2015 Swanson School Tissue Engineering Summer Camp

BIOENGINEERING SUMMER CAMPS | 2015 ANNUAL REPORT 1

U N I V E R S I T Y O F P I T T S B U R G H | S WA N S O N S C H O O L O F E N G I N E E R I N G | D E PA RT M E N T O F B I O E N G I N E E R I N G

BIOENGINEERING SUMMER CAMPS

INSPIRING TOMORROW’S ENGINEERS2 0 1 5 A N N U A L R E P O RT

SWANSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING | DEPARTMENT OF BIOENGINEERING2

MISSION STATEMENT

Since 2007, the faculty and staff members of the University of Pittsburgh Department of Bioengineering in the Swanson School of Engineering have been addressing deficiencies in youth science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education by offering Bioengineering Summer Camps. The camps are now the signature outreach program of the department and one of the most successful K–12 outreach initiatives of the University.

The goal of the program is to engage young minds in the wonders of science, bioengineering, and the potential to benefit

the human condition while also showing them that STEM can be a fun and exciting field of learning with promising career opportunities. We seek to engage diverse groups of students, particularly those who come from backgrounds that are largely underrepresented in STEM fields, namely minorities and women. Relying on the department’s partnerships with UPMC, the Bioengineering Summer Camps curriculum utilizes regenerative aspects of the natural world and current topics in bioengineering to explore how state-of-the-art research can be applied to human medicine and treatment. Our “near-peer” mentorship

strategy integrates excellent undergraduate bioengineering students from Pitt’s Swanson School of Engineering as content creators and camp counselors. Each year, we aim to provide middle and high school students who have burgeoning interests in science with an exceptional opportunity to learn about bioengineering and regenerative medicine through hands-on experiences with new technologies, experimental strategies, and ethical considerations in the diverse fields of bioengineering and regenerative medicine.

1BIOENGINEERING SUMMER CAMPS | 2015 ANNUAL REPORT

INSPIRING TOMORROW’S ENGINEERS

Phot

os c

ourte

sy o

f Alic

ia K

emp

1 newpittsburghcourieronline.com/2015/09/05/camp-bioe-teaches-the-science-of-tomorrow-today

2015 SUMMARY

2015 was the start of something special! We launched a diversity outreach initiative with the support of several sponsors that included an additional week of Bioengineering Summer Camps specifically for Pittsburgh-area students who are underrepresented in STEM fields. Since the first year we went on the road to offer camps to an underserved community in Greensboro, N.C., with funding from the National Science Foundation, we hoped to develop a similar initiative in Pittsburgh. As government support diminished during the recession, we had to put this dream on the back burner while we transitioned our major funding source to local industry and foundation partners. Thankfully, that transition paved the way for additional support in 2015 such that we could once again consider the idea of providing a week of camp at no charge for Pittsburgh students from the city and from primarily low-income districts.

Based on our North Carolina experience, we realized that there are a number of major barriers that limit underrepresented participation in STEM. Those barriers that were within our control to address included cost; accessibility and transportation; and the perception of isolation that many underrepre-sented students say they feel when engaging in a camp where the majority of students are wealthy, suburban, nonminority students. We were able to address these issues by

making the one-week camp completely free (including meals) to underrepresented students and moving the program to the Citizen Science Lab in downtown Pittsburgh. Next, we needed to get the word out. For this, we turned to local teachers in the Pittsburgh Public Schools and networked through local churches. The latter strategy was the most successful, with 12 of our 16 campers finding out about us in this way. It was especially fruitful because we could engage with both potential campers and their parents simultaneously.

Overall, the additional week of camp offered through our first diversity initiative was a tremendous success. Of our 16 campers, 14 were able to attend all day for the full week. The other two students were able to attend more than 75% of the camp but did not participate in the evaluation. In addition to the very positive feedback that we received from campers and their parents, we were success-ful in raising more widespread awareness in the underrepresented community about our program and its improved accessibility. This was highlighted in an article about the camp published in the New Pittsburgh Courier1, one of the oldest and most prestigious Black newspapers in the United States. Moreover, we were able to obtain some very useful data about this first cohort of underrepresented

students (see the report following this summary) that suggest that the experiential impact of camp activities was even greater for underrepresented students in comparison with other students. In addition, our recruiting efforts even resulted in increased underrepre-sented student participation during the three weeks of camp that are regularly offered at the University of Pittsburgh relative to previous years.

