education, 1(1), 1–20. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentive perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1– 26. Bergin, D. A. (1999). Influences on classroom interest. Educational Psychologist, 34(2), 87–98. Bicer, A., Nite, S. B., Capraro, R. M., Barroso, L. R., Capraro M. M., & Lee, Y. (2017, October 18–21). Moving from STEM to STEAM: The effects of informal STEM learning on students' creativity and problem solving skills with 3D printing [Paper presentation]. 2017 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference, Indianapolis, IN, United States. https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2017.8190545 Burrows, A., Lockwood, M., Borowczak, M., Janak, E. and Barber, B. (2018). Integrated STEM: Focus on informal education and community collaboration through engineering. Education Sciences, 8(4),1– 15. Chemers, M. M., Zurbriggen, E. L., Syed, M., Goza, B. K., & Bearman, S. (2011). The role of efficacy and identity in science career commitment among underrepresented minority students. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 469–491. Colbert, P., & Cumming, J. (2014). Enabling all students to learn through assessment. In C. Wyatt- Smith, V. Klenowski & P. Colbert (Eds.), Designing assessment for quality learning (pp. 211– 231). Springer. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for mathematics. http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/uploads/Math_Standards1.pdf Cooper, R. & Heaverlo, C. (2013). Problem solving and creativity and design: What influence do they have on girls’ interest in STEM subject areas? American Journal of Engineering Education, 4(1), 27– 38. https://doi.org/10.19030/ajee.v4i1.7856 Council on Foreign Relations Independent Task Force. (2012). U.S. Education Reform and National Security. http://www.cfr.org/united-states/us-education-reform-national-security/p27618 Cucchiara, M. B., Rooney, E., & Robertson-Kraft, C. (2015). “I’ve never seen people work so hard!” Teachers’ working conditions in the early stages of school turnaround. Urban Education, 50, 259– 287. 84 Informal STEM Learning Denson, C. D., Stallworth, C. A., Hailey, C., & Householder, D. L. (2015). Benefits of informal learning environments: A focused examination of STEM-based program environments. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations & Research, 16(1), 11–15. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. Macmillan. Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. Touchstone. Dorssen, J., Carlson, B., & Goodyear, L. (2006). Connecting informal STEM experiences to career choices: Identifying the pathway. ITEST Learning Resource Center. Erdogan, N., Navruz, B., Younes, R., & Capraro, R. M. (2016). Viewing how STEM PBL influences student’s science learning through the implementation lens: Latent growth modeling. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 12, 2139–2154. Efstratia, D. (2014). Experimental education through project based learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 1256–1260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.09.362 Ghadiri Khanaposhtani, M., Liu, C.J., Gottesman, B.L., Shepardson, D. & Pijanowski, B. (2018). Evidence that an informal environmental summer camp can contribute to the construction of the conceptual understanding and situational interest of STEM in middle-school youth. International Journal of Science Education Part B, 8(3), 227–249. Gijbels, D., Dochy, F., Vanden Bossche, P., & Segers, N. (2005) Effect of problem based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 75, 27–61. Hall, R. (2009). Towards a fusion of formal and informal learning environments: The impact of the read/write web. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 7(1), 29–40. Han, S., Rosli, R., Capraro, M.M., & Capraro, R.M. (2016). The effect of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) project based learning (PBL) on students’ achievement in four mathematics topics. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 13, 3–29. Hernandez, P. R., Hopkins, P. D., Masters, K., Holland, L., Mei, B. M., Richards-Babb, M., Quedado, K., & Shook, N. J. (2018). Student integration into STEM careers and culture: A longitudinal examination of summer faculty mentors and project ownership. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 17(3), 1–14. Hirsch, L. S., Berliner-Heyman, S., & Cusack, J. L. (2017). Introducing Middle School Students to Engineering Principles and the Engineering Design Process Through an Academic Summer Program. International Journal of Engineering Education, 33(1), 398–407. Hollenbeck, R., & Fey, J. (2009). Technology and mathematics in the middle grades. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14, 430–435. Holstermann, N., Grube, D., & Bögeholz, S. (2010). Hands-on activities and their influence on students’ interest. Research in Science Education, 40, 743–757. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science, 38, 1008–1022. King, N.S. & Pringle, R.M. (2019). Black girls speak STEM: Counter stories of informal and formal learning experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 539–569. Krapp, A. (1999). Interest, motivation and learning: An educational-psychological perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(1), 23–40. Informal STEM Learning 85 Krapp, A. (2005). Basic needs and the development of interest and intrinsic motivational orientations. Learning and Instruction, 15(5), 381–395. Krishnamurthi, A., Ballard, M., & Noam, G. (2014). Examining the impact of afterschool STEM Programs (ED546628). ERIC. