**7. Informal public science education and mechanical engineering**

With technology moving at such a rapid pace, it has become increasingly important for citizens to be scientifically literate. While children are growing up with these technological advances, there are still several indicators showing that US science literacy is low [48, 49] and experiences with math and science outside of the classroom is crucial to increasing technological literacy not just for children but also the general public. Local science museums and science centers can serve as these pathways to math and science education

The results of a successful curricular learning community can be significant. It is important for institutions to develop a means to assess the impact of the learning community experience through both tracking of student enrollment data as well as student impressions of their first year experience. Focus groups conducted with learning community participants and surveys administered to all first year engineering students can be used to compare student impressions of their learning gains for those in the learning community versus students in the traditional curriculum. Some results that may be seen comparing student impressions of learning gains for learning community students with traditional

curriculum students are:

study.

participants

community participants Shorter time to degree completion.

problem solving strategies.

Greater intent to persist in the engineering field

Larger gains in critical thinking skills

Greater student impressions of learning to work as a member of a team

Significant gains in ability to use mathematics to solve engineering problems

Larger gains in student ability to apply engineering principles

courses. The long term results of a successful learning community are:

Greater retention in engineering for learning community participants

**7. Informal public science education and mechanical engineering** 

Larger gains in understanding engineering principles

Larger gains in student ability to identifying and formulating an engineering problem

Significant differences in student ability to find fellow students with whom they could

The long term impact of a curricular learning community experience can be assessed by the tracking of an engineering cohort. Data must be collected on retention in engineering, enrollment in subsequent science, math, and engineering courses and grades in these

Higher grades in key math, science, and engineering courses for learning community

More consistent progression through the engineering curriculum for learning

Curricular learning communities are not difficult to implement at any size institution and are a perfect match with the engineering curriculum. It is essential for engineering students to learn early in their academic career to work as a part of a team. The learning community experience can create in the first semester, study groups that will assist students through the gateway courses in mathematics, science, and engineering; while providing opportunities to strengthen student problem solving and critical thinking skills, developing interdisciplinary

With technology moving at such a rapid pace, it has become increasingly important for citizens to be scientifically literate. While children are growing up with these technological advances, there are still several indicators showing that US science literacy is low [48, 49] and experiences with math and science outside of the classroom is crucial to increasing technological literacy not just for children but also the general public. Local science museums and science centers can serve as these pathways to math and science education which forms the background and sparks the interest for engineering. The increased involvement of university-level researchers in science outreach has become part of the national discussion over the last few years with the White House[50, 51]. For some researchers these opportunities are straightforward, since their universities participate in engineering outreach programs to connect to the general public by volunteering at science fairs, offering K-12 teacher professional development opportunities, and by arranging classroom visits [52]. Much more common, however, for many educators such infrastructure just does not exist.

One effective model for informal engineering education and outreach is NanoDays [53] which is a project funded and sustained by the National Science Foundation. NanoDays is a nationwide festival of educational programs about nanoscale science and engineering and its potential impact on the future. Each year, NanoDays events are organized by participants in the Nanoscale Informal Science Education Network (NISE) and take place at over 200 science museums, research centers, and universities across the country from Puerto Rico to Hawaii. NanoDays engages people of all ages in learning about this emerging field of science, which holds the promise of developing revolutionary materials and technologies. The whole idea is to teach the general public about nanotechnology using an informal, hands-on approach in a comfortable, stimulating environment. These activities are scalable and transferable to any age and background. While NanoDays is a national program, it is run locally by science centers and in some cases, university faculty members which creates a successful link between the university and the public. Because the public is generally more comfortable in the science center, NanoDays is conducted in the local science center auditorium. NanoDays programs combine simple hands-on activities for young people with events exploring current research for adults [53]. NanoDays activities demonstrate different, unexpected properties of materials at the nanoscale -- sand that won't get wet even under water, water that won't spill from a teacup, and colors that depend upon particle size [53].

In this model, NanoDays involves faculty who present their research on nanotechnology in a way that is active and engaging and can connect effectively with the public [54]. Undergraduate students are also involved in the hands-on components and demonstrations. Since 2008, interactive presentations have been made by faculty on nanotechnology research such as explosives, new materials for technology, and medicine [54]. It is imperative to choose faculty members that can speak and communicate in a way that reaches the general public. Tips for selecting and training faculty members to be successful in outreach are welldescribed in [55] and include: use analogies to common day objects when describing scientific phenomena; limit the use of jargon or new words to five (scientific) terms; target talks to 7th graders (12 to 13 year olds); use lots of visuals and demonstrations when possible; and, describe size or scale relative to the human body. The author goes onto say that during training she poses the question to presenters, "How would you explain this to your grandparents?" Lastly and most importantly, she suggests that researchers put their presentation in a narrative or story if possible where the audience can see development from a problem, attempts to solve the problem, a climax and then a conclusion [55] because it has been found that audiences connect with the story of science as well as its facts [56].