In total, our camps hosted 90 Western Pennsylvania campers over four weeks. Of those, 41 were female and 24 were from backgrounds that are underrepresented in STEM. While the ratio of males to females is comparable to previous years, our level of underrepresented participation increased by an astonishing 600% from 2014. These are indeed the diversity goals that we are hoping to achieve annually.

Looking forward to the 2016 camps, we want to capitalize on our momentum from last year by continuing to offer a free week of camp for minorities and underrepresented students while maintaining all aspects of accessibility. In addition, we now have our sights set on branching out across Western Pennsylvania by bringing our camps to local communities whose students cannot travel to Pittsburgh. As a first step toward this endeavor, we

are hoping to host a week of camp in New Brighton, Beaver County, through a partnership with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Beaver County. We are adept at taking our show on the road, as we proved last year and for five years prior to that in North Carolina. By offering our camps to more underrepresented students in the wider Southwestern Pennsylvania region, including students from single-parent, low-income, and/or foster homes, we hope to continue to provide positive STEM opportunities for those who may not have them otherwise. We hope that you will help us once again!

For more information about our camps and pictures from all four weeks of the 2015 camp season, please visit our Facebook page at facebook.com/PittBioengineeringSummerCamp.

On the following pages, we would like to provide you with some of the images that capture the 2015 camps (pages 4–6), key personnel (page 7), 2015 undergradu-ate counselors (pages 8–9), and a report summarizing the data collected from our camps provided by the Engineering Education Research Center in the Swanson School of Engineering (pages 12–20).

Thank you for helping us to achieve our 2015 goals.


Middle School Data:School or District State Students Bethel Park PA 1Fairfax County VA 1Fox Chapel PA 2Mount Pleasant PA 1Penn Hills PA 1Pine Richland PA 3

Pittsburgh Public Schools PA 4Quaker Valley PA 2Riverview PA 1Seneca Valley PA 1Shaler PA 1

South Fayette PA 2Upper St. Clair PA 3Westmont Hilltop PA 1Winchester Thurston PA 1

High School Data:School or District State Students

Aquinas Academy PA 2Brentwood PA 2Canon-McMillan PA 4Central Catholic PA 2Fox Chapel PA 3Franklin Regional PA 1Gateway PA 3Greater Latrobe PA 1Hampton PA 2Hempfield PA 2Mars PA 1Mt. Lebanon PA 6Pennsylvania Cyber PA 1Pine Richland PA 1

Pittsburgh Public Schools PA 5Plum PA 1Quaker Valley PA 1Seneca Valley PA 2Sewickley Academy PA 1Shady Side Academy PA 1South Fayette PA 1West Jefferson Hills PA 1

Middle and High School Data: School or District State Students

East Allegheny PA 2Penn Hills PA 2

Pittsburgh Public Schools PA 7Upper St. Clair PA 1West Mifflin PA 1Winchester Thurston PA 1Woodland Hills PA 2


SWANSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING | DEPARTMENT OF BIOENGINEERING BIOENGINEERING SUMMER CAMPS | 2015 ANNUAL REPORT4 5

Clockwise from top left: 1. A camper anticipates perfection in her ability to seed cells onto a scaffold. 2. Teams compete for the top prize in an out-door experiment. 3. The intensity is high for the I’ve Got Skills challenge. 4. These young campers, who pushed their team to become champions of their week, design and apply a new immobilization device. 5. This camper is likely one of the youngest masters of the micropipette in the United States. 6. Wiring Arduino always brings out the character in our campers. 7. Two future bioengineers try to understand how the anatomy of a knee joint can restrict motion in so many directions.

