Abstract
This paper focuses on evaluating methods of effective practice and the learning structure of an engineering design summer program for middle school students. The paper reflects on findings and observations regarding gender groupings in STEM, and how they affect student learning and confidence. In 2009, President Obama's Administration implemented the "Educate to Innovate" program to emphasize STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education. Women and men hold nearly equal professional positions in the biological sciences, and close to that in math, yet women comprise less than 30% of the science and engineering workforce as a whole.1 Students as young as kindergarten display the belief that fields of study such as science and math are “boy subjects.”2 The societal norm that males succeed in STEM more than their female counter parts is continually reinforced as students mature and move into middle and high school.1 By early adolescence, females start to lose interest in the STEM disciplines and even lose confidence in their abilities in these subjects.1 First Lady Michelle Obama stated “If we’re going to out-innovate and out-educate the rest of the world, we’ve got to open doors for everyone. We need all hands on deck, and that means clearing hurdles for women and girls as they navigate careers in science, technology, engineering, and math.”3,4 Recognizing this call to action and the increased need for K-12 Engineering Education Outreach, the University of __________ ___________ Lab redesigned a preexisting, week-long summer camp for rising 7th grade students in 2015. The new camp featured a one-day engineering design intensive workshop instead of a weeklong camp. In 2016, this new camp invited 125 students from the metro area to participate in a one-day workshop, taking place at the ___________ Public Library and at the University of ___________ in ________, ___________. Many participants were from Title I schools, and more than half identified as female. Two main projects (circuitry and laser cutting) were completed by participants, focusing on both the creative and technical aspects of each. Students and staff alike were formally and informally assessed throughout each camp session to allow for data to be collected for use in comparison to the old camp structure (week-long) by judging for effectiveness of this change in camp structure as well as the change in lessons and activities presented. 88% of participants completed a questionnaire upon arrival and again at the end of the day. Using this data from 2016 along with data from the 2015 workshop sessions, researchers have identified patterns and inconsistencies across each day the camp was offered, forming conclusions about the effectiveness of a one-day camp, and how gender breakdowns affect student learning and confidence in STEM. Furthermore, using reflections from camp staff and feedback from students, effective engineering education practices, programs, lessons, and curriculum designs were created and modified, allowing for transferable knowledge to other institutions. For the sake of this paper, the terms "camp" and "workshop" both refer to the 2015