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED546628.pdf Kwon, H. (2016). Effects of 3D printing and design software on student performance. Journal of STEM Education, 18(4), 48–53. Kwon, H., Capraro, R., & Capraro M. (in press). When I believe, I can: Success STEMS from my perceptions. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education. Kwon, H., Vela, K., Williams, A., & Barroso, L. (2019). Mathematics and science self-efficacy and STEM careers: A path analysis. Journal of Mathematics Education, 12(1), 66–81. https://doi.org/10.26711/007577152790039 Lee, J. (2018). An inquiry-based approach: Project-based learning. In E. Galindo & J. Lee (Eds.), Rigor, relevance, and relationships: Making mathematics come alive with project-based learning (pp. 1–18). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Maiorca, C., Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Bush, S., Delaney, A., Mohr-Shroeder, M. J., Soledad, S.Y. (2021). Informal Learning Environments and Impact on Interest in STEM Careers. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 19(1), 45–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10038-9 Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. (1990) Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. Routledge. Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2001). Informal and incidental learning. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 89, 25–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.5 Means, B., Bakia, M., & Murphy, R. (2014). Learning online: What research tells us about whether, when and how. Routledge. Meyers, E.M., Erickson, I. & Small, R.V. (2013). Digital literacy and informal learning environments: An introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.783597\ Mohr-Schroeder, M. J., Jackson, C., Miller, M., Walcott, B., Little, D. L., Speler, L., & Schroeder, D. C. (2014). Developing middle school students' interests in STEM via summer learning experiences: See Blue STEM Camp. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 291–301. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. The National Academies Press. Newby, T., Wright, C., Besser, E., & Beese, E. (2016). Passport to designing, developing, and issuing digital instructional badges. In D. Ifenthaler, N. Bellin-Mularski, & D. K. Mah (Eds.), Foundations of digital badges and micro-credentials: Demonstrating and recognizing knowledge and competencies (pp. 179–201). Springer. Roberts, T., Jackson, C., Mohr-Schroeder, M.J., Bush, S.B., Maiorca, C., Cavalcanti, M., Schroeder, D. C., Delaney, A., Putnam, L. & Cremeans, C. (2018). Students’ perceptions of STEM learning after participating in a summer informal learning experience. International Journal of STEM Education, 5(35), Article 35. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0133-4 86 Informal STEM Learning Tan, E. (2013). Informal learning on YouTube: Exploring digital literacy in independent online learning. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 463–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.783594 Tseng, K. H., Chang, C. C., Lou, S. J., & Chen, W. P. (2013). Attitudes towards science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) in a project-based learning (PjBL) environment. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 23(1), 87–102. Torlakson, T. (2014). INNOVATE: A blueprint for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in California public education. Californians Dedicated to Education Foundation U.S. Census Bureau. (2013, September 9). Census Bureau reports women’s employment in science, tech, engineering and math jobs slowing as their share of computer employment falls. https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2013/cb13-162.html Vela, K. N., Pedersen, R. M., & Baucum, M. N. (2020). Improving perceptions of STEM careers through informal learning environments. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 13(1), 103– 113. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-12-2019-0078 Vigotsky, L. S. (1962). Thoughts and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Trans.). MIT Press. (Original work published 1934) Watkins, K. E., Marsick, V. J., Wofford, M. G., & Ellinger, A. D. (2018). The evolving Marsick and Watikins (1990) Theory of Informal and Incidental Learning. New Directions for Adult & Continuing Education, 2018(159), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.2028 Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–29). Academic Press. Informal STEM Learning 87  Chapter 5 Appendix A Activities From the Teacher STEM PBL Bootcamp 88 Informal STEM Learning  Chapter 5 Appendix B Participants’ Thoughts About the Teacher STEM PBL Bootcamp “I learned more about 3D Printing, Aquaponics, Arduino Uno coding, and Physics STEM learning.” “I think the hands-off approach was helpful. As teachers we tend to want to hover and make sure the kids are doing everything right. I like just facilitating the project and going to check and help when needed” “I am ecstatic about implementing the technology I learned during this camp with my students. I also can't wait to build an aquaponics farm with students.” “Continued passion for hands-on learning that can still incorporate the TEKS. Using video, audio, and technology to build my STEM and Technology practices. Collaboration with other teachers to gather our ideas and share how to do innovative lessons along with the ones modeled from the professors.” “I understood the whole STEM and engineering design. I see how it can translate into multiple subjects and how it is extremely helpful for the students. I understand it and will use in the classroom this year.” Informal STEM Learning 89