1

2

3

4567


2015 KEY PERSONNEL


Sanjeev Shroff Distinguished Professor and

Gerald McGinnis ChairUniversity of PittsburghDepartment of Bioengineering

Steven AbramowitchAssociate ProfessorUniversity of PittsburghDepartment of BioengineeringCamp Director

Clockwise from top left: 1. The camp leaders also take part in the fun at camp. 2. A young pipette master puts his skills to work while preparing cells for culture (with a little help from Krotec, better known as Special K). 3. Counselor Iman (left) allowed some time during a knee dissection to show just how photogenic her group can be. 4. A pig heart dissection gives new meaning to “holding your heart in my hands.” 5. Counselor Greg (left) leads his campers to a major victory on their way to the week’s championship.

Juel Smith Associate Professor of BiologyCommunity College of

Allegheny CountyCamp Mentoring and

Education Specialist

Mark KrotecBiology Teacher Central Catholic High SchoolCamp Master Educator

Alicia KempUndergraduate Program AdministratorUniversity of PittsburghDepartment of BioengineeringCamp Coordinator

5

1

2

34


COUNSELORS

Clockwise from top left: 1. 2015 camp counselors (from left to right) Chris Ford, Iman Benbourenane, Greg Cooper, Ryan Nguyen, Jake Herman, professor Juel Smith, Mike Griffin, and graduate student Deanna Easley 2. Iman Benbourenane captures her student’s attention. 3. Chris Ford (middle) is immobilized by his group of campers. 4. Ryan Nguyen (middle) oversees a knee reconstruction. 5. Camp counselor Ruben Hartogs teaches from the back of the room. 6. Jake Herman explains the finer points of the micropipette. 7. Greg Cooper (right) instructs a group of aspiring bioengineers during a 2015 Bioengineering Summer Camp. 8. Mike Griffin shows he still has the touch, even if he now throws underhand.

1 2 3

45

6

78


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SWANSON SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING BIOENGINEERING SUMMER CAMPS | SUMMER 2015

Prepared by Lingqing Xu, Department of Biological Sciences, and Mary Besterfield-Sacre, Fulton C. Noss Faculty Fellow and director, Engineering Education Research Center, Swanson School of Engineering

CAMP EVALUATION

OVERVIEW AND OBJECTIVES

The Department of Bioengineering at the University of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering has hosted four weeklong bioengineering camps for five years. This past summer, one week was devoted to middle schoolers, two weeks were composed of high schoolers, and the final week consisted of both middle and high school students from potentially lower socioeconomic status schools in the Pittsburgh area and predominantly underrepresented minorities.

The overarching goal of the camps is to engage participants in experiencing science, bioengineering, and the potential to benefit the human condition. In evaluating the success of the summer camps, two sets of objectives were tackled.

The general objectives of the camps were:

1. to increase students’ process skills across disciplines,

2. to enhance students’ appreciation of science and technology, and

3. to increase students’ awareness of educational and career opportunities.

These general objectives were obtained from conversations with the director of the camp, Steve Abramowitch. In discussing specific learning objectives that campers should achieve by week’s end, Abramowitch specified that campers should be able to:

1. describe the fields of bioengineering and tissue engineering,

2. identify at least four major aspects of the engineering design process, and

3. perform a basic bioethical analysis.

DATA GATHERING AND ANALYSIS

Given these objectives—both general and learning oriented—two instruments were used in a pre- and post-fashion during the camp. The instruments were revised from prior years’ surveys and updated to better reflect the objectives to be measured. There are pre- and post-versions of each instrument for a total of four instruments. In revising the instruments, efforts were made to make the surveys more user friendly (e.g., check boxes, survey length limited to two pages) and adaptable to the different levels of participants (e.g., we were conscientious of the verbiage used in the instructions).

Data were collected from 36 middle school campers (week 1), 33 high school campers (weeks 2 and 3), and 14 underrepresented minority (URM) middle and high school campers (week 4). It was assumed that there were no differences between weeks 2 and 3 regarding the high school students. As a result, the responses from these two weeks were combined. The participants completed the instruments by hand, and then the instruments were manually entered into a spreadsheet (raw data to be returned to the Department of Bioengineering).

Evaluation reporting is based on the learning objectives and general objectives of the camp. Further, the reporting of the results focused on comparing middle school campers to high school campers (week 1 to weeks 2 and 3) and in comparing non-URM campers (weeks 1–3) to URM campers (week 4).

