Successes and Failures of the NJ Army Guard’s STEAM Program

Successes and Failures of the NJ Army Guard’s STEAM Program

In 2018, the New Jersey Army National Guard created a Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, and Mathematics Program, in order to develop relationships with the school districts within New Jersey and offer them federally-funded classroom training opportunities, while also making students aware of the possibility of a STEM career in the Guard.??The program included two recruiting and retention noncommissioned officers trained to teach with the Pitsco Tetrix System, to include the Prism Processor. In partnership with the Guard STEAM program, The Neptune School District presented a STEM academy in the Spring of 2019. Each week, a different STEM lesson was presented; one of the lessons in particular involved aviation and another involved robotics and coding, including aspects of the Engineering Design Process.??The purpose of this paper is to score these lessons according to the Productive Pedagogy Scoring Manual.??

Background

The New Jersey Army National Guard STEAM Team was present at the 2018 Teachers Convention in Atlantic City; the members of the team developed a working relationship with Dr. Heba Abdo, Supervisor of STEM Education for the Neptune School District. The Neptune School District requested the participation of the New Jersey Army National Guard STEAM Team in their 2019 STEM Academy. The primary lessons taught during the STEM academy revolved around the Tetrix Kits; the students were able to work in groups and build small working robots that were responsive to basic commands in a simple programming language?(Bandura, 1993). The students were also able to forego the processor and operate the robots using a radio control. The lesson involving aviation included a static display of a “Shadow” drone and the opportunity to interview the members of the crew, a block of instruction on the history of aviation, the opportunity to fly a number of small, commercially available drones, and a block of instruction provided by a veteran and member of the Civil Air Patrol on the construction of a simple glider.??

Evaluation according to the Productive Pedagogy Classroom Observation Scoring Manual?(Luke et al., n.d.)

1. To what extent do students use higher order operations?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

????????????In the course of the lessons, I would score the STEM academy consistently at a five. The students were able to hypothesize as to why the Arduino code would cause the robots to operate in a certain way, to explore why the design was so simple, to adjust the design as needed?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014; Lu et al., 2014).???

2. To what extent is deep knowledge presented?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

????????????The STEM academy lessons should be scored a four for deep knowledge.??Unfortunately, the instructors had limited knowledge of Arduino; the students themselves demonstrated deeper knowledge by understanding that the code represented certain geometric instructions to the processor without prompting from the instructors?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014; Lu et al., 2014).??

3. To what extent is deep understanding evident?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

????????????This question would also earn a score of four; the students were able to see and understand the design of the robot from previous experience with the engineering design process; i.e., they understood why the robot maintained a low center of gravity, etc?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014; Lu et al., 2014).??

4. To what extent is classroom discourse devoted to creating or negotiating understandings of subject matter?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

????????????I remember being particularly impressed with the group of students that participated in the STEM academy. They were there, voluntarily, after regular school hours, to learn about robotics, coding, aviation, and math. Their conversations within their groups did not deviate from the work they were presented. Again, I would assign a four to this question, only because the students occasionally had to interact with other groups to procure missing tools?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014; Lu et al., 2014).??

5. To what degree is knowledge presented as constructed?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

????????????The group of students participating in the STEM Academy was diverse, especially considering the demographics of the county in which the courses took place. The subject matter made it somewhat difficult to incorporate diversity, although attempts were made (i.e., it was mentioned that algebra was a product of the Middle East). The students themselves interacted with equal input; the groups were organized to be as diverse as possible. This category would rate a three.?

6. To what extent does the teacher (or the students) talk or discuss how language works, aspects and characteristics of languages, texts and discourses?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

The instructors for the STEM academy were, by training, a public affairs noncommissioned officer and a paralegal noncommissioned officer with a degree in English Literature. Writing was discussed as an integral part of the engineering design process?(Vygotsky, 1978). Arduino, the code language used by the Tetrix kits, was discussed as any other language; the instructors made a point of telling the students that they could “read” the code just as they could read in English, French, or Spanish.??Further, the students were taught to annotate code with comments, so that they could leave instructions for those who might come after them?(Lu et al., 2014).??This category would receive a rating of four.??

7. To what degree is school knowledge integrated across subject boundaries?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

This question addresses the difference between a STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) program and a STEAM (STE, Arts, and M) program.??The students of the Academy, despite its advertisement as a “STEM” program, were encouraged to write about their experiences in an engineering notebook, to draw plans in that notebook, etc. This category would rate a four, but could rate a five in the future if the students fundraised to purchase their own Tetrix kits and other accessories and tracked transactions, as in a program budget, incoming grants, etc?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014).??

8. To what degree are links with students’ background knowledge made explicit?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

Many of the students had previous experience working with other robotics kits. Through discussion with the instructors, these students were encouraged to share their tacit knowledge of robotics with their peers?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014). This question would earn a rating of three, but only because of time constraints?(Bandura, 1993).

9. To what extent is the lesson, activity, or task connected to the competencies or concerns beyond the classroom?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

The students were well aware of the fact that they would soon be entering a world of work or higher education in which robots perform operations that humans cannot (i.e., explosive ordinance disposal) and drones deliver packages or conduct reconnaissance?(Lu et al., 2014). This question would also rate a three, as there were too many limitations due to time.??

10. To what extent is the lesson based on solution of a specific problem(s)?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

The answer to this question is unclear. The students were encouraged to build a robot according to the plans provided and to code the processor to accomplish certain tasks. However, the students had the freedom to deviate from the plans and to use a radio control to accomplish the same purpose?(Lu et al., 2014). Three out of five.??

11. To what extent do students determine the classroom activities?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

Students had been surveyed by the administration to find out which courses they would like to participate in. Students suggested robotics and coding; they also suggested a course in aviation. Again, students were able to make choices pertaining to how to accomplish the task of building and operating the robot?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014). Five out of five.?

12. To what extent is the classroom characterized by an atmosphere of mutual respect and support among teacher and student?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

As the instructors were not licensed teachers but National Guard instructors, the course was conducted in accordance with the Army Values. As such, students were instructed and encouraged to participate without exclusion. The instructors encouraged students to take risks. Five out of five.?

13. To what extent are students engaged in the lesson?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

The participants in the STEM Academy were present after-hours, voluntarily. There was no sleeping or lack of effort.??The students stayed on task. Five out of five.

14. To what extent are criteria for what counts as a high-quality student performance made explicit?(Luke et al., n.d.)?

The benchmarks and measures of performance were established by Pitsco in the texts which accompany the Tetrix kits. High quality student performance was demonstrated by the operation of a robot, whether by processor or by radio control?(Krajcik & Shin, 2014).??

Conclusion

The academy was a success, but the overall experience could have been better.??Placing the responsibility of establishing the program and conducting the lessons in the hands of the recruiting and retention battalion was a mistake; the leadership of the battalion was more interested in generating leads within the Neptune School District than it was in teaching the children the lessons anticipated by the leadership of the district.??

References

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.?Educational Psychologist,?28(2), 117–148.

Krajcik, J., & Shin, N. (2014). Project-Based Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),?The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Lu, J., Bridges, S., & Hmelo-Silver, C. (2014). Problem-Based Learning. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.),?The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Luke, A., Lingard, B., Ladwig, J., Gore, J., Mills, M., & Hayes, D. (n.d.).?Productive pedagogy classroom observation scoring manual. School Reform Longitudinal Study.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978).?Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes?(M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Harvard University Press.