Informal science education is an impactful method for relating the general public to current, technology-driven research. NanoDays activities bring university researchers together with science museum educators and the public which creates a unique learning/teaching experience for all and provides real connections for children and adults in engineering.

Mechanical Engineering Education: Preschool to Graduate School 629

[14] P. Mantzicopoulos, H. Patrick, and A. Samarapungavan, "Young children's

[20] A. Church, "STEM Mentoring--Aspiration to Achievement," *NCSSSMST Journal,* vol. 16,

[21] K. E. Kram and L. A. Isabella, "Mentoring Alternatives: the Role of Peer Relationships in Career Development," *Academy of Management Journal,* vol. 28, pp. 110-132, 1985. [22] J. Abdul-alim, "Mentor Program Provides STEM Options," *Education Week,* vol. 30, pp.

[23] J. Jones, "Survey Results Show ACE Mentor Program Is Surpassing Goals," *Civil* 

[24] S. C. Hockings, K. J. DeAngelis, and R. F. Frey, "Peer-Led Team Learning in General

[25] D. C. Lyon and J. J. Lagowski, "Effectiveness of Facilitating Small-Group Learning in

[26] S. E. Lewis, "Retention and Reform: An Evaluation of Peer-Led Team Learning," *Journal* 

[27] M. C. Loui, "Work-in-Progress - Assessment of Peer-Led Team Learning in an

[28] "Learning Assistant Model for Teacher Preparation in Science and Technology (LA-

[30] D. R. Woods, "Applying problem-based learning approach to teach elementary circuit

[32] D. H. Dolmans, W. H. Gijselaers, H. G. Schmidt, and S. B. van der Meer, *Academic* 

[33] J. C. Perrenet, P. A. J. Bouhuijs, and J. G. M. M. Smits, "The Suitability of Problem-based

[34] L. R. J. Costa, M. Honkala, and A. Lehtovuori, "The Suitability of Problem-based

[35] C. Eugene, "How to teach at the university level through an active learning approach:

Learning for Engineering Education: theory and practice," *Teaching in Higher* 

Learning for Engineering Education; theory and practice " *Teaching in Higher* 

Consquences for teaching basic electrical measurements," *Measurement,* vol. 39, pp.

analysis," *IEEE Transactions on Education,* vol. 50, pp. 41-48, 2007. [31] G. R. Norman and H. G. Schmidt, *Academic Medicine,* vol. 67, pp. 557-565.

*of Chemical Education,* vol. 88, pp. 703-707, 2011/06/01 2011.

TEST) " University of Colorado Boulder2010-2011. [29] (October 20). *Peer Led Team Learning Website*. Available: www.pltl.org

[36] P. Cawley, *A Problem-based Module in Mechanical Engineering* 1991.

Chemistry: Implementation and Evaluation," *Journal of Chemical Education,* vol. 85,

Large Lecture Classes," *Journal of Chemical Education,* vol. 85, p. 1571, 2008/11/01

Engineering Course for Freshmen," *FIE: 2008 IEEE Frontiers In Education Conference,* 

[17] (October 24, 2011). *Technology Student Association* Available: http:www.tsaweb.org

[19] (2011, October 24, 2011). *American Society of Mechanical Engineering*. Available:

[15] G. Kress, "Before Writing: Rethinking the Paths to Literacy," 1997. [16] K. Popper, *The Logic of Scientific Discovery* New York, NY, 2002.

*Engineering (08857024),* vol. 80, pp. 40-43, 2010.

[18] (2011, October 24, 2011). *Junior Engineering Technical Society*. Available:

23, pp. 378-394, 2008.

http://www.jets.org

pp. 13-14, 2010.

p. 990, 2008/07/01 2008.

*Vols 1-3,* pp. 581-582, 2008.

*Medicine,* vol. 68, pp. 207-213.

*Education,* vol. 5, pp. 345-358, 2000.

*Education* vol. 5, pp. 345-358, 2000.

936-946, 2006.

1-11, 2011.

2008.

www.asme.org

motivational beliefs about learning science," *Early Childhood Research Quarterly,* vol.