Note: Given that there were 14 individuals in the URM (week 4) cohort, percentages may vary as a result of the small n (sample size). Because the n for week 4 is quite small, statistical analysis was not feasible.


Instrument Administered Objectives

Pre-evaluation Beginning of first dayAddresses general objectives 1–3

Post-evaluation End of last day

Pre-knowledge Beginning of first dayAddresses learning objectives 1–3

Post-knowledge End of last day

Table 1


RESULTS BY OBJECTIVE

LEARNING OBJECTIVE 1: Campers will be able to describe the fields of bioengineering and tissue engineering. For this objective, we utilized the pre- and post-knowledge inventory and specifically those inquiries related to students answering the following questions:

• What is bioengineering?

• What is tissue engineering?

To determine the participant’s knowledge, each response was coded by a PhD STEM student on a simple grading scale:

• 0: No or little knowledge (e.g.,“Bioengineer-ing is conducting some experiments to fix a problem.”)

• 1: Some knowledge (e.g., “Bioengineering is engineering of making changes in bodies.”)

• 2: Good knowledge (e.g., “Bioengineering is using technology to replace or help the body parts, such as missing limbs and tissue/cells.”)

Figure 1 provides the results of the middle school (week 1) and high school students (weeks 2 and 3). As the figure illustrates, for middle school campers, their knowledge about what bioengineering is increased from 90% having no, little, or some knowledge to 78.5% having some or good knowledge of the area. Likewise, for high school students, their knowledge base increased from 93.9% having no, little, or some knowledge of bioengineering to 82.9% having some or good knowledge. Comparisons between middle school and high school campers provide an expected baseline. In Figure 2, weeks 1 through 3 are combined and compared to week 4, the URM cohort of students.

Note: Only 14 URM participants provided feedback on the survey instruments. As Figure 2 shows, non-URM knowledge about what bioengineering is increased from 92.4% having no, little, or some knowledge to 80.6% having some or good knowledge of the area. For the URM cohort, their knowledge of what bioengineering is increased from 92.8% to 78.6%. The overall knowledge gain of URM to non-URM is relatively the same; however, Figure 2 also indicates that 71.4% of URM students had no or little initial knowledge compared to 42.4% of non-URM students.

Likewise, when asked to define tissue engineering, similar results were found. Figure 3 indicates that middle schoolers’ knowledge about what tissue engineering is increased from 92.9% having no, little, or some knowledge (upper left chart) to 92.6% having some or good knowledge of the area. For high school students, the knowledge base increased from 83.6% having no, little, or some knowledge of tissue engineering (upper right chart) to 89.4% having some or good knowledge. Not surprisingly, middle schoolers show more gains than high schoolers.

Also shown in Figure 3, non-URM knowledge (lower left chart) about what tissue engineering is increased from 86% having no, little, or some knowledge to 91.9% having some or good knowledge of the area. For the URM cohort, their knowledge of what tissue engineering is increased from 92.9% to 77%. Here, URM gains were not as well matched to the non-URM gains as we saw in their knowledge of bioengineering. More specifically, fewer non-URM participants had little or no knowledge of tissue engineering; hence, the majority of non-URM participants had some knowledge (54.7%) prior to the camp compared to their URM counterparts (14.3%).

Figure 1.

Pre- to post-knowledge of bioengineering of middle schoolers (top) and high schoolers (bottom)

Figure 2.

Pre- to post-knowledge of bioengineering of non-URM (top) to URM (bottom) participants

0: No or little knowledge

Q1: What is bioengineering? Middle school

Q1: What is bioengineering? High school

Pre-knowledge Post-knowledge


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

6.1%


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

38.8%

17%

55.1%

57.4%

25.5%

60%

21.4%

30%

57.1%

10%

21.4%


Q1: What is bioengineering? Weeks 1–3

Q1: What is bioengineering? Week 4



1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

7.1%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

71.4%

21.4%

21.4%

64.3%

14.3%

42.4%

19.4%

50%

54.8%

7.6%

25.8%

Figure 3.

Pre- to post-knowledge of tissue engineering of middle and high school campers (top charts) and non-URM and URM participants (bottom charts)


Q2: What is tissue engineering? Middle school Q2: What is tissue engineering? High school



1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

16.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

36.7%

10.6%

46.9%

29.8%

59.6%

42.9%

7.4%

50%

33.3%

7.1%

59.3%


Q2: What is tissue engineering? Weeks 1–3 Q2: What is tissue engineering? Week 4



1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

7.1%


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

78.6%

23.1%

14.3%

30.8%

46.2%

31.3%

8.1%

54.7%

30.6%

14.1%

61.3%


LEARNING OBJECTIVE 2: Campers will be able to identify at least four major aspects of the engineering design process. For this objective, we utilized a specific question that asks participants to list the steps of the engineering design process, as shown in Figure 4. This question was developed based on prior open-ended surveys as well as knowledge of the design process found in common engineering texts and can be found on both the pre- and post-knowledge inventory. Using the word bank, participants can select steps that lead campers from the beginning to the end of the process. Knowing that several viable deviations exist and that not all word bank items can be used, the simple rating scale used for objective 1 also was applied here. Responses were coded by a PhD STEM student familiar with the design process.

As shown in Figure 5, there is a dramatic difference between middle schoolers and high schoolers with regard to their knowledge of the steps in the design process. Eighty-three percent of middle schoolers began their camp with no, little, or some knowledge of the design process (33.3% with no or little knowledge), but 40.7% completed the camp with good knowledge of the design process.

Likewise, 83.6% of high schoolers began the camp with no, little, or some knowledge of the design process, but 72.3% completed the camp with good knowledge of the design process. Figure 6 provides similar data comparing the non-URM cohort to the URM cohort. Here, on the pre-knowl-edge inventory, non-URM and URM demonstrated relatively similar proportions of knowledge (no, little, or some) on the design process (86.4% and 71.4%, respectively). However, on the post-knowl-edge inventory, non-URM demonstrated stronger mastery (66.1% good knowledge) than the URM cohort (30.8% good knowledge).

On the post-inventory, 46.2% of the URM cohort demonstrated no or little knowledge. One potential reason for the discrepancy of the results in Figure 6 may be due to the word bank provided on the pre-inventory and a more succinct word bank/phrase bank on the post-inventory. This may have confused students. This will be corrected for future use of the instruments.

Figure 4.

Question posed to participants on the pre- and post-knowledge survey to obtain their understanding of the engineering design process

Using the word bank provided, list (in order) the steps in the engineering design process. You do not need to use all the words, only those that you would use.

Design Process Steps1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Word Bank

build a model or prototyperefine designbrainstorm solutionsimagineplantestask a questionimprovedefineresearchiterate

identify criteria/ constraintsevaluateredesign generate ideasidentify problemexplore possibilitiesselect an approach/ designcommunicatecreateexperimentchoose

Figure 5.

Comparing middle and high schoolers’ knowledge of the design process


Q3: List the steps in the engineering design process Middle school

Q3: List the steps in the engineering design process High school



1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

16.3%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

26.5%

2.1%

57.1%

25.5%

72.3%

33.3%

33.3%

50%

25.9%

16.7%

40.7%

Figure 6.

Comparing the non-URM cohort with the URM cohort of their knowledge of the design process


Q3: List the steps in the engineering design process Weeks 1–3

Q3: List the steps in the engineering design process Week 4



1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

28.6%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

21.4%

46.2%

50%

23.1%

30.8%

30.3%

8.1%

56.1%

25.8%

13.6%

66.1%


LEARNING OBJECTIVE 3: Campers will be able to perform a basic bioethical analysis. Similar to learning objective 2, campers were asked to list the steps in the correct order involved in the process, as shown in Figure 7.

As with the prior objective, this question was developed based on prior open-ended surveys as well as knowledge of the design process found in common engineering texts and in consultation with Abramowitch. Figure 8 provides an overview of the middle and high schoolers’ pre- and post-knowledge results related to knowing the steps in performing a bioethical analysis. From the results shown in Figure 8, there is a substantial difference between middle and high schoolers with regard to their knowledge, as 72.2% of middle schoolers had no or little knowledge compared to 30.8% of the high schoolers. By the end of the week, 47.1% of middle schoolers and 71.8% of high schoolers demonstrated good knowledge of the bioethical analysis.

Figure 9 provides similar information comparing non-URM campers to URM campers. Half of the non-URM campers and half of the URM campers had no to little knowledge of the bioethical analysis process at the beginning of camp, but by the end of the week, 61.3% of the non-URM campers and 50% of the URM campers had good knowledge of the bioethical analysis process. Given the small n (sample size) of URM campers, this is a difference of one or two students. To address whether the three general camp objec-tives were achieved, the pre- and post-evaluation surveys were used.

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 1: To increase students’ process skills across disciplines. For the first goal, the rated attitude item 12 on the post-evaluation survey was used.

Figure 10 provides an overview of middle and high schoolers’ (left chart) and non-URM and URM campers’ (right chart) opinions about how the camp taught them to conduct an experiment. The majority of middle schoolers (94.5%) thought that the camp taught them how to conduct a project or experiment, whereas only 77% of high schoolers believed this. The difference is likely due to the fact that high school participants have taken sufficient science courses with lab components that they have acquired prior knowledge in before participating in the weeklong camp. In comparing non-URM to URM campers, 53.8% of the URM campers strongly agreed (30.8% agreed) that the camp helped to teach them how to conduct an experiment. This is somewhat striking compared to the non-URM campers, who felt less strongly about this statement (only 31.7% strongly agreed). To determine why URM campers felt so strongly, we found through the pre-evaluation survey that 64.3% of URM students had previously participated in a science fair and/or worked on a science project, compared to 43.9% of non-URM campers. Therefore, this particular camp allowed URM campers to further their knowledge of how to conduct an experiment given that they had prior exposure and practice.

Figure 7.

Question on pre- and post-knowledge inventory regarding the bioethical analysis process

Using the phrase bank provided, list (in order) the steps in the bioethical analysis process. You may use the letters to list the steps.

Bioethical Analysis Steps

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Phrase Bank

A. Determine each stakeholder’s stake.

B. Explore alternatives and possible recommendations.

C. List the stakeholders.

D. Reach a decision or recommendation.

E. Identify the issue, question, or dilemma.

F. Discuss the role of bioengineering/tissue engineering/medicine.

G. Identify the arguments from each of the stakeholder’s perspective.

Figure 8.

Comparing middle and high schoolers’ knowledge of the bioethical analysis process


Q6: List the steps in the bioethical analysis process Middle school

Q6: List the steps in the bioethical analysis process High school



1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

35.9%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

30.8%

17.9%

33.3%

10.3%

71.8%

72.2%

32.4%

19.4%

20.6%

8.3%

47.1%

Figure 9.

Comparing non-URM and URM campers’ knowledge of the bioethical analysis process


Q6: List the steps in the bioethical analysis process Weeks 1–3

Q6: List the steps in the bioethical analysis process Week 4



1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

30%

0 10 20 30 40 50 60


1: Some knowledge

2: Good knowledge

50%

33.3%

20%

16.7%

50%

50%

22.6%

28.8%

16.1%

21.2%

61.3%

Figure 10. Impressions of what students believed they learned through conducting an experiment

Middle school (week 1) vs. high school (weeks 2 and 3) on top; non-URM vs. URM (week 4) on bottom

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Post-evaluation Q12: I learned how to conduct a project or experiment in science and engineering.

Middle school High school

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

2.6%

0%0%

5.6%

20.5%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

55.6%

46.2%

38.9%30.8%

Post-evaluation Q12: I learned how to conduct a project or experiment in science and engineering.

Weeks 1–3 Week 4

Strongly disagree

Disagree

1.6%

0%0%

12.7%

15.4%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

54%

30.8%

31.7%

53.8%0 10 20 30 40 50 60

0%


GENERAL OBJECTIVE 2: To enhance students’ appreciation of science and technology. For this particular general objective, the following post-evaluation rated statements were used:

• “Since participating in the Bioengineering [Summer] Camp, my interest in science, engineering, and medicine has increased.”

• “I’d like to learn even more about bioengineering in the coming years.”

• “I enjoyed participating in the camp and being able to do many of the activities.”

• “I plan to take more science classes in the future.”

Figure 11 provides an overview of these four items for the two sets of participants evaluated. In general, most students rated the statements neu-tral to strongly positive. For the statement “Since participating in the Bioengineering [Summer] Camp, my interest in science, engineering, and medicine has increased,” 53.8% of URM campers strongly agreed with this statement versus the average 33.8% of the middle and high schooler non-URM camper cohort. This is a positive finding and one that the literature supports for URM students. Another interesting finding is the statement “I’d like to learn even more about bioen-gineering in the coming years.” Middle schoolers in week 1 were evenly split between ratings of neutral, agree, and strongly agree, potentially meaning that some campers might not necessarily be overly interested in studying bioengineering. This is a realistic finding, as middle schoolers are only now starting to experience “authentic” science classes in schools, and this could mean that they may not have strong interests in specific science-related areas.

Figure 11.

Post-evaluation items that reflect students’ enhanced view of science and technology, middle school (week 1) vs. high school (weeks 2 and 3) on left; non-URM vs. URM (week 4) on right

Weeks 1–3 Week 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Post-evaluation Q1: Since participating in the Bioengineering Summer Camp, my interest in science, engineering, and medicine has increased.


Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%0%

13.2%

2.6%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

47.4%

64.1%

39.5%33.3%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%0%

6.2%15.4%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

60%

30.8%

33.8%

53.8%

0%


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Post-evaluation Q2: I’d like to learn even more about bioengineering in the coming years.


Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%2.6%

34.2%

12.8%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

31.6%

46.2%

34.2%38.5%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

1.5%0%

23.1%

23.1%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

40%

30.8%

35.4%

46.2%

0%


Weeks 1–3 Week 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Post-evaluation Q5: I plan to take more science classes in the future.


Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%0%

10.8%

0%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

27.0%

23.1%

62.2%

76.9%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%0%

4.6%

8.3%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

27.7%

8.3%

67.7%

83.3%

0%


Weeks 1–3 Week 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Post-evaluation Q3: I enjoyed participating in the camp and being able to do many of the activities.


Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%0%

8.1%

2.6%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

32.4%

43.6%

59.5%

53.8%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%0%

4.7%

7.7%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

43.8%

15.4%

51.6%76.9%

0%


Weeks 1–3 Week 4

Weeks 1–3 Week 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60



Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%0%

13.2%

2.6%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

47.4%

64.1%

39.5%33.3%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%0%

6.2%15.4%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

60%

30.8%

33.8%

53.8%

0%


0 10 20 30 40 50 60



Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%2.6%

34.2%

12.8%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

31.6%

46.2%

34.2%38.5%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

1.5%0%

23.1%

23.1%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

40%

30.8%

35.4%

46.2%

0%


Weeks 1–3 Week 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60



Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%0%

8.1%

2.6%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

32.4%

43.6%

59.5%

53.8%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%0%

4.7%

7.7%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

43.8%

15.4%

51.6%76.9%

0%


Weeks 1–3 Week 4

0 10 20 30 40 50 60



Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

0%0%

10.8%

0%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

27.0%

23.1%

62.2%

76.9%

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%0%

4.6%

8.3%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

27.7%

8.3%

67.7%

83.3%

0%


Weeks 1–3 Week 4


Weeks 1–3 Week 4

Pre-evaluation Q2: Give two specific reasons why you are attending this camp.A

B

82.5%82.1%

17.5%

23.1%

12.5%

20.5%

C

D

E

30%33.3%

27.5%

51.3%


17.5%F

0%

Pre-evaluation Q2: Give two specific reasons why you are attending this camp.A

B

82.5%82.1%

21.2%

21.4%

13.6%28.6%

C

D

E

30.3%

35.7%

42.4%

21.4%F

7.1%

0 20 40 60 80 100

9.1%

OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY

An evaluation of the 2015 Bioengineering Summer Camps was conducted. The camps consisted of four one-week sessions, each targeting different student groups (week 1: middle schoolers, weeks 2–3: paid high schoolers, and week 4: URM middle and high schoolers). Two pre-surveys were given to participants at the beginning of day 1 and two post-surveys were given at the close of the camp

(day 5). Simple data analysis of proportions was conducted according to six general and learning specific objectives. Highlights of the findings are provided.

HIGHLIGHTED FINDINGS

1. From the analysis, it can be concluded that the desired specific learning and general objectives have been met.

2. From the analysis, it is clear that URM (week 4) individuals gained substantially from the camp, particularly in regard to the three general objectives.

3. Regarding specific learning objectives, high schoolers in weeks 2 and 3 demonstrated more mastery than their week 1 middle schooler counterparts. This result is not surprising and should be expected.

4. Regarding specific learning objectives, it can be surmised that URM campers were somewhat lower than their non-URM counterparts in their full attainment of the learning objectives. One question in particular found a decrease between pre- and post-evaluation, but this could be due to a change in the question on the post survey to make it easier for the individual to answer. This might not have been the case for the URM cohort.

IMPROVEMENTS GOING FORWARD

1. Move surveys to Qualtrics to minimize potential errors because of the data entry involved. Provide students with iPads at the beginning and end of the camp to take the questionnaires. A majority of the time involved in preparing the evaluation was data entry.

2. Improve questions 4 and 5 so that students are more selective in their responses. The results from these questions proved not to be overly meaningful, as individuals indicated that they were comfortable with many of the items at the close of the camp.

3. Review the learning objectives and verify that the questions being asked are targeting the responses desired.

4. Consider conducting behavioral observations during the camp to assess the students’ engagement in the various activities.

5. Consider following up on students post-camp (i.e., what additional camps and/or universities they attend and what their majors are).

INSPIRING TOMORROW’S ENGINEERS

Thank you to our sponsors: ACI Advance Controls, Inc.Anonymous DonorsMr. and Mrs. Theodore D. and Amy B. ClineffClinical + Translational Science InstituteThe Grable FoundationThe Intermec Foundation Mr. and Mrs. Gerald E. and Audrey L. McGinnisPhilips Respironics, Inc.Pittsburgh Life Sciences GreenhouseThermo Fisher ScientificUniversity of Pittsburgh Office of Community and Governmental RelationsUniversity of Pittsburgh Office of the ProvostUniversity of Pittsburgh Swanson School of Engineering Department of Bioengineering

Figure 12.

Pre-evaluation items that reflect students’ career awareness of opportunities (middle school vs. high school on top and non-URM vs. URM on bottom)

Figure 13.

Post-evaluation of how the camp increased career awareness opportunities

GENERAL OBJECTIVE 3: To increase students’ awareness of educational and career opportunities. For this particular general objective, the following pre- and post-evaluation rated statements were used:

• “I am interested in science and engineering.”

• “I want to learn more about tissue engineer-ing specifically.”

• “I want to interact with instructors/students with [the] same interest in science and engineering.”

• “I want to gain experience for college applications.”

• “I expect to get information on my future educational and career opportunities.”

As shown in Figure 12, the statement “I am interested in science and engineering” was the primary reason for middle schoolers (week 1) and high schoolers (weeks 2 and 3) attending the camp.

The statement “I expect to get information on my future educational and career opportunities” was of particular interest to high schoolers (51.3%), which is not overly surprising. With that being said, this statement was not indicated as a primary reason for URM campers (21.4%), which was similar to the middle schoolers during week 1 (27.5%). But, on the post-evaluation survey, URM campers strongly agreed (69.2%) that they had gained ideas about whether bioengineering was an appropriate career to pursue as compared to non-URM campers (39.7%), as shown in Figure 13.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Post-evaluation Q15: I gained some ideas on whether bioengineering is appropriate for me to pursue in the future (college/career).

Weeks 1–3 Week 4

Strongly disagree

Disagree

0%

0%

1.6%0%

7.9%

15.4%

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

50.8%

15.4%

39.7%

69.2%

A. I am interested in science and engineering.

B. I want to learn more about tissue engineering specifically.

C. I want to interact with instructors/students with the same interest in science and engineering.

D. I want to gain experience for college applications.

E. I expect to get information on my future educational and career opportunities.

F. Other (please specify)

Swanson School of Engineering Department of BioengineeringBenedum Hall3700 O’Hara StreetPittsburgh, PA 15261

engineering.pitt.edu

The University of Pittsburgh is an affirmative action, equal opportunity institution. Published in cooperation with the Department of Communications Services. DCS106285-0416

Documents

2015 Swanson School Tissue Engineering Summer